XII. THE HESITATIONS OF THE INFALLIBLE GUIDE. R. GOLDSMITH tells us that the Vicar of Wakefield's daughters were given by their mother a guinea a-piece, because the honour of the family required that they should always have money in their pocket; but that each was under strict conditions never to change her guinea. The Pope seems to possess the gift of infallibility on the same terms. The 'honour of the family' requires that he should have it, but obvious considerations of prudence constantly deter him from using it. The slowness of the Pope to interfere in controversies within his own communion is part of a system. I could give illustrations in abundance of the nervous fear of the infallible authority to commit itself irrevocably to any opinion, without leaving always an outlet for retreat in case of need; but the copiousness of material makes selection difficult. Romish teaching has constantly a double face. To those within the communion it is authoritative, positive, stamped with the seal of infallibility, which none may dispute without forfeiting his right to be counted a good Catholic. Consequently, I have heard Roman Catholic laymen express the utmost astonishment at hearing their Church charged with want of positiveness in her utterances, this being, in their opinion, the last fault that can be charged upon her. But this is because they only know how she speaks to those who will not venture to challenge the correctness of her teaching. She speaks differently to those who have courage to impugn it and bring it to a test. Then the statements assailed are said to be but private, unauthorized opinion, to which the Church is not pledged, and which may be proved to be absurd without injuring her reputation. XII.] MACNAMARA'S NEW TESTAMENT. 189 (1). For example, since we are told that private judgment is insufficient to determine with certainty the meaning of Scripture, it might be expected that the infallible guide would publish an authorized commentary on Scripture, setting forth the interpretation guaranteed by that unanimous consent of the Fathers, according to which the Creed of Pius IV. binds all to interpret. But nothing of the kind has been done. If annotated editions are sometimes issued with the approval of the authorities, the sanction is intended to imply no more than apparent freedom from grave heresy, and the notes rest only on the credit of the authors. Indeed it did at one time seem that the very thing I ask for was about to be done. In the year 1813, advertisements were circulated announcing an edition of THE CATHOLIC BIBLE,' explained or illustrated with valuable notes or annotations, according to the interpretation of the Catholic Church, which is our infallible and unerring guide in reading the Holy Scriptures and leading us unto salvation.' The names of all, or almost all, the Irish Roman Catholic bishops were printed as patronizing the undertaking; and, when the work actually appeared, the title-page professed that the edition was sanctioned and patronized by the Roman Catholic prelates and clergy of Ireland. What more could anyone wish than this? But the issue of this attempt to give the interpretation of the Catholic Church, which is our infallible and unerring guide in reading the Scriptures,' was so unfortunate that the attempt is not likely to be repeated. When the promised edition (Macnamara's) appeared, some copies fell into the hands of Protestants, who called attention to the doctrine of the Rhemish notes which they contained. There is no subject to which the annotators so perpetually recur as the duty of the individual to hold no intercourse with heretics that can be avoided, and the duty of the State to punish heretics, and even put them to death.* Here are some of them : The good must tolerate the evil where it is so strong that it cannot be redressed without danger and disturbance of the whole Church; and commit the matter to God's judgment in the latter day. Otherwise, where ill men, be they heretics or The agitation on the subject of the Emancipation Bill was then going on; and this publication threatened seriously to damage the prospects of the Bill, by confirming apprehensions then prevalent as to the use Roman Catholics would be likely to make of any political power they might obtain. Accordingly, the book was denounced by O'Connell, and you will find in his published speeches that he had no scruple in calling on the Catholic Association to repudiate these notes, which he stigmatized as 'odious,' 'execrable,' 'abominable,' notwithstanding that they had for two hundred years been recognized as approved by high Roman Catholic authority. These 'odious' doctrines have higher other malefactors, may be punished or suppressed without disturbance and hazard of the good, they may and ought, by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed.'-Matt. xiii. 29. 'Not justice nor all rigorous punishment of sinners is here forbidden, nor Elias's fact reprehended, nor the Church or Christian princes blamed for putting heretics to death; but that none of these should be done for desire of our particular revenge, or without discretion and regard of their amendment and example to others.'-Luke ix. 55. All wise men in a manner see their falsehood, though for fear of troubling the state of such commonwealths, where unluckily they have been received, they cannot be suddenly extirpated.'-2 Tim. iii. 9. 'If St. Paul doubted not to claim the succour of the Roman laws, and to appeal to Cæsar, the prince of the Romans not yet christened, how much more may we call for the aid of Christian princes and the laws for their punishment of heretics and for the Church's defence against them?'-Acts xxv. II. 'St. Augustin referreth this "compelling" to the penal laws, which Catholic princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics, proving that they who are by their former profession in baptism subject to the Catholic Church, and are departed from the same after sects, may and ought to be compelled into the unity and society of the universal Church again. And therefore in this sense, by the two former parts of the parable, the Jews first, and secondly the Gentiles that never before believed in Christ, were invited by fair sweet means only; but by the third such are invited as the Church of God hath power over, because they promised in baptism, and therefore are to be revoked not only by gentle means, but by just punishment also.'-Luke xiv. 23. See infra the passage quoted from Thomas Aquinas. 'The Protestants foolishly expound this of Rome, for that there they put heretics to death, and allow of their punishment in other countries; but their blood is not called the blood of saints, no more than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which by order of justice no commonwealth shall answer.'