OCR Text |
Show gotwersations. of Our glut) j j " ' . By Orestes .Brownsoii i l CONVERSATION X. (Continued.) "Father John must not be too hard upon Catholic parents." said Diefen-bach; Diefen-bach; the majority of these parents are from countries where Catholic colleges hardly breathe, and are no judges of what they should be." i "All that is yery true," replied Fa-' Fa-' ther John, "but colleges can never run far in advance, in secular knowledge and training, of the intelligence and habits of the community for which they educate. It is little a. college, however organized, can do with a mass i of boys, sons of ignorant, sometimes I vicious parents, who arc. . acquainted J with all the vice and crime of our large cities, and have never received i any proper training at home; Wftb. such boys -it would not be easy to ! form the students of a college into a 'miniature republic, and leave them to govern themselves. The error of F. G.'s articles ,if error they have, is in laying the faults they point out too exclusively to the manner in which the college is organized and conducted. With such a Catholic public- as we have had in this country, I see not clearly how we could have had colleges much different from or superior to those we have." "F. (.," said Winslow, "deserves censure, even supposing his views correct, cor-rect, for having published his articles. Our schools and colleges are a family affair, and we should settle our disputes dis-putes respecting- them without calling in the public to listen." v "I think not so," replied Father John. "In what relates to ecclesiastical schools, or eccle-siastical administra tion, whether in great or little matters, public discussion is out of place, and the publican can take no part in it. But I distinguish between colleges for seculars and the church, and the authority au-thority of bishops and pastors in spirituals. spirit-uals. I have profound reverence for the general of my order, but I distinguish distin-guish between him and the pope, and I can well believe that, residing as he "does at Rome, with no personal know ledge l-edge of this country, he may know very little of what sort of education is needed need-ed here, or of the system of college government and discipline best fitted to train our boys to live and take their part in our society. The secular education edu-cation of seculars is a, secular function, Avhether perforniied by laymen or by ecclesiastics. .In all secular matters, in a country like ours, public opinion has the right to interpose, and it is all-important all-important that it be enlightened and sound. F. G. has provoked discussion on the subject, and in so doing has done the Catholic public good service. Discussion will tend to form a sound public opinion in the body of the laity, and will enlighten the colleges themselves them-selves as to what is demanded" of them, and both hasten and facilitate the changes they must see are necessary to meet the just expectations of the. Catholic Cath-olic public. The hush-up policy Mr. "Winslow recommends, comports neither nei-ther with our age nor our country, and would tend to retard- rather than to advance the interests , of religion I among us. There is with non-Catholics I a very general -persuasion that we are not frank, . open, candid, honest that we trim and .practice concealment. We must, at almost any risk, labor t& remove re-move this false persuasion and gain public confidence in our honesty and truthfulness. AVe have to look out for the interests of religion in our own emintry, not in France and Italy, and to deal with sharp-witted, yet bold and manly Yankees, not with French and Italian infidels."diplomatists, statesmen and politicians.-. Astuteness, craft and diplomacy will not serve our turn', even if we were disposed to use them. 'Publicity 'Pub-licity is the owler. of the day in this country, and I confess I . can see no harm in publicly discussing what, after all, is a public . question, and must be solved by the public, w e live in a tree country, not under a despotism, where' free speech is a right, not where the press is gagged and a mouchard is at our elbow to listen to every word we say and report it to the prefet de police, po-lice, or the minister of the interior. We speak openly and aboveboard what we think and what we mean, and despise Italian astuteness and French diplomacy diplom-acy ,the fruits of despotism and tyranny. tyran-ny. I wish Catholics to have a sound public opinion on secular education ifor seculars.- and to understand that they are under no obligation to yield unquestioning, un-questioning, submission to college authorities, au-thorities, because the college is governed gov-erned and conducted by spiritual persons. per-sons. Spiritual persons filling secular offices have the authority of seculars filling the same office, neithermore nor less. The pope as temporal prince has no more authority over me than has the emperor of Austria. I owe him obedience obedi-ence only as pope, only when he commands com-mands me as the vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. My pastor, my bishop, or the rector of a college has no authority by virtue of his spiritual character to exact ex-act of me what I am not bound to yield even to the vicegerent of God, and visible visi-ble head of my church. The college for seculars, I maintain, is a secular, not an ecclesiastical institution, and as a secular institution