It is needless to add that Madame de Saisseval never left her friend entirely to her uncouth nurse; on the contrary, she watched over her so continually that she might almost be said to multiply herself in order to wait upon her at a moment's notice. Nor did she refrain from weeping: Jesus had shed tears over Lazarus, and she felt it no harm to do as He did. Therefore she often wept bitterly over the bereavement she was about to sustain, and bitterly -yet more bitterly-over the loss that Madame de Carcado's death would prove, not only to the orphanage she had helped so vigorously to establish, but to hosts of poor people-the sick, the sorrowful and sad-to whom she had been a second Providence for years. One day, when the end was evidently drawing near, she was so completely overcome by these anxieties (the offspring simply of her own humility) that she could not refrain whispering them to her dying friend; but the quiet answer, "God has need of no one," silenced her at once, and restored her to that calm dependence upon Providence which had been the longest learned and best practised virtue of her life. Madame de Carcado passed away sweetly and gently to the bosom of her God, and not only the care and government, but the very existence of the orphanage itself, fell of necessity on the shrinking shoulders of her friend. But the soul of Madame de Saisseval rose at once with the occasion, and the vigour and wisdom which she brought with her to the undertaking (the moment she felt it was the hand of God which had laid it on her) not merely secured its complete success during the period of her own personal supervision, but down even to the very days we live in. So true were the words of her departed friend, that "God has need of no one." SONNET. ON A FRESH OUTBURST OF DETRACTION AGAINST THE CHURCH. EVOLTED province of the Church of God, By her a Christian nation made! Too long Her singers once-her saints-thy pastures trod: This day her college halls, usurped, impeach AUBREY DE Vere. THE RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH TO SOCIETY. BY THE REV. EDMUND J. O'REILLY, S. J. XIV. THE DEFINITION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (continued). JUST after the definition, some of those who were unfavourable to it made, if I mistake not, a certain amount of capital of the incompleteness of the Council, not precisely of its incompleteness as to numbers, of which I have spoken, but of its not being finished, perfected, either altogether or even with reference to that act; as if the cause was yet pending. But this objection was of still less force than the other concerning moral unanimity. For, if moral unanimity were really needed, the majority could not cure this, as Dr. Newman truly remarked.* An incompetent tribunal cannot give competence to itself. We may fairly apply here the maxim: nemo dat quod non habet. But a General Council (always including the Pope)—or a sufficient majority-being competent and supreme, can render its own decree as effectual as it pleases, as soon as it pleases; and the Vatican majority manifestly did please to make the definition of Papal Infallibility effectual at once, quite irrespectively of anything that was to follow. They had done deliberating and projecting. They authorised the final and absolute promulgation of the Constitution. I have, so far, dealt with the definition as an act of the Vatican Council as such; I have maintained, and do maintain, that the Teaching Church represented in the Vatican Council did infallibly teach the Pope's Infallibility. But, even if this were not so, if the Vatican Council were not an Ecumenical Council at all, the dogma of Papal Infallibility would be none the less a dogma of Catholic Faith propounded by the Teaching Church, and with moral unanimity of the entire Teaching Church. Certainly, on the 18th of July, 1870, the Pope solemnly propounded and proclaimed the doctrine; he, as head of the Church, and chief teacher of the faithful, taught the doctrine, and this teaching was partly at the time, and partly afterwards, expressly or tacitly-and for the most part expresslyaccepted by all the Bishops of the Catholic Church. It was expressly accepted on the spot by all the Bishops present, those two included who had pronounced the words non placet. It was expressly accepted by very many other Bishops of the Church a little later, and even openly promulgated by several, at least, if not by all, of those who had seceded from the Council to avoid taking part in the definition. All opposition to it on the part of the VOL. III. * In his letter quoted by himself, p. 98. 2 K bishops has long since totally ceased. This teaching then is the unanimous teaching of the Ecclesia Docens. The doctrine, therefore, of Papal Infallibility, was legitimately defined by a legitimate General Council in conjunction with-and including-the Roman Pontiff. But, even leaving out of account the legitimacy of the Council itself and of its action in this matter, the same doctrine was quite effectually defined by the Pope, considering his solemn Constitution as accepted and ratified by the whole Catholic Episcopate. What is to be said on the once vexed question of opportuneness? Before the definition, many bishops thought it would be inopportune. A great many more thought the contrary. Much has been said about the proceedings of both classes, and of those who respectively agreed with them. With all this I have nothing to do. All I need say is that the view taken by the non-opportunists was not heterodox, that it was not unlawful, that they had every right to express it in the proper place and way. I say the same of any who may, at that time, have questioned the definableness, or even the truth, of the doctrine. Now that the definition has taken place, we are to presume that it was opportune. There is no need of entering into a discussion on the subject. Still it will be no harm to make a few observations regarding it. First of all, then, there is one broad ground of opportuneness in the fact of the revelation of the doctrine, considering especially the nature of the prerogative in question. Of the existence of the revelation and of the Infallibility itself we can, as Catholics, no longer entertain the least doubt. Now, for what purpose did Christ make his Vicar infallible? That this one, visible, living, and-as to his office-ever-enduring person might securely guide the whole flock of Christ in Faith and Morals. As I have remarked elsewhere, the gift might have existed without being manifested.