-Rev. xvii. 6. * Meeting of Catholic Association, Dec. 4, 1817. (O'Connell's Speeches, edited by his Son, vol. ii., p. 257.) XII.] MACNAMARA'S NEW TESTAMENT. 191 authority in their favour than perhaps Mr. O'Connell was aware of, and I do not think it so easy for the Roman Catholic Church to repudiate them. But Mr. O'Connell was quite right in considering that he was at liberty to reject the opinions of any commentator, however respectable. (2). Perhaps it may be said that it was needless for the Roman Church to publish commentaries on Scripture, since it is not to Scripture she sends her people for instruction in the doctrines of their faith. She has catechisms and other books of instruction, from which her people may learn. But has she ventured to put her seal of infallibility to any one of them? Not so; catechisms, sermons, books of devotion, are guarded It seems to me that the Rhemish annotators had every reason to believe that they were only teaching the doctrine approved by the highest authorities in their Church-doctrine which the Church had never had any hesitation in following in practice. It will suffice to quote here the conclusions come to by Thomas Aquinas (Summa 2da 2dae, Qu. xi., Art. 3) on the question, utrum haeretici sint tolerandi.' He says, 'The question must be considered as regards the heretics themselves and as regards the Church. On the side of the heretics is sin, for which they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but even to be excluded from the world by death. Now it is a much more grievous thing to corrupt the faith, through which the soul has its life, than to falsify money, which serves the needs of temporal life. So if falsifiers of money, or other malefactors, are at once justly consigned to death by secular princes, far more may heretics, when once convicted of their heresy, be not only excommunicated, but even justly put to death. On the side of the Church there is mercy for the conversion of the erring, and therefore she does not condemn at once, but, as the Apostle says, "after a first and second admonition." But if after that he still continues obstinate, the Church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others by separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication, and further leaves him to the judgment of secular princes to be exterminated from the world by death.' On the previous question (Qu. x., Art. 8), 'utrum infideles compellendi sint ad fidem,' his ruling is, that Jews or Gentiles, who have never received the faith, ought not to be compelled to receive it; but that heretics and apostates should be compelled to fulfil what they had promised. On our Lord's words, 'Let both grow together until the harvest,' he makes a comment for which I am sorry to say he is able to quote St. Augustine's authority, that since the reason is given, 'Lest haply while ye gather up the tares ye root up the wheat with them,' it follows that if there is no danger of rooting up the wheat, it is safe to eradicate the tares. He goes on to consider Qu. xi., Art. 4, whether relapsed heretics ought to be received on their repentance. He regards this question as decided by the Decretal, Ad abolendam, Si aliqui post abjurationem erroris deprehensi fuerint in abjuratam haeresim recidisse, seculari judicio sunt relinquendi.' He defends this decision as follows: The Church, according to our Lord's precept, extends by no such gift. If we detect a catechism in manifest error, if we find a preacher or a book of devotion guilty of manifest extravagance, no matter how eminent the man, or how widely popular the book, the Church always leaves a loophole for disowning him, and we are at once told that the infallible authority has spoken by no such medium. But why has she not ? Does it not seem strange that a communion possessing the high attribute of infallibility should make no use of it in the instruction of her people? It cannot be said that this neglect does not lead to ignorance and error on the part of the people. I need take no other example than the case I have already mentioned of Keenan's Catechism,' where a book circulated by thousands, with the highest episcopal approbation, went on, year after year, teaching doctrine which has her charity to all, even to her enemies and persecutors. Charity teaches us to wish and work for our neighbour's good. His chief good is the salvation of his soul; consequently the Church admits a relapsed heretic to penance, which opens to him the way of salvation. But it is only in a secondary degree that charity looks to temporal good, such as life in this world, possession of property, and so forth. We are not bound in charity to wish these things to others, except in subordination to the eternal salvation of themselves and others. If one man's possession of any of these good things might hinder the eternal salvation of many, we are not bound to wish it to him, but rather to wish the contrary, both because eternal salvation is to be preferred to any temporal good, and because the good of many ought to be preferred to the good of one. Now if relapsed heretics were kept alive, and allowed to possess property, this might prejudice the salvation of others, both because there is danger of their relapsing again, and infecting others, and because, if they got off without punishment, others might be careless about falling into heresy. So in the case of those who for the first time return from heresy, the Church not only admits them to penance, but keeps them alive, and sometimes, if she believes them to be truly converted, even restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they had held before. But relapsing is a sign of instability concerning the faith; so that on a subsequent return to the Church they are admitted to penance, but not freed from the sentence of death. Accordingly the practice was, that a relapsed heretic who recanted was first strangled, then burnt. If he did not recant he was burned alive, but Bellarmine's biographer, Petrasancta, explains that this was not done out of cruelty, but in the merciful hope that the extremity of bodily suffering might induce the culprit to save his soul by recanting at the last moment (see the passage cited, Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin, p. 235). In the same place a long list is given of heretics capitally punished at Rome. See also Gibbings, Were heretics ever burned alive at Rome? Gibbings remarks, that one of the propositions selected from Luther's writings, and condemned by Pope Leo X. in the Bull Exsurge, in 1520, as pestiferous and destructive, &c., is, 'Haereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritus.' |