Since our article on "The Battle in Rome" was put
in type, we have seen a statement in the Tablet that the refusal of the Pope to give Monseigneur Dupanloup power to publish in Rome his reply to the Archbishop of Malines, is merely the result of a general rule against the printing and publishing of any controversial matter on either side, since the opening of the Council. The Archbishop of Malines, says the Tablet, was not himself allowed to print in Rome, and we hear it said that Dr. Manning also has been allowed to publish nothing in Rome since he went there, though the national press of each country is, of course, at the disposal of the various prelates, and none of their writings would be refused ingress into Rome. If this be so, our hypothetical complaint of unfairness in the matter falls to the ground. But what a silly rule this of silence and secresy is! Can there be too open and thorough a discussion of matters which the Roman Catholic Bishops are called upon to decide ? The monition of secresy addressed to the Council on the 14th January is asserted by the Vatican to be a mere copy of the monition addressed to the Council of Trent not to let the subjects discussed leak out till the decrees agreed upon had been promulgated in open session. However, the new monition does add thus much to the monition of the Council of Trent, that the Pope's precept to keep the dis- CUS8i0118 secret cannot be transgressed by any one "sine gravis culpae reatu," without being "chargeable with a grave fault" (not "mortal sin," as has been asserted). All this secrecy, however, whether countenanced by the Council of Trent or not, is very foolish, and the Cause of all the inventions so readily believed. Can't the Pope manage to rid himself of the idea that all novelty and news, even if true and authentic, is of the nature of con- cupiscence and sin ?
Previous page
