dici constituto pareat. Contra vero, si alter postea huic confiteatur, deberet hic secundus confessarius suam resumere opinionem, quæ sibi probabilior apparet; tunc enim deberet judicare secundum suum proprium judicium, et deberet illum obligare, ut deponat opinionem quam sibi prius sequendam imposuit; et en comœdia risu digna, quæ quotidie inter confessarios eveniret." surrendering his intellect that he may render obedience to the constituted judge,—his own confessor. But, on the other hand, if the other af terwards confess to him, he, the second confessor, should resume his own opinion, which appears to himself more probable, for then he ought to judge according to his own proper judgment, and ought to bind him, that he may lay aside an opinion which before he had imposed upon himself to follow; and lo, comedies worthy of laughter which daily would happen among confessors." Thus Liguori shews that the penitent must be allowed to follow a probable opinion, even though the opposite may appear more probable to the confessor. He explains himself more fully thus : "Quoad vero alias opiniones, quæ versantur circa obligationem pœnitentis, nempe circa ea quæ a pœnitente agenda aut vitanda sunt, confessarius non est judex, nec potest obligare ad sequendum opinionem suam pœnitentem, qui vult sequi contrariam, quam ipse putat non sine fundamento licite posse teneri, ut optime tradidit Adrian. quæst. 5. dub. 7. dicens: Si a pluribus DD. contrarium teneatur, non debet sacerdos adeo de se præsumere, ut totum velit in suam opinionem (quæ forsitan erronea est) coarctare. Hinc, quando ex una parte pœnitens sibi efformat judicium de ho "But as to those opinions which relate to the obligation of the penitent, to wit, as to those things which are to be done, or avoided, by the penitent, the confessor is not judge, neither can he oblige the penitent to follow his own opinion, who wishes to follow the contrary, which he thinks can lawfully be held with some reason, as Adrian very opportunely has delivered, quæst. 5 dub. 7. saying, 'If the contrary be held by many doctors, a priest ought not to presume of himself that he may wish to press the whole into his own opinion, (which perhaps is erroneous.) nestate alicujus actionis, et alias confessarius non habet certitudinem evidentem de il lius falsitate, tenetur illum absolvere, utpote sufficienter dispositum. Et tunc potest, imo tenetur permittere quod pœnitens suam sequatur opinionem, si nequit abducere ab eam sequendo, quia, (ut diximus) confessarius non est controversiarum judex." Hence, when on the one hand a penitent forms a judgment concerning the honesty of some action, and the confessor,otherwise, has not an evident certitude concerning the falsity of the opinion, he is bound to absolve him, inasmuch as he is sufficiently disposed. And then he can, yea he is bound, to permit the penitent to follow his own opinion, if he be unable to withdraw the penitent from following it; because as (we said) the confessor is not a judge of controversies." There is a great variety of opinion amongst divines of the Church of Rome as to sin and its nature, they are divided in their sentiments upon moral subjects. If a penitent adopt an opinion which is possible according to some divines, and not proscribed by authority, though the confessor think it less possible, he cannot refuse absolution to him of this Liguori gives an example : A penitent has been guilty of receiving money simonaically. Some divines think that it should be restored to the man who gave it; others think that it should be given to the Church. The penitent can act upon the opinion which he thinks probable, and he cannot be compelled to abandon it. If however the confessor think that the opinion of the penitent is altogether false, he may refuse absolution. Let me revert to the probable opinion. Liguori teaches, that in the case of the equally probable opinion, the sinner is not bound to the observance of the law. This tends directly to laxity of conduct, for the safer way is to observe the law. EPITOME FROM THE WORKS OF BENEDICT XIV. APPENDED to the works of Liguori is the Epitome from the works of Benedict XIV., in which bulls, decretals, and authorities are cited, anti-social and persecuting in their character. This Epitome was published under the sanction of the Romish Archbishop of Dublin in the 8th vol. of Dens' Theology. The Rev. R. J. Mc Ghee, in his excellent work "The Laws of the Papacy," shews, that the authorities which it cites-authorities set up by the Romish Clergy for the governance of Ireland, render "Queen Victoria's government a nullity," placing the Roman Catholic population under the temporal authority