Newspaper Page Text
are directing our revolutionary “ march over the crozier and the cross.” This is all very fine, and we have heard it a hundred times before. To it there is but one serious objection. It is not true. No, not a solitary word of it. Reason and “ logic” are not absolutely confined to the brains of Maynooth-bred ecclesiastics. It is just possible for poor laymen, like ourselves, to attain, in the present day, to such an amount of education and intelligence as to enable us to investigate and decide for ourselves. This we have endeavored honestly to do, and wc shall here state the result. We are informed that the Church and clergy have been instituted to instruct men in things necessary for the salvation of their souls, that they may thereby attain to a happy eternity. With this we neither have nor claim interference of any kind. Our simple duty, as politicians and journalists, is to let it alone. And so long as the Church and clergy confine themselves to their proper functions, which are purely spiritual, they shall have our respect, and every protection which it is in our power to afford. But when the Church is dragged down from its high and holy place in Heaven, and turned into an instrument of tyrannical power on earth—when its clergy turn their backs upon the altar and its sacred duties, and become gladiators in the arena of the world’s political strife— more especially when they dare to prostitute the influence which they draw from their spiritual character, to rivet the chains of enslaved and suffering millions of men, and to prop up the murderous despotisms of the earth, then we take leave to think that the Church and clergy, when they have become this, have become something which they ought not to be, and that our first duty to God and man is to expose and resist them. Thinking and acting thus, we are the best friends of the Church and of religion. The men who confine themselves to their spiritual functions we reverence as “ the ministers of the Lord of Hosts.” But tho men who do the dirty work of England wc regard in a very different light. We reverence “ the crozier and cross,” when they are employed, as they were intended, to pro tect men’s rights and save them. But those unfaithful stewards who hire out the artillery of heaven to defend the hell-born tyranny that destroys men’s liberties and lives—these are the men who, for the sake of wealth and power, trample both crozier and cross in the dust of degradation and contempt. The reverend writer of a letter which appears in our present issue, under the signature of “ A Maynooth Traitor,” tells us that he, although “ a Maynooth priest.” has endeavored “ to do a patriot’s share,” and that to the truth of this statement several “ Deputies” and “ Cen ters” of the I. R. B. could testify. We do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of his words. But he never took the oath. This explains all. We have, however, a serious accusation to prefer against him — one to which no man of his calling and character ought ever to expose himself. He invents a statement, and imputes it to us, to which wc never gave utterance. And, then, on this falsehood he erects an elaborate argument, which, as a matter of course—its foundation being gone—falls in ruins to the ground. Our readers will better under stand this when we direct their attention to a syllogism which he constructs. Here it is: 1. “ The Maynooth priests took the oath of allegiance” (to England). 2. But “ nine out of every ten priests in America are Maynooth priests.” 3. Therefore, nine out of every ten priests in America took the oath of allegiance (to the English Queen). Now, here this man of God deliberately asserts what is not the truth. We never said that “ nine out of every ten of the priests of America” took the oath of allegiance to the wretched English robber. The man who would venture to make such an assertion would be both a fool and a falsifier. What we did say, and now say over again, was this, that “ nine out often of the young {Irish) students who come to America” have “taken this dis graceful and sinful obligation.” But these—and no men on earth rejoice at it more than we do—are not per haps one hundreth part of the Catholic clergy of Amer ica. So much for “ Maynooth logic.” As a matter of course, the basis being false, his entire argument is simply so much waste paper. There arc other Catholic Colleges in Ireland—many of them—and we thank God for it. There are dozens of Catholic Universities in America, turning out hundreds upon hundreds of able and devoted pastors, American, Irish, German, and again we thank God for it. And we pray that the numbers may increase a thousand-fold. But, then, it appears that the “ bad bishops” were not Maynooth men, while some of the “ good priests” were. All we can say is, that if Cullen, Moriarty, Duggan & Co., were not graduates of the English-paid college, they are its devoted patrons, and have imbibed its evil spirit to an extent that their betrayed people and ruined country will long remember. While, if such true pa triots as Kenyon and Vaughan had the misfortune to study within its unsanctified walls, they have had the truth and manliness to trample its accursed obligations under their feet. The Reverend gentleman would have the world believe that, as regards the nature of the Maynooth Oath, it is not “precisely as we have given it.” This, of course, results from our “ ignorance.” We require a little of the light that shines from British gold to illuminate us. Is he aware that we have in our possession Sir Robert Peel’s “ Maynooth Act,” and that we can quote, as we have quoted, from the schedule of that Act, the oath in question, word for word? Perhaps he would like a little more information on the subject. If he does, he can have it. But why enlarge ? Has he not confessed all and everything we have asserted? “The words which I heard,” he declares, “ were most insulting, and too humil iating for any young Irishman to listen to unmoved.” This is pretty well from a man who is so wrathful at us for exposing an iniquitous oath, which he tells us he “ avoided taking.” We respect him for it. But why call himself “ a traitor,” when he honestly refused to swear the traitor’s oath, or to do his accursed work ? He proceeds to define those things to which the afore said oath really binds those who take it—first and fore most, “ to bear true allegiance to the English Queen and her successors ”—next, to “ endeavor to put