OCR Text |
Show :iMp:JlBllfBB Salt Lake City, Nov. 11, 1S99. Editor Intermountain Catholic: Your defense of the Church's action in regard to Galileo is, if not Jesuitical, I at least ingenious, and will not stand ! the historical facts of past ages. Is it not a well known fact that your infallible in-fallible Pope has dictated the policy ot Europe in the dark ages, and that even today you, with your professed allegiance, al-legiance, are not free to disagree with him? Have-not churchmen intermeddled intermed-dled in politics? Will you hold that in all they did they were infallible and according to your profession of faith, right? Could you.1 an editor of a Catholic Cath-olic paper, criticise their policy, however how-ever wrong, and "not be stigmatized as a heretic? A LOVER OF TRUTH. "We regret being unable to enlighten, or. rather, dispel the very deep-rooted-prejudice of our correspondent. His nom de plume suggested to The, Intermountain, Inter-mountain, Catholic a man of., honest convictions, who was ready to accept the truth, no matter from what source it came. Hence on the questions propounded pro-pounded last week we elaborated, though not as largely as we would wish. We gave the real facts attested to by all distinguished writers, irrespective irre-spective of creed. To these facts our esteemed correspondent makes no counter charge, dnes not even, deny them; but, with a little vulgar sarcasm, calls our defense "Jesuitical." "They will not stand the historical test of past ages." Dear "Lover of Truth," what are these facts? Do they refer to what we said on liberty or Galileo's defense? Be more explicit in framing your indictment. The Intermountain Catholic, in replying to your charges, was thoroughly honest, evaded no question, and sought no shield of defense de-fense in cunningnesv. A professed "lover of truth" should be equally so. Now, dear correspondent, bring forth these facts, not distorted facts, bear in mind. , There are only two points to be settled: First--Was Galileo condemned con-demned as a heretic and his imprisonment? imprison-ment? ,We showed both charges were untrue, and against our defense you give your unsupported authority, though we do not doubt but you have in your early life read many fairy tales on the subject. As yet you have not done so; and. .what is more, you cannot. Where, then, do you find any good reason for "Jesuitical" or "ingenuity" "inge-nuity" in our simple statement of facts, which in logic stand as the strongest and most forcible of all arguments. "Is it not a well known fact that your Infallible Pope has dictated the policy of Europe in the dark ages." Why dices' not our correspondent come down to particulars, and not be dealing in vague generalities. If a well known fact, it is only so to the "lover of truth." Again, -what connection is there between Galileo and the action of the "Infallible Pore" in the middle ages? Fables like those of Joan of Arc may be "well known, facts" to our correspondent, but not to the .student of history. Any interference on the part of the "Infallible Pope" was in behalf of the his own territory. And when he did interfere it was in defense of the rights of God and against the usurpation of Caesar. ' - - : "And even today you, with your profound pro-found allegiance, are not free to disagree dis-agree with him." , , Again faulty. Outside of faith and morals, which constitute the infallible teaching of the church, as a layman we claim for ourselves as much Treedom as our correspondent, and if the Holy Father gave a command in the civil order it would be'no more incumbent on us to obey it than it would be to obey a command from ou." government regarding the religion' we should adopt and profess. The - "Infallible Pope" claims no right'- to order anything against rights of Caesar? nor has Caesar Cae-sar any right to order against the rights of God. Some Catholics in England Eng-land today are as they were in France in the time of Louis Napoleon, staunch monarchists, but we are republican in heart and soul, and yield in loyalty to no one. ?- "Could you, a Catholic editon criticise criti-cise their policy, however wrong, and not be stigmatized as a heretic?" Your question, dear sir, presupposes an affirmative- answer, i. e., to your own mind; but in this, as .in other cases, . you are , beyond the realms of truth, though claiming to be "a lover of truth." Churchmen acting in the capacity ca-pacity of statesmen are as open to criticism crit-icism as are laymen. For their conduct in that respect the church could not be held responsible. A Cardinal Richelieu or a Cardinal Wolsey are no more above criticism than are simply Mr. Jones and Mr. Taylor. You have not yet. dear sir, learned the A B C of Catholic teaching, its extent, or the obligations of a simple Catholic, which never'Von-fiict never'Von-fiict with his real liberty. As a man I am free to criticise any policy which churchmen would advance as the true policy of the state. But enough. Learn first what I must do, and show that my obligations conflict with my. liberty. |