Page images
PDF
EPUB

moral (p. 19,) that false-witness in a court of justice is immoral (p. 22,) that the falsehoods put into the mouth of the adulterous wife are immoral (p. 15,) that the doctrine of seduction as laid down, p. 17, is immoral. Nay, he enters on the examination of this latter point at length, and gives it his unqualified approval, though he acknowledges that his English readers may consider 'these distinctions,' as 'nothing but miserable subterfuges, loop'holes of escape for the aristocratical [or rich] libertine, tortured 'out for him by the obsequious casuist of Rome.' (D. R. p. 394.)

That the Reviewer considers Equivocation justifiable is apparent, not only from his teaching, but his practice. We have one example in the very page to which we have just referred. Liguori having proved that neither a nobleman nor a rich man, who has seduced a maiden on promise of marriage, is bound to fulfil his promise by marrying his victim, proves further that he is not bound even to make her any compensation, because, says the Reviewer, 'she ought to look upon the injury which she 'has received, as a just punishment for her own carelessness and 'levity of conduct. By this last expression every English reader would of course understand, that in punishment for her sin, arising from her lightness of character, she could claim no redress. Liguori meant nothing of the kind. The levity, or carelessness, of which he is speaking, is not levity of moral conduct, but the carelessness by which the victim failed to discover that her seducer did not mean what he promised, when he said that he would marry her.

Again in the next page, 'What the writer in the Christian 'Remembrancer affirms as to the right allowed in [R.] Catholic 'countries to the nobility to seduce maidens, under the promise ' of marriage, and then refuse to keep the promise, comes to this. 1. That the nobility have no more right than other men to 'seduce maidens, and are equally bound to keep their promise, 'whenever they can do so without sin.'

Here, by a Mental Reservation (we suppose), the Reviewer has failed to mention that, according to Rome's teaching, they never can do so without sin, and, therefore, never have to keep their promise.

[ocr errors]

2. A woman cannot claim redress from any man on the 'ground of having been deceived, if she can justly be considered as having lent herself to the deception, or allowed herself to be ' easily duped!'

Here the Reviewer has in like manner failed to mention, that, according to Rome's teaching, every such woman may be justly considered, &c. and, therefore, that no such woman can claim redress.

'3. Some theologians maintain that the woman cannot claim a high marriage, if at the time of making the contract, she 'only contemplated a low one.'

Here the Reviewer has in like manner failed to mention that the opinion of these theologians, is more than sufficient to justify every high-born or rich libertine, in refusing to fulfil his contract. "Some theologians,' are Cardinal De Lugo, Viva, the Salamanca Doctors, Cornejo, Sanchez, Antony of Cordova, Moneta, Peter Ledesma, Veracruz, and Saint Alfonso de' Liguori, while the only two that are mentioned on the other side, are Lessius and Busembaum.

[ocr errors]

Again: there is apparently an Equivocation contained in the words, 'under the seal of secrecy' (p. 383,) and in the explanation of 'legitimately questioned,' i. e. under the conditions 'prescribed by law' (p. 351,)—meaning, not the law of the land, but the law laid down by the Moral Theologians. These, however, are but trifling and natural consequences of the principle which is being maintained.

[ocr errors]

When the Reviewer condescends to apologize in place of justifying, his defence is the following: The society for which St. Alphonsus wrote is Italian, and his theology is, conse'quently, to a great extent, shaped to suit the moral exigencies of that people, and presupposes all their customs and con'ventionalities. It is scarcely possible to imagine two characters more widely different, than the Italian and English, nor any two less capable of judging one another.' (p. 333.) We have seen several attempts of this kind lately made, to represent uprightness and truthfulness as a curious national peculiarity, like red hair, or an aquiline nose, instead of a Christian virtue. The Reviewer puts an objection into the mouth of his 'Pro'testant countryman.' 'I am willing to grant that the Italian 'may be naturally less truthful than the Englishman, but how 'does this fact excuse your Church? You have said, truly 'enough, that the moral progress of a nation is in proportion to 'the standard of excellence instilled into the mind by education : 'now, from whence does the Italian get his education ex'cept from the Church? Is it not, then, in her power to 'make truthfulness so much the standard of excellence, as to 'counteract the natural tendencies of the people? Why, then, 'is so little prominence given to this virtue in the works of your 'theologians?' Such is the objection which the Reviewer is able to conceive brought forward by his 'Protestant countryman.' Now for the answer to it. This mode of reply shows an ignorance of the grand fact, that [R.] Catholic morality is supernatural ' and not natural, and that the teaching of the [Roman] Church 'has a distinct end and object-matter, and, consequently, is based

[ocr errors]

'upon distinct principles as compared with the teaching of nature.' (p. 333.) This is, we acknowledge, a grand fact. We admit that the morality of the Church of Rome is not natural,' and is based upon distinct principles from that morality which befits human nature. What supernatural beings it may be suited for, we cannot say, though possibly the expression "Father of lies' might lead us to conjecture. At any rate, it confessedly has a distinct end, object-matter, and principles, from the teaching of nature; from such morality, that is, as we find in Bishop Butler, and every great and true Moralist. This is, we allow, a grand fact. Possibly it is sufficient to account for that natural want of truthfulness, which the Reviewer acknowledges to exist in Italy, and which is found in every country where Rome has full sway.

One word in conclusion. The Redemptorist Fathers have promised England and Ireland the blessing of an English Edition of S. Alfonso's Works. But there is one portion of his writings which they refuse to translate, viz. his Moral Theology. Why is this? It may be replied that it is only meant for Priests. Very good but why should that which is meant for Priests, be veiled from the profane eyes of laymen? If it is good for the first, why should it be harmful to the last? There is one portion of it, indeed, which we should shrink from seeing in a vulgar tongue. Let the parts referring to Purity be kept-if kept they must be-enwrapped in double folds and concealed in a language ordinarily unread. But why should the rest of the six octavo volumes be kept likewise hidden from the common gaze ? If the morality inculcated in them is high and pure, they will raise the standard of morals in those that read them. If they are not translated with his other works, Englishmen will judge that the Editors did not dare to unveil the deformities contained in them, lest they and their system alike should be overwhelmed with an outburst of indignation, on the part of those who wish to see morality taught, which is suitable to the 'nature' which God has given to man, and not a system based upon distinct principles,' with 'a distinct end and object-matter.' They will judge that the reason why these volumes are alone withheld from view, is the same as that which Cicero tells us prevented the mysterious books of the Roman Law from being divulged: quæ, dum erant occulta, necessario ab iis qui ea tenebant petebantur; postea vero, pervulgata atque in manibus jactata et excussa, inanissima prudentia reperta sunt, fraudis autem et stultitiæ plenissima.

John and Charles Mozley, Printers, Derby.

MORAL THEOLOGY

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

No. II.

CERTAIN POINTS IN

S. ALFONSO DE' LIGUORI'S MORAL THEOLOGY,
CONSIDERED IN NINETEEN LETTERS,

BY THE REV. H. E. MANNING,

AND THE REV. F. MEYRICK.

LONDON:

J. AND C. MOZLEY, PATERNOSTER ROW;

EDINBURGH: R. GRANT AND SON; DUBLIN: W. CURRY AND CO.

« PreviousContinue »