Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

to him with their sick to be prayed over, so that he was obliged to substitute children for himself, to satisfy their requirements, and by that and similar statements proves to any one who understands the language of the Saints that he had the gift of miracles-so by the account that he gives of long conversations and discussions, either with an assembly of Brahmins or Bonzes, or with individuals, in countries of which he could not have had time to learn the language, he shows sufficiently that he must have had the gift of tongues. If a traveller tells us that he bought a great many different articles in the places he passed through, he gives us to understand that he had money in his purse. So if a missionary relates interviews, and discourses, and harangues, where an interpreter is out of the question, no reasonable person can doubt that he knew the language of the people with whom he conversed. And what does Mr. Venn suppose the gift of tongues, or the gift of miracles, to be? Does he imagine that when we attribute either of these gifts to an Apostle or a Saint, we mean that he had them always at command-that they were habitual, as much his own as the gift of seeing or hearing? Catholic theology supposes nothing of the kind with regard to gifts of that class. If a missionary raises a dead person to life, or cures a sick person by his touch, we say he had the gift of miracles: we do not say that he could raise to life every dead person he met with, or cure every kind of disease in every instance that presented itself. The Apostles had power given them over the devils; but they could not dispossess the lunatic child presented to our Lord when He came down from the Mount of Transfiguration. Eliseus could know what was done by Giezi at a distance, and yet he could not read the heart of the mother who came to him in her anguish (4 Kings, iv. 27). "The Lord hath hid it from me," he said, as if he were accustomed to have revelations of such secrets. So it is no argument against the assertion of the biographers of S. Francis that he received the gift of tongues, to bring a particular instance at a particular time when he had it not, or to bring other instances in which he set himself with all diligence to learn a language which he afterwards was able to speak by a supernatural gift. There are numberless passages in his letters from which it is clear that he must have had the gift; for he speaks of conversing with people of all nations as quietly as if there had never been any confusion of tongues. Unless Mr. Venn can produce some other explanation of these passages, he it is who puts himself in "shameless contradiction" with the Letters he professes to follow. These and other supernatural gifts are not attributed

to S. Francis on the authority of the Letters: they rest, like the remainder of his life, upon the sworn testimony of witnesses juridically examined. Nothing in the Letters contradicts that testimony. Not the use of interpreters when they were to be had, nor the study of the native languages undertaken by S. Francis; for those most favoured with gifts of this sort will never neglect natural means, and indeed will often use them to veil their supernatural powers. Not the temporary suspension or interruption of the gift; for that is only what is to be expected from the analogy of Scripture, and of the lives of the Saints.

ART. III.-ROME AND THE MUNICH CONGRESS.

Brief addressed by the Holy Father to the Archbishop of Munich, dated Dec. 21st, 1863.

The Home and Foreign Review. No. 8. April, 1864. Article 12, "Conflicts with Rome," signed "John Dalberg Acton."

THE Holy Father's letter to the Archbishop of Munich deserves certainly to be ranked among the most important ecclesiastical events of our day. We will mention some of the many reasons which lead us to this opinion.

Firstly, the great majority of the questions started at this day which regard Theology are of a philosophical character. This circumstance has been urged in so many different quarters as to have become quite a trite dictum among us; and it follows, of course, that a clear and distinct view of the Church's authority within the sphere of philosophy, is absolutely indispensable to any Catholic who would take part in the controversies of the day. Now this is the theme directly treated in the present Brief.

Secondly, certain principles which the Pope has now expressly and formally enunciated, are of the greatest moment in a strictly theological point of view. We refer to his declaration on the deference due to decrees emanating from Roman Congregations; on the existence of doctrines which are strictly of faith, over and above those which have been expressly defined; and on other similar matters.

Thirdly, the whole history of the Munich Congress, and its relation with Dr. Döllinger, is full of deep and painful interest, and since the publication of the Brief, every good Catholic must read that history in its true light. Dr. Döllinger incon

testably possesses enormous erudition, great critical power, and not inconsiderable general ability, one-sided though he be, and deficient both in depth and width of intellect; moreover, his influence in Catholic Germany is extremely great. In what direction he will henceforth use that influence, is among the many anxious questions of our time.

Fourthly, the Papal Brief has brought the Home and Foreign Review to a sudden close; and as this fact more specially concerns the Catholic body of these islands, we will dwell on it at somewhat greater length. This periodical during its brief career has exhibited a vast amount of learning and of mental activity, but it has been animated throughout by profoundly anti-Catholic principles. Soon after its first number was issued, the English Bishops, acting under a sanction still higher than their own, warned the faithful against its tendencies; and its Editor has now frankly admitted (p. 688) that it "would surrender the whole reason of its existence," if it "ceased to uphold" principles which "the Holy See" in this very Brief has formally "rejected." So long as its publication was continued, there were obvious reasons which indisposed us from entering into direct conflict with its various utterances, unless some very special reason had rendered such conflict absolutely necessary. And now, indeed, that its publication has ceased, there might appear to be reasons fully as strong, though of an altogether different kind, which should no less dissuade us from such a course: because men might say that its self-imposed silence secures us from the possibility of reply. The fact, however, is quite otherwise. Sir J. Acton has now appended his name as responsible editor, and we shall be criticising, therefore, not an extinct periodical, but a living Catholic; a Catholic, we will add, who is extremely well able to defend himself, so far as the strength of his cause may permit. At the same time we should be sorry not to express emphatically our sense of the manliness and straightforwardness he has displayed in this frank acceptance of responsibility.

