Page images
PDF
EPUB

Rome? We are reasoning upon a hypothetical case, namely, that the Pope would enter into a concordat of that kind with the King of the Netherlands; but admitting that he did, I not knowing the circumstances of the Netherlands, or the reasons which might influence the parties contracting, cannot say whether it would be a precedent on which I would decide, in my judgment as to what ought to be done with regard to Ireland. But I repeat what I have before said, that looking to Ireland as I do, both in a political and religious point of view, I think the interference of the Crown in the appointment of the Catholic bishops, directly or indirectly, would be extremely injurious in its tendency, at least to the interests of religion; and I do aver, in the presence of the Committee, that I think it would be still more injurious to the interests of the State.

It might, however, take place consistently with the discipline of the church? I mentioned before, that if the Pope entered into such a concordat with regard to Ireland, that I should have one remedy, and that it would not be painful to me to resort to that; I would express my opinion in the most respectful manner to his Holiness, and then if it were not attended to, I would give in my resignation, which I have no doubt would be accepted.

You are not aware how the nominations are made in those churches in the Netherlands ?-I am not.

You stated, that the right of appointment to the vacant sees in Ireland was vested in the lineal descendants of Charles the First, until they became extinct ?-I fear that I must have been mistaken, for certainly I do not wish to convey that idea; I said that the sovereigns of this country, whether the Tudors or Stuarts, who were Catholics, had, as far as I can judge, the right of presentation to the sees in Ireland; but after the Stuarts ceased to be the sovereigns of these countries, I think then, if their recommendations were attended to, it was a matter of courtesy rather than of obligation on the part of the Pope; for the right which he recognised in the Stuarts, to present to the sees in Ireland and England, whilst they were Catholics, he must have recognised in them because they were the sovereigns of these countries. Now when they ceased to be sovereigns, and to have jurisdiction in the country, I think if he still continued to pay attention to their recommendations, it was not in consequence of a right which he recognised to exist in them, but through a deference to their high though fallen state; I know, however, that he did practically attend, in some instances at least, to their

recommendation.

Did he attend to the recommendation of the last Pretender and of Cardinal York ?-Not of Cardinal York; I never heard of his

[ocr errors]

interfering, but I know, as a matter of history, that Bishop Burke, who lived in Ossory, and who wrote a work that is in the hands of all, called Hibernia Dominicana, was recommended to the see of Ossory by the late Pretender, and that it was in consequence of that recommendation, that he was appointed; at least I have known this from authority; but since that appointment, there has not one taken place in Ireland, to my knowledge, (and it is a matter I inquired into very diligently,) for some years past, which did not originate in Ireland.

In stating your opinion with respect to the Protestant hierarchy, you took a distinction between their spiritual and their temporal possessions, and you stated, that however highly: you respected their spiritual character, as a denomination of Christians, whom, next to your own, you held entitled to respect, you considered the subject as capable of being looked at in a different point of view, with respect to their temporal possessions; do you, or as well as you can form a judgment, does any clergyman of the Roman Catholic church, at all entertain any notion of transferring the possessions of the Established church to the Roman Catholic church ?-I never heard, nor do I believe there exists in the mind of any clergyman of any rank, any disposition to receive, or to ask, or to seek to obtain, by any means whatever, the possession of the temporal goods of the Established church in Ireland; and I will add, that for myself, and as far as I have been able to obtain a knowledge of the feelings of those of the clergy with whom I am conversant, I believe it is their opinion, as well as mine, that were a portion of those goods offered to us, we would decline accepting of them.

Supposing the tithes now received by the Protestant church were proposed to be transferred to the Roman Catholic church ?Unquestionably I would not accept of them.

Is it not one of the commandments of the church, to pay tithe to our pastor?-That is a command of the church, which is found written in catechisms published where tithes were paid; but where tithes are not paid, the command in the catechism signifies, or is, "contribute to the support of your pastor."

It was modified into those words in the year 1817, but the other is reprinted in the recent editions of the Douay catechisms? -I have not a control over printers, but I do not believe it has ever led any one into an idea that the Catholic clergyman was to be paid by tithes, for we claim our support upon much higher authority than that upon which tithe rests. Our claim to support is founded upon the law of Nature and of God, That the labourer is worthy of his hire; and upon the saying of the Apostle, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," and "He that serveth the altar shall live by the altar."

[ocr errors]

These are the texts of scripture, which, as well as the arguments from reason, we adduce to show we are entitled to some kind of compensation for devoting to the service of the people our talents, our time, and our labour.

Are not those commandments of the church considered of equal authority with the commandments of the Table ?-The commandments of the church are, first, to hear mass on Sundays and Holidays; now the law of God obliges us to sanctify the Lord's-day; and the church holds, that one part at least of that duty prescribed by the law of God, is to be fulfilled by assisting at the celebration of mass. In the second place, "Go to receive your communion at least once in a year;" now we conceive, that God ordained that we should approach to the Holy Sacrament frequently, or at least sometimes in the course of our life; and hence the Council of Lateran ordained, that every Christian should go to communion at least once in the year. Thus, then, the commandments of the church are only applications of the commandments of God, as to time, place, and circumstances.