of the Pope. The Epitome establishes the following authorities :the Bull" Cœnæ Domini,"-Bull of Benedict XIV. for the restitution of property,—the 3rd Canon of the 4th Council of Lateran,-Bull for the establishment of the Inquisition, Bull, called "Pastor Bonus," &c., &c. The reader who wishes to see the character of these laws fully expounded, will consult Mc Ghee's "Laws of the Papacy." Mr. Mc Ghee indisputably shews that those Bulls have been published by the Romish Bishops in Ireland :-but even if they were not published in that particular locality or every province, they would still bind the whole Church according to the opinion of Liguori. In vol. I., de legibus, he considers the following question : "Sed quæritur 1. an leges pontificia (et aliorum principum non subjectorum) ut obligent, promulgari debeant, non solum Romæ (sive in curia) sed etiam in singulis provinciis? Prima sententia affirmat. * * Secunda vero sententia valde "But it is asked, in the first place, whether the pontifical laws and those of other princes in order to have force, ought to be promulgated, not only in Rome, (or in the court), but also in each of the Provinces ; the first opinion affirms that communis, et probabilior id negat, tenetque leges pontificias obligare fideles sola promulgatione Romæ peracta. "Hoc posito, cum Pontifex statuit suas bullas tantum Romæ publicari, minime verisimile est, quod ipse non alias provincias, sed solam Romanam obligare intendat. Cum Papa tantum Romanos obstringere vult, solet peculiaria edicta emanare (et hæc italico idiomate efformat); sed statuta per totam Ecclesiam condens, eaque solemniter promulgans cum clausulis obligatoriis, procul dubio præsumitur omnes fideles obligare velle statim ac ipsis notitia pervenerit. Quæ notitia, facile est, ute Roma ad provincias perveniat; Romæ enim conveniunt omnes fere nationes, et omnes prælati habent ibi suos procuratores, qui ordinarie satagunt suos principales de novis bullis, quæ promulgantur, certiores facere." "Quid in dubio, an lex usu recepta sit? Adsunt tres sententiæ. Prima sententia tenet tunc legem non obligare, saltem si sit pœnalis. Secunda sententia, quam tenet Croix, lib. 1. n. 591, dicit legem obligare, si sit ecclesiastica; secus vero, si sit civilis. Tertia tamen sententia sequenda affir VERY MORE NION COMMON AND PROBABLE OPIDENIES THAT, AND HOLDS THAT THE PONTIFICAL LAWS 0. BLIGE THE FAITHFUL, THOUGH ONLY PROMULGATED AT ROME. "This being established, when the Pontiff has determined that his own bulls shall be published only at Rome, by no means is it probable that he intends to bind only the Roman Province, and not other Provinces. When the Pope wishes to bind only the Romans, he is wont to put forth peculiar edicts, (and these he draws up in the Italian dialect), but in making statutes for the whole Church, and promulgating them in a solemn manner with obligatory clauses, it is presumed without doubt, that he wishes to bind all the faithful to their observance, as soon as they are informed of them; for almost all nations assemble at Rome, and all Prelates have their own procurators in that city, whose business it is to inform their own superiors concerning the new bulls." "When it is doubtful whether the law was received by use, does it oblige? There are three opinions; the first holds that it does not oblige, at least if it be penal * * the second opinion, which Croix. holds, lib. 1. n. 591. says, that the law obliges if it be ecclesiastical, but not if it be civil. mat legem obligare.”* HOWEVER THE THIRD OPINION It is then evident, that according to the theology which was approved in the year 1839, Papal laws are binding in every Romish country, although they may have been only published in Rome. Hence the bulls, "Cœnæ Domini," "Bonus Pastor," &c., and other papal authorities are binding in these countries, even if they had not been promulgated in the British dominions. When examined before the Committee of the House of Commons, the Roman Catholic divines admitted that these bulls, if acted upon by the Papal community, would interfere with the laws of the land; Dr. Doyle declared, that the 3rd canon of the 4th Lateran Council would "drench our streets and our fields in blood; " and they maintained that they were not obligatory, because they had not been published or promulgated in these kingdoms. Mr. Mc Ghee has shewn, that they have been absolutely published by those very men;-and according to the statements of Liguori, even if they were not so promulgated, they would yet be obligatory on all Romanists. be" taught The Roman Catholic prays that he may by this admonition." FINIS. W. Dearden, Printer, Carlton Street, Nottingham. |