I have a perfect right to discuss its merits and its de-mtrits. de-mtrits. Yet I hold myself bound to be just, to it, and to treat our colleges fairly, and with respect. It is true, their results, thus far. do not satisfy me, but I believe their faculties are disposed to improve them, and will improve im-prove them as fast as they are able, and as fast as a just prudence per-j mits. I trust, too, that I may say as much of our conventual school . for young ladies." Conversation XI. "Even men of ival ability and finished fin-ished education," observed Winslow, "are not always logically consistent, j It is, in fact, seldom that you .find a ( man who will carry out his principles to their last consequences, or who will abide by the same principles on all questions. The same man who com-1 plained of you yesterday for asserting the supremacy of the spiritual order, complains of you today for asserting 1 the authority of the state in matters purely secular. You may find any number of men who accept in general thesis principles which they deny the moment you give them a particular application, ap-plication, or who will assert in the j particular application a principle which they will deny in general thesis. There are very respectable men. not unfamil-i unfamil-i iar with theological studies, who. when ' ' you are speaking of the mutual relations rela-tions of church and state, and show yourself disposed to assert the rights of ihe spiritual, and to defend the prerogatives pre-rogatives of Feter, will maintain that the spiritual and secular are two mutually mu-tually Independent orders, neither having hav-ing any authority over the other, and each the judge of its own rights and powers, but who will, nevertheless, accuse ac-cuse you of being false to your faith and duty if, for instance, you maintain that what is purely secular in the education edu-cation of seculars is the business ot .secular society. So, too, men who really believe in God and do not hesitate hesi-tate to call Him our first caUse anrj our final cause, will shrink with a sort of horror from the word theocracy, which really designates only the gov-; ernment of God. or a government which holds from him, makes his law- the supreme law of the land, and governs under and in accordance with it." "Yet," said Diefenbach, "theocracy, if understood according to the etymology etymol-ogy of the word, is the only possible legitimate government. God alone hath dominion, and his dominion is absolute and universal. He is the creator of all things: . all existences- distinguishable from himself are entirely and Sxclu-, eively the work of his hands, and, ! therefore, are his, and he is their proprietor pro-prietor or owner, since the thing made necessarily belongs to the maker. Hence the apostle tells us. non est potestas nisi a Deo, which is both ' sound philosophy and good theology."' I "Mr. Diefenbach founds. I perceive." j said De Bonneville, "God's right to j govern on his ownership, and his own-I own-I ership on the fact of creation. His right to govern, then, rests on his cre-f cre-f a live act, not on his own eternal being J and, intrinsic justice-, goodness, love. Does not this place his dominion in his j omnipotence, and consecrate the p:in- t I ciple that might makes right?" I ! "I think not." replied Diefenbach. ; "God is most simple being and most I pure act, and no real distinction be - ; ! tween his being and his attributes, or 1 i Letween one of his attributes and another, an-other, is admissible. In him. might and right, power and justice, will and reason, are identical, and creation is as much the act of his intrinsic justice, goodness, love, as of his omnipotence." "But suppose, if it be allowable," said O'Connor, who. on Mr. O'Flana-gan's O'Flana-gan's return to Ireland, had been I elected to his place in Our Club, "that God was not what he is, or that his nature were the reverse of what we ; know it to be, would be then, althougn i Creator, have the right lo govern us?" "The imposition is not allowable." rejoined Diefenbach. "because God is necessary being, and. therefore, necessarily neces-sarily what he is; and also, because being and good, in the real order, ar;." identical. Considered in themselves, the' supreme good and the supreme being be-ing are indistinguishable, and are dis-. dis-. tinguishable at all only in relation to our faculties. Regarding specially as the object of the intellect, being is j called the true, and as the special oh- f ject of the will, it is called the good, but the true and the good are one in j being. All good' is in being, and all j evil in non-being, or lack of being. Even Satan, in so far as he partakes j of being, or is a creature of God, is . good, not evil; that is. he is physically good and only morally evil. We must be on our guard against Manicheism. There are not, and cannot be. two original and eternal principles of things, one good and one evil. There . is, and can be, no positive principle of evil. Every principle must be real; if real, being: if being, good, and good cannot be the principle of evil. If the ' principle be not being, it is merely an abstraction, and abstractions are nullities. null-ities. God being supreme aricl perfect being, being in its plenitude, is necessarily neces-sarily the supreme and perfect good, , the good itself, and in itself. Only ' being can create, for what is not cannot can-not act." (To be Continued.) ! ' I |