The Bishop of Limerick Defends the Hierarchy

New Zealand Tablet, Volume L, Issue 16, 26 April 1923, Page 11

The Bishop of Limerick Defends the Hierarchy

In reply to an address in which the Limerick Men’s Confraternity professed their obedience and loyalty to the Bishops, Dr. Hallinan delivered the following interesting apologia, which we quote from the Freeman's Journal, March 3: His Lordship the Bishop, who was received with uplifted hands by all present, said he had given permission, for the religious procession when he learned that it was non-sectional, and had no political motive or object in view. He thanked the members of the Confraternity for proclaiming in no uncertain voice their loyalty to him as chief pastor of their diocese, and through him to his brothers in the Irish Episcopacy, and through them to the Church, of which they are the accredited representatives in. Ireland. To-day the members had come in the midst of the surrounding sorrows to make in the face of that old Catholic land, and of the whole world, public profession of their Catholic Faith and of their undying loyalty to their bishops as the successors of the Apostles, their divinely-aippointed teachers in Faith and . morals. They had come to make reparation for the insults and injuries to the Faith and religious life of the country, caused by the dissemination of false principles and groundless allegations regarding the motives and actions of their bishops on recent occasions, and to say that they dissociated themselves from such unworthy and un-Catholic conduct. Base Charges. Had it not been stated, he asked, that the bishops forgot themselves, that they acted from party bias rather than spiritual zeal, and that outstepping the proper sphere of their activity, they had played the part rather of political partisans than of pastors of the people. These allegations were unfounded and unjust. Referring to the power and influence of the clergy in Ireland, his Lordship said they grew out of the circumstances of this country almost as naturally as the authority of the parent over his offspring, and the result of the persecution under the Penal Laws was that there had sprung up an intimate bond of union between the Irish priests and their people. The influence of the clergy had been employed in vindicating and winning the rights, religious, political, and educational, of their people. No doubt individual cases occurred where this influence as received in an imprudent and intemperate way. It would, be a miracle if it were otherwise. There was a Judas among the Apostles, but, speaking generally, their influence served Ireland. Hence they were vilified by Ireland’s enemies. A Page of History. “Now my dear sons,” said Most Rev. Dr. , Hallinan, “let me draw your attention to certain events and facts. On December 6, 1921, the Treaty between the British and the Irish plenipotentiaries was signed, and on the next day Mr. de Valera, in a public pronouncement, stated that some of his Cabinet were dissatisfied with some of the terms of the Treaty. He laid down two sound principles —first, that the question could be solved in a Constitutional way; and, secondly, that' the army had nothing to say to it. “A meeting of the Dail was summoned for December 14 to discuss the matter, and used the Constitutional method of solving it. It was evident that the division of the Cabinet was being felt and was spreading all through the country, and accordingly a special meeting of the bishops was summoned and held in Dublin on December 13, the day before the Dail meeting. “Her© was a political issue of the first importance to « the country. Surely if the bishops were mere politicians, wielding enormous influence with their flocks, then was the time and the opportunity to take their side and use their influence. “But what did they do? Recognising that at this stage it was purely a political question, and though individually and collectively holding very decisive views on the matter, they neither passed a resolution nor issued any pronouncement.