* Christ might have decreed to preserve the Pontiff from error in his teaching, and still not have made known the decree. Even so, the protection and assistance afforded would have been beneficial, but not nearly so beneficial as if it were known, because the same confidence would not have been imparted. For the sake of this confidence the gift was revealed from the beginning, that it might be known, that it might be relied on, that it might have its full influence on the minds of the faithful. It is a truth, not only to be believed when manifested, but, from its character, peculiarly expedient to be manifested, peculiarly calling for manifestation, not so much on its own account as on account of other truths in a manner dependent on it. The fullest and most unmistakable publication of it was desirable at all times. Every period was, if I may say so, positively, affirmatively, opportune for this, abstracting from some extraordinarily cogent reasons to *IRISH MONTHLY, vol. ii., P. 220. And the the contrary-some wonderful obstacles in the way. reasons would have had to be quite extraordinarily cogent, and the obstacles quite wonderful to interfere with this opportuneness. Nay, it is not easy to conceive how there could be reasons or obstacles sufficient at any time to stand in the way, if we reflect on the fundamental place which the doctrine holds as to the economy of Christ's Church. Here, I may be asked how it came to pass that such a doctrine was so long allowed to remain, in some degree, uncertain. I answer that all along it was practically recognised by the great mass of the bishops, by General Councils, and by the faithful for the most part; that it was not formally questioned till a comparatively late period; that, once the controversy arose, a General Council was the proper tribunal to settle it; that General Councils could not be so easily assembled; that the negative doctrine had not acquired its fixed status-such as that was-till after the Council of Trent; that even if this was not the case, the Council of Trent had enough to do in dealing with the open enemies of the Church, so far as dogma was concerned, and with the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. If this sort of answer is not adequate, I add that God permitted the controversy to continue, as He permits many other things whose permission we cannot thoroughly account for; that His ways are inscrutable, and often baffle our inquiries and speculations. It will be rejoined that the Church could go on without any explicit settlement of this question, as it was going on so long before the Vatican Council. I say, I suppose it could. I don't pretend that the Church would have perished for the want of the definition. But I appeal to the fact of the revelation of the Papal Infallibility, for revealed it was, as we are now bound to believe; and why revealed if not to be universally acknowledged with the certainty of Faith? This was God's design, a design which it behoved the Church to carry out to the full, and this could not be done, as things stood, without a definition. The very difficulties that were raised in the way of this course showed the importance of the matter, and how little it could be viewed as a thing trivial or indifferent. Now, let us look at one or two of the grounds of inopportuneness. The definition might lead and has led to persecution. Dr. Newman says truly, that "persecution may be as opportune, though. not so pleasant as peace." It is more obvious still that, even without attributing a special utility to persecution, a supernatural benefit may be well worth having at the expense of persecution, as was and is eminently the case with the Christian Religion-with the Catholic Religion-with a pious life, of which St. Paul said: . "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. iii. 12). Besides, is it so certain that the persecution which is said to have resulted from the Vatican decree should be entirely attributed to it? I think not. Passing by the plans of the unseen arch-enemy of God's Church, the men who are oppressing Catholics in various places needed not the definition to set them on their prey. Like the wolf in the fable, their appetite was to be gratified, their victim to be devoured, with any excuse or with none. The exact time, the mode, perhaps the degree, for the moment, may have been influenced by the definition, but not, I should say, the substance. The spirit was there, the hatred of our religion-not to say of all religion-was there, no small amount of secret organization was there; opportunities were watched for, and would have been found or made. I am far from denying that individuals were swayed and duped by occasion of the particular circumstances. But, I repeat it, the substance of the persecution which exists, and of further persecution which may be in store for Catholics, is not to be mainly referred to the Council or its acts, both because there were signs enough of its being previously in preparation, and because the Vatican proceedings could not by themselves afford a sufficient motive-even an apparently sufficient motive-for what has been done and is being done against the Church. Be this as it may, the completeness of our religious profession and belief was not easily to be, in a manner, sacrificed even to avoid these exterior troubles. But, besides persecution, the Vatican decree caused defections from the Catholic religion. Of this there can be no doubt. What is to be said of this evil fruit? It is to be said that the defections were few. It is to be said next that, though the men who fell away consummated a great crime and a great scandal by their apostacy, and made their case worse before God than it had been before, they were, in most instances, but nominal Catholics, and that their secession was rather a gain than a loss to the Church. The definition, so far, served as a test of the genuineness of Catholic profession. I would emphatically apply to these men the words of St. John (1 Ep. ii. 19), "They went out from us; but they were not of us." We ought, no doubt, to feel compassion for them, not that compassion which is due to the merely unfortunate, but that which is to be entertained even for the guilty, however undeserving they are; for, after all, guilt is the greatest of all misfortunes on this earth. We must pray for their conversion; but, taking them as they were before they left us, we are not the worse of having lost them, whatever may have been the gifts of some among them. Another ground of inopportuneness is that those who are outside the Church will be deterred from entering it. I reply that, in the first place, the Religion of Christ is not to be in any manner curtailed, nor are its truths to be hidden away, for the sake of making it more acceptable or less unacceptable to Protestants, especially in points which concern its very framework and constitution. We must remember that the Papal Infallibility, having been defined, is now shown to have always entered into the Chris |