[ocr errors]

We had hitherto thought that even those Catholics who place at the lowest point the authority of such Pontifical documents, at least admitted the obligation of a "respectful silence as to their contents. If Sir J. Acton had acted, even on this lowest view-if, without professing any change of opinion, he had simply said that in deference to the Papal pronouncement he terminated his periodical-we should by no means have been too curious in inquiring whether he really yielded as much deference to that pronouncement as its character demanded: on the contrary, we should have gladly VOL. III.-NO. V. [New Series.]

F

hailed his submission as a graceful and suitable homage to the Church's authority. But his estimate of duty has been most different his valedictory article consists of one sustained and energetic attack on the principles enunciated by the Holy Father. "All that is being done for ecclesiastical learning by the priesthood of the Continent bears testimony," he says, "to the truths which are now called in question," i. e. to the errors condemned in the Papal Brief; " and every work of real science written by a Catholic adds to their force" (p. 689). Of those who treat Theology as the Holy Father prescribes, he tells us (p. 690) that "their methods are obsolete, and their labours vain." The Pope pronounces, in so many words, that Catholic philosophers are under the obligation of submitting themselves to the doctrinal decrees of the Pontifical Congregations; but Sir J. Acton replies, that it is a monstrous error" if we "attribute to the Congregation of the Index a share in the infallibility of the Church" (p. 679). Nay, he goes much further: he says that the German theologians, with whom throughout he expresses unreserved sympathy, "attach no more value to the unreasoned decrees of" the Index " than to the undefended ipse dixit' of a theologian of secondary rank" (p. 678). Further, as to "the method of Rome" in "adjusting the relations between science and authority" (p. 673)-a method which he considers signally exemplified in the maxims of this Brief-he criticises it as follows:

66

The true limits of legitimate authority are one thing, and the area which authority may find it expedient to attempt to occupy is another. The interests of the Church are not necessarily identical with those of the ecclesiastical government. A government does not desire its powers to be strictly defined; but the subjects require the line to be drawn with increasing precision. Authority may be protected by its subjects being kept in ignorance of its faults, and by their holding it in superstitious admiration. . . . . These arts are simply those of all human governments which possess legislative power, fear attack, deny responsibility, and therefore shrink from scrutiny (p. 674).

Consistently with this view of the case, he is of opinion that historical inquiry

has gradually laid bare the whole policy and process of ecclesiastical authority, and has removed that veil of mystery wherewith, like all other authorities, it tries to surround the present (p. 673); and he considers that "the twilight of opinion enables it to assume" "the halo of infallibility" (p. 674).

Finally, with a naïveté which in a less serious matter would be exquisitely droll, he assigns as one of his reasons for discontinuing the Review, his unwillingness to impair "the

authority and dignity of the Holy See" (p. 686). As though any private individual could well do more (pro viribus suis) to impair such authority and dignity, than by saying that the principles which that See maintains are fundamentally erroneous and inexpressibly mischievous; that the Pope has been hitherto enabled by the twilight of opinion to assume a halo of infallibility; that he finds it expedient to cling to a position exceeding the true limits of legitimate authority; that he fears attack, denies responsibility, and therefore shrinks from scrutiny. Such are the final utterances of the Home and Foreign Review. Certainly it has died like a wasp, which leaves its sting in the wound it has inflicted.

But we have not yet done any kind of justice to Sir John's whole view of the Pope's position in the Church. We would, therefore, beg our readers carefully to ponder the following portentous paragraph :

[ocr errors]

What is the Holy See in its relation to the masses of Catholics, and where does its strength lie? It is the organ, the mouth, the head, of the Church. Its strength consists in its agreement with the general conviction of the faithful. When it expresses the common knowledge and sense of the age, or of a large majority of Catholics, its position is impregnable. The force it derives from this general support makes direct opposition hopeless, and therefore disedifying, tending only to division, and promoting reaction rather than reform. The influence by which it is to be moved must be directed first on that which gives it strength, and must pervade the members in order that it may reach the head. While the general sentiment of Catholics is unaltered, the course of the Holy See remains unaltered too. As soon as that sentiment is modified, Rome sympathizes with the change. The ecclesiastical government, based upon the public opinion of the Church, and acting through it, cannot separate itself from the mass of the faithful, and keep pace with the progress of the instructed minority. It follows slowly and warily, and sometimes begins by resisting and denouncing what in the end it thoroughly adopts. Hence a direct controversy with Rome holds out the prospect of great evils, and at best a barren and unprofitable victory. The victory that is fruitful springs from that gradual change in the knowledge, the ideas, and the convictions of the Catholic body, which in due time overcomes the natural reluctance to forsake a beaten path, and by insensible degrees constrains the mouthpiece of tradition to conform itself to the new atmosphere with which it is surrounded. The slow, silent, indirect action of public opinion bears the Holy See along, without any demoralizing conflict or dishonourable capitulation. This action it belongs essentially to the graver scientific literature to direct (p. 686).

Now, what are those principles of the Holy See which Sir J. Acton thus wishes to revolutionize? Avowedly those declared in the Munich Brief. But all the more prominent of these are strictly theological, if there are any such in the world.

« PrethodnaNastavi »