Are not they enforced, under pain of mortal sin?-The commandments of the church are enforced under pain of mortal sin, such of them as are capable of binding a man's conscience by virtue of the law of God, on which they are founded; but, for instance, that "contribute to the support of your pastors," does not bind every man under pain of mortal sin, for we discharge all the duties of our office towards the members of our church, without receiving any compensation at all from a great number of them; and they are bound to contribute to our support only in proportion to their means. Thus then we are to understand those commands of the church, as being applications as it were of the law of God, binding us in such degree as we ourselves can plainly infer from that law of Nature or of God, from which those commandments of the church are derived.

In an abstract of the Douay Catechism, now before the Committee, there are no exceptions stated; are not the members of the Catholic church bound under mortal sin, to keep those commandments of the Catholic church ?-I can give no further explanation of what I stated as the exposition of that commandment, which exposition common sense and reason dictate, and there is no person can understand it otherwise; for surely a poor man, who does not contribute any thing to the support of his pastor, cannot conceive himself as guilty of mortal sin, whereas he is neither desired to do it, nor permitted to do it, nor required to do it; but the commandment of going to communion, at least once a-year, he understands as binding him, under pain of mortal sin, for the reasons already stated; so these are matters which I should hope would not lead any rational person into error.

Martis, 22 die Martii, 1825.

LORD VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, IN THE CHAIR.

The Most Reverend Patrick Curtis, D. D. Titular Archbishop of Armagh, called in; and Examined.

How many years have you been Catholic Archbishop of Armagh ?-The last six years.

Will you be so good as to explain to the Committee, the nature and origin of the authority of the Pope?-A Roman Catholic believes, and it is an article of his faith, that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, who was constituted head of the Apostolic College, the College of the Apostles; and that the Popes succeed to him, the same as the Bishops succeed to the Apostles, and that he has the same superiority, which we call supremacy, the exercise of which is regulated by the canons of the church; he is no more than a Bishop, but the head or chief of them all, and of the whole church. We do not know him as a King or as a Sovereign, he is but a Bishop; that is, religion only recognises him as chief Bishop, and St. Peter was but an Apostle, yet chief among them; but we suppose, and I think it is clear in the gospel, that he is constituted the head of the Apostles, and head of all Christians. Christ said, that on him he would build his church-on Peter-although Peter, as well as the church, was certainly fundamentally and effectually built on Christ, it is still very compatible, that the whole church should be built on him, Peter; and that he, after his conversion (because he was to fall after that) was to confirm his brethren; and that he was to feed Christ's lambs and his sheep that is, the common faithful and the doctors or pastors of the church. With respect to any thing else that he may have, of temporal authority, or his influence over kings and princes, (whom he has sometimes deposed) he did very ill in doing that; unless he did it in virtue of authority that was given or allowed him by themselves. The sovereigns that he generally deposed, were the emperors of the west; the empire was translated from the east to the west. The sovereigns of the west were then very ignorant; they were a set of intruders at that time, Goths and Vandals; and they thought it necessary, that there should be a certain number of electors, mostly appointed by or sanctioned by the Pope; he was one of the chief arbitrators himself; and those people, in order to depose him (the emperor) often obtained the influence of the Pope, and so did the other Catholic sovereigns, who often applied to him for temporal as well as spiritual purposes; the Popes all had, at that time, a great deal of temporal influence.

Is the claim, which the Popes set up to Temporal Authority, opposed to Scripture and Tradition ?-I do not think it is very conformable to it; I do not say exactly that it was opposed to it; but certainly he has received no such power from Christ. I do not but he received it from men; the same as he received the say kingdom he has now, or at least the dukedom, the Papal territory. Whatever he had, or has of temporal power or authority, he received from men; and, I believe, would have done better not to take it; he became a great deal less influential man, as a spiritual chief, after receiving it, than before.

Does the obedience that Catholics owe to the Pope, detract from what is due by them to the State under which they live?-By no means, we owe him no other than a spiritual authority, exercised according to the canons of the church; not arbitrarily, but according to the canons of the church; but we owe him no temporal obedience whatsoever.

Does the nature of the obedience that Catholics owe to the Pope, justify the objection, that their allegiance is divided to the States they live under ?-By no means, we never profess any allegiance to the Pope; we take an oath, at our consecration, of fidelity, as it is called; what we mean to do is, to promise to him canonical obedience, and so does the priest to his bishop, and the bishop to his archbishop, but in a more limited degree.

Is the duty that Catholics owe to the Pope, and their duty to their King, really and substantially distinct?-Entirely distinct; and, regarding different subjects totally, they never ought to be confounded.

If the question, commonly called Emancipation, was carried, in your opinion would it have the effect of producing conciliation and tranquillity in Ireland?—I really think it would have a very direct tendency to that. There would seem then to be no sufficient motive for any persecution or contest, as it were against the Catholics; they are now put down merely to keep up an ascendency. There would be always an ascendency, but not an ascendency carried forward in terms so repugnant, and so disagreeable. I believe it would serve to bring people together, and to make them forget their disputes; that there would be few or no disputes in secular matters, and really none at all almost in religious matters, because the religious disputes are brought forward against Catholics, not for religious purposes, but for secular purposes, depend upon it.

The Most Reverend Daniel Murray, D. D. Titular Archbishop of Dublin, called in; and Examined.

How many years have you been Roman Catholic archbishop of Dublin?-Since the decease of my predecessor, on the 11th of May, 1823.

« PreviousContinue »