down cdl secret societies ”—and lastly, “ not to endeavor to subvert the Protestant religion”—by “force of arms,” as he afterwards explains. Here is what a Catholic priest, who studied at May nooth, declares is the true nature of the Maynooth Oath. We commend it to the careful study of all true Irish Catholics. His defense of Irish Catholic clergymen swearing allegiance to the English sovereign is, that all persous who accept office under the crown have to take such an oath—judges, sheriffs, magistrates, etc. If the English Queen was head of the Catholic Church, as she would like to be, the argument would hold good. But as she is not, and will never be, it is simply solemn trifling. As to O’Connell, and other “ numbers of the Saxon Parleymint,” when they swore allegiance to a foreign sovereign, they did what no true Irish nationalist can honestly do. Let Irishmen be true either to their own country or to England, either to God or Belial. The consistent nationalist can be the one. The swearer of English oaths of allegiance ought to be the other. And to tell the truth, they generally are so. Although it is quite true that several noble-minded priests joined in the movement for Tenant-Right, and that some of them suffered as well as struggled in a boot less effort to obtain it; still, it is equally true that, if Lucas was crushed and Tenant-Right denied, it was Cullenite influence that did it all. rlhis, too, can in no small degree be traced to the workings of Maynooth. As to the manner in which the Maynooth men acted towards the Fenians, all that is too well known to need repetition here. The Organization was established in defiance of their denunciations. And what they did to deter and to defeat it is sufficiently evident from the fierce philippics of Cullen and Moriarty, and from the openly paraded thanks which Disreali addressed to the Irish Catholic clergy from the English House of Com mons. In fact, many of them did far more than the Irish police to suppress the rebellion; and there can be little doubt they will be eventually as well rewarded. To all which we are compelled to add, that, when the reverend writer asserts that the Dublin Irish People newspaper was the first to attack the clergy, he must know well, as every one acquainted with Ireland knows, that such was not the fact. The policy and duty of the People, and of the great national party connected with it, were to let the clergy alone. And they did, till they were denounced from thousands of altars, and in endless pastorals, as “ infidels,” just as we are to-day. Then they were obliged, in the interest of truth and justice, and for the rescue of their wronged and ruined country, to defend themselves. In doing this they declared the true sphere of the religious minister, and taught a not alto gether unheeding people, that when he forsakes his proper calling, he is no longer to be revered as serving God, but often to be resisted as a doer of the work of a very different master. This insolent cant about “ infidelity ” is a cowardly calumny. We dare our accusers to the proof. Let them point out, in the pages of The Irish Republic, a single sentiment, or even a line, that is not friendly to true religion and pure morality, and we are ready to apologize for it. But till they do, we will brand every such accuser, whether lay or clerical, as either “ the lover or the maker” of a lie. We repeat what we said respecting the confessional. It teas the design of England to open it by this infernal oath. That she has, in an overwhelming majority of instances, disgracefully failed in the unholy attempt we rejoice to know is true. And yet we have seen, what we never expected to witness, a Catholic archbishop publicly denouncing secret societies in his pastorals, and thereby acting as a sort of felon-setter, indicating to the English Government where it would be likely to find its jirey. Where did he get the information of which he made such an evil use ? We could say more—as our information on the subject is painfully extensive—but for the present we refrain. If it will give comfort to our reverend correspondent to know, we beg to assure him that the author of the article, in the Republic of the 24th August, is a Catholic gentleman. He is so by birth, by education, and by profession—by descent and connection ; and such he purposes, despite the swearers of Maynooth, stead fastly to continue. And, further, we have the pleasure of informing our clerical censor, that of the seven Directors of the Company by which this paper is pub lished, only one is a Protestant. They are sworn, it appears, “ not to subvert the Pro testant Church in Ireland by force of arms” And the practical interpretation which they have been putting on this rather liberal construction of a very stringent oath is, to prevent everybody else from attacking or remov ing that hideous usurpation by force of arms. Verily, they are doing England’s work ■well. Here this controversy closes. Driven to it by the most shameful persecution, we have been forced to reveal the atrocious covenant called “ the Maynooth Oath,” between mercenary priests and English tyrants. We have listened at length to this chosen champion in their defense, and found his best arguments a mere tissue of the most contemptible sophistry, which crumbles to dust at the honest touch of truth. Of such apologies for the betrayal and murder of a trusting people we can insert no more. Our columus are intended to inculcate the high and holy principles of universal and everlasting liberty. For Impartial Suffrage—Yes. The leopard may change his spots, hut man must hold on to his darling prejudices. It seems to be contrary to human nature to throw off its narrow bigotry, and array itself in the heavenly robes of liberality. Eighteen hundred years ago, from the cross on Calvary, Christ forgave his crucifiers. Heaven forgave, but man did not; and Christians, for eighteen hundred years, have been violating the command of their Master by persecut ing the Jewish people. “Vengeance is mine,” saith the Lord. This would not do for men, and they, too, must have vengeance. This is but one of the many cases where humanity has persisted in having its vic tims. It seems to be as requisite for men to drive their chariots over the crushed hearts of some of their unfor tunate fellow-men as to inhale vital air. The freest peo ple on earth have their prejudices and illiberalisms, and always find it impossible to see the motes in their own