OCR Text |
Show ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. The Rev. Mr. Harriman, who is preaching confiscation of church property prop-erty in the Philippine islands, may study with profit a -recent, article by H. K. Carroll, LL D., lately United States special commissioner to Porto Rico, regarding the tenure of church property in that island. The conditions in the Philippines are identical with those in Cupba and Porto Rico and hence reasons which obtain in the latter lat-ter places must likewise obtain in the former. It will be recalled that Mr. Harriman, who spent about a week in Manila, desired the American government govern-ment to confiscate all the church property prop-erty in the island. Mr. Carroll, the special commissioner, has made a careful care-ful examination of the condition of church property and draws conclusions which will commend themselves to fair minded people. "The question of church property," says Mr. Carroll, "is by far the most important religious issue in our new I possession. I want at the outset to say ' the common impression in the United States that the Catholic Church is rolling in wealth and has accumulated i vast property in Porto Rico is at fault. The Church is therefore really j poor and if the churches were taken awav from it, its assets would be practi cally nothing." After thus disposing of the allegations that the Church abounds in wealth in Porto Rico, allegations alle-gations which 'by the way are made: with the same basis of truth regarding regard-ing the Church in the Philippines, Mr. ! Carroll proceeds to speak of the equity I of the title in Church property claimed i by the Church. Mr. Carroll shows that the churches were built in almost every instance for religious worship and for no other purpose. He continues: "But the equity of the case seems to me perfectly clear. These churches were built for Catholic worship and for no other. They were built by Catholic communities; they were dedicated to Catholic worship; the state made annual an-nual appropriations for ministers to serve them; the municipalities kept them in repair; the Priests were employees em-ployees of the state, under the control of their Bishop and conducted th services according to the rules of the Church. To deprive the Church of this property, now that the relations of Church and state are dissolved seems to me a virtual act of confiscation. con-fiscation. This property was unquestionably, unques-tionably, consecrated . by the Church for Church purposes; it was so designed by the state; formal transfer was not made because it was thought unnecessary; unneces-sary; those who paid the money were Catholics, either by profession or preference, with very few exceptions, and they expected that Catholic worship would always be celebrated in these churches." Mr. Carroll concludes his article which all through manifests a spirit of fairness and justice, by pointing out that if the ownership of Church property prop-erty was taken from the Church and given to the municipal authorities, the result would be to divert the churches to secular use with the consequent grave scandal to the Catholic conscience. consci-ence. Everywhere he says that the spirit prevails that justice would not be done unless the churches are reserved re-served for Catholics. "It is desirable" j concludes Mr. Carroll, "that the' dual j control should be ended as soon as possible in a way to relieve the secular authorities of the care and maintenance of the churches. They will have difficulties enough to meet without a possible civil and ecclesiastical ecclesiasti-cal conflict." If those whom the government send to the Philippine islands show the same spirit which seems to have animated Mr. Carroll regarding the Church in Porto Rico, there need be no fear but what a settlement satisfactory to all will be reached. ' |