No Interference. “A, simple statement of three paragraphs from that meeting appeared next morning in the press. The first was a tribute to the patriotism and honesty of purpose of the members of the Bail; then one of confidence that in the coming deliberations the members would be sure to consult for the best interests of the country and the wishes of the people, and, finally, asking the clergy throughout the country to offer Mass, and the laity to join with them in persevering prayer, to implore the Divine blessing on these deliberations. “Now, as you will see, there was no episcopal interference, much less dictation, in politics. I have reason to know that many people in the country were disappointed because the bishops did not interfere, or give their views in the matter. But subsequent events have, I think, fully justified the prudent, cautious action of the bishops. “The next meeting of the Hierarchy was held on April 26. In the meantime two events of far-reaching importance had happened. First, after long and impassioned debates in the Dail, the Treaty was ratified by a majority of the members. A Provisional Government was formed, and there and then the Provisional Government became the legitimate civil authority in the country. The other event was the seizing of some public buildings in Dublin by a small section of the Army, and the setting up of a military council to govern the country, in defiance of, and in opposition to, the civil authority of the Dail and the Provisional Government. “In consequence of this action up and down through the country, there was a succession of outrages on life and property, and of social disorganisation heading for anarchy. This was the state of things when the bishops met in April, 1922. At that meeting there were two issues before them one political, the other moral. “The Treaty, though passed by a majority of the Dail, had not yet been submitted to the judgment of the country. Here was what took place. A little later the issue : Treaty or No Treaty was to be decided by the people. This was a political issue. Mark again, how cautiously, and with what reserve, the bishops touched on this point in a statement from the meeting. An Open Question. “Let me read it for you: , “ ‘ The great national question of the Treaty is a legitimate question for national discussion and debate. On that big question every Irishman is entitled to his own opinion, subject, of course, to truth and responsibility to God. “ ‘ We, too, hold very definite and decided views upon that important issue, but we do not obtrude them on anybody. Like the great bulk of the nations, we think the best and wisest course for Ireland is to accept the Treaty, and make the most of the freedom for the first time in seven hundred years. “ ‘ But,’ they add, ‘ that is a national question to be settled by the national will, ascertained by an election carried out in the ordinary constitutional way.’ “Here, -as you observe, with the Treaty, and the political question, neither in substance nor form, is there any trace of episcopal dictation. They gave their opinion with the very modest words ‘ we think.’ ** “When, however, they come to deal with moral questions there is a- change in their language. Now they are not merely giving their opinion;' they are speaking as the Divinely authorised exponents of Faith and morals over their people, in clear and measured words, when they condemn the principles which were being propagated as being in fundamental conflict with God’s law and social morality, such as the claim that a section of the Army thought it right to declare itself independent of the civil Government of the country. The Army as a whole, much less portion of. it, has no such moral right. The Army, from the nature of its institution, is a servant, not the master of the civil authority. The contrary principle would be an usurpation of the people’s right and would be subversive of civil liberty. The Moral Issue. “In the October pastoral the bishops deal again with these immoral principles, and in burning words they describe and denounce their disastrous consequences: —assassination, the campaign of plunder and incendiarism, the

general demoralisation, 'especially of the young, and the campaign of a section against the bishops, whose pastoral voice they would silence by calumny and intimidation, and in dealing with this the bishops say; “ ‘ Our people will observe that in all this there is no question df mere politics, but of what is morally right or wrong, according to the Divine law, in certain principles and in a certain series of acts, whether carried out for political purposes or otherwise.’ no here, ’ continued his Lordship, “let me direct your attention to the tender paternal feelings which animated your bishops in the clear, strong language of condemnation and censure. It may, perhaps, be said that in this, our teaching, we wound the strong feelings of many of our people. That we know, and the thought Is agony to us; but we must teach the truth in this great ciisis, no matter what the consequences. We issued thisPastoral letter in the grievest sense of our responsibility, mindful of the charge laid upon us by our Divine Master to preach His doctrine and safeguard the sacred rule of faith and morals at any cost. We must, in the words of St. Peter, obey God rather than man. “My dear men of the Holy Family,” his Lordship concluded, “I thought it right to place before you in some detail the actions and motives of your bishops in this crisis of our country. You will see therein a full justification of your own action. You will see, I believe, that your present spiritual shepherds in the episcopacy are not unworthy of their predecessors, and are prepared to face not only unjust criticism and columny but even imprisonment and death, if need be, rather than fail in their duty to their flock or betray their trust.” On returning to Mount St. Alphonsus, Benediction of the Most Holy Sacrament, was given by his Lordship toe Bishop. „ ■