| OCR Text |
Show iln.cle.3ack and fRii: Kffeltl By Orestes E When Uncle Jack concluded reading from Cardinal Gousset's explanation cf temporals, concluded in our last, Nephew Neph-ew Dock declared he was unable to see any practical difference between the doctrine of Cardinal Gousset and that of M. Gosselin, which Dick understood his uncle to reject. Uncle Jack's repiy opens the conversation this wek. CONVERSATION IX. (Continued.) Uncle Jack It shows that my distinction dis-tinction between governing temporals in the respect that they are spiritually related, and governing them as related to a temporal end, has high authority. The difference, moreover, is very obvious, ob-vious, as well as important. M. Gosselin Gos-selin contends that the power exercised exer-cised over temporal sovereigns by the popes was a concession made to them by Catholic princes and nations; the illustrious il-lustrious cardinal holds it to be spiritual, spirit-ual, within the ordinary spiritual jurisdiction ju-risdiction of the soyerign pontiff; a power which he holds and exercises, not as temporal soverign, or as sovereign in temporals, but as the vicar of Jesus Christ; therefore, jure divino. and hot, as M. Gosselin maintains, if I understand under-stand him, simply jure humano. Nephew Dick But the cardinal does not sustain you in your doctrine, as to the deposing power, for he cites with approbation Fenelon, who denies that the pope either deprives or institutes lay princes. Uncle Jack As supreme temporal lord, or by virtue of an act of his own will, at his own pleasure, agreed; but as the interpreter and judge of the law under which the prince holds and to which he is bound to conform, he does not deny it, but in effect asserts it. The doctrine of Fenelon is, that the pope cannot deprive or institute a iay prince by an act of his own will and pleasure, 'and that he can only declare a prince deprived, when he is so by the law under which the prince holds; and then it is not the pope who deprives him, but the law, of which the pope is simply the divinely appointed minister, or judge. The pope has no proper civil jurisdiction, and can intervene in reference to the action of the temporal government only when a moral or spiritual spir-itual question arises, and- there is a reason under the divine and natural laws for his intervention in his quality of sovereign pontiff, or as the vicar of Jesus Christ. This is the sense in which I understand Fenelon, and as he concedes con-cedes that the pope may as spiritual sovereign declare a prince fallen from his dignity, and his subjects absolved from his allegiance, he evidently concedes con-cedes the deposing power in the only sense in which I or my friend of Brownson's Review have ever asserted it. His eminence Cardinal Gousset certainly cer-tainly goes as far, as is evident from the principles he establishes in his remarks re-marks on the first part of the first article ar-ticle of the declaration of 16S2, and in his claiming for the pope the authority to pronounce judgment in the ca3e of disputes between the people and their temporal sovereign. . , . Nephew Dick After all the cardinal asserts only a directive and ordinative authority in regard to temporal sovereigns, sover-eigns, as Gerson does ;and if you go no further, what more do you assert than the directive power conceded by M. Gosselin and his school? . Uncle Jack That the words cited from Gerson are as strong as the cardinal car-dinal would -prefer may be doubted,-for doubted,-for they are, the words of' an opponent, and cited as.;a concession; but, however how-ever that may be, he evidently holds it to be real and effective power. Whether I assert more or not than M. Gosselin conceded by the potestas di- rectiva, depends on how much or how little he understands it, and that I am not able to determine. When he opposes op-poses it to the indirect authority asserted assert-ed by Ballarrnine and Suarez, he seems to make it simply directive, merely advisory ad-visory and monitory; but when he has to explain away the letters of St. Gregory VII, the Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII and certain tough passages pas-sages from St. Bernard, Hugh of St. Victor and other high authorities, lie seems to mean by it almost, if not Quite, as much as I contend for. If this directive power be merely advisory and monitory, it would be no more than might be exercised by any bishop, priest, or even layman, any one of whom has the right to advise, exhort, entreat or admonish the temporal authority; au-thority; and I have often done as much myself, though without much effect, I confess. The power, to be a real effective effec-tive power, must be coercive as well as directive, and every Catholic must concede con-cede that the church has a coercive power, and, therefore with regard to kings and princes, in spirituals, or temporals tem-porals in the respect that they are related re-lated or are to be referred to a spiritual end. The denial of all coercive power to the church is a step beyond the heresy here-sy of Marsilius of Padua, for he conceded, con-ceded, it is said, that the church might coerce even princes with spiritual pains and censures, but was declared a heretic heret-ic because he dented the right to her to go further. Kings and princes are as much subject to the authority of the church as private persons, and. as Cardinal Gousset maintains, in their public as well as their private acts: and she must have the same power of coercing them that she has of coercing others, in their public as well as in their private capacity, unless, which cannot be done, some rule be pleaded exempting exempt-ing them. "Pope John XXII says in his condemnation con-demnation of the third heretical assertion asser-tion of Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun, that 'Christian emperors acknowledge ac-knowledge that, instead of being judges of the pontiff, they are judged by him.' These heretics maintain as their faith assertion, 'that neither the pope nor the whole church together can punish any person, however wicked he may be, with a coactive punishment without the authorization of the emperor.' The same pope condemns this as a heresy, and says, that 'it is contrary to the doctrine of the gospel, for our Lord said to Peter, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' Now not merely those who are willing are bound, but also and chiefly those who are unwilling. -Moreover, the church has the power of constraining con-straining by excommunication, which excludes not merely from the sacraments, sacra-ments, but also from the society of the faithful. Peter did not wait for the consent of the emperor to strike Ananias Ana-nias and Saphira with death, nr Paul to smite Elymas with blindness, or to deliver over the incestuous Corinthian to satan. for the destruction of the flesh and the salvation of the soul. Hear also the same apostle saying to the Corinthians: 'What will you? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in charity, and in the spirit of kindness?' In which he very expressly assumes that he has a coactive power. He assumes the same when he writes: 'For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but powerful pow-erful through God (that is to say, given giv-en by God) to the destruction of fortresses, fort-resses, subverting counsels, and every heighth that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God. ... We have in readiness wherewith to punish all disobedience.' dis-obedience.' Whence it is evident that Pa.ul received a power, even a cosretive power, not from the emperor, but from God." 1 (To be continued.) |
