THE IRISH BISHOPS' SUBMISSION.
THE Irish Bishops' submission to the Pope's Rescript is as formally complete as a submission could be. They acknowledge explicitly the Pope's right to lay down the law on a subject of faith and morals. They even impress that right with a certain solemnity on the Irish people. They do not venture even to hint a doubt that in con- demning the "Plan of Campaign" and "Boycotting," the Pope exceeded the sphere of faith and morals. They claim, indeed, for the Pope that he did not interfere, and had no intention of interfering, in politics "as such." But they thereby leave it to be inferred that what the Papal R,escript said on the "Plan of Campaign" and " Boy- cotting," though it gravely affected the sphere of politics. did not interfere in politics "as such," but only in politics so far as morality enters into politics, as, of course, it often must. The Irish Bishops go on to maintain, what may be very true, and what is entirely irrelevant to the present question, that the Pope has signified his strong sympathy with the Nationalist movement so far as that movement can be separated from the objectionable modes of agitation which he has condemned ; and that he thinks it likely that the obedience which he exacts in regard to the disuse of such immoral instruments of agitation as the "Plan of Campaign" and "Boycotting," will react favourably on the agitation for Home-rule instead of unfavourably. We so far agree with the Pope that we are quite sure that if boycotting had been dropped when Mr. Gladstone became a Home-ruler, and if the "Plan of Campaign" had never been adopted, the prospects of Home-rule in Ireland would be far more prosperous at the present time than they actually are. We doubt, indeed, jif their cause will ever recover from the discredit in England with which the condemned methods of agitation have covered it. But whether that be so or not, is absolutely immaterial to the present issue. We can fully adopt the language of the ParrieBites with regard to the Pope's personal wishes on a purely political question. It is really a matter in which, as head of a Church, he has no right to interfere. If he sympathises with the Home-rulers, as we dare say he does, we regard his sympathy with respectful indifference. If, in fact, he does not sympathise with them, we regard his want of sympathy with respectful indifference. On a purely political question like Home-rule, the Pope is entitled to no more respect than any other foreigner of large experience and, masterly judgment. We are absolutely at one with the Parnellites in their determination not to admit the Pope's judgment on a political question as an authority at all. But that has never been the issue. The issue was, whether good Catholics are not bound to admit as final the Pope's judgment on the morality or immorality of employing particular instruments of compulsion in the attempt to force a political revolution on Ireland. Of that there can be no doubt, and the Roman Catholic Bishops not only admit but maintain it, though they do so in language as little humiliating to themselves as possible. In their last resolution, after expressing their "deep and lasting" gratitude to the National leaders,—not, of course, for originating both the "Plan of Campaign" and "Boy- cotting," which they unquestionably did, but for "the signal services which they have rendered to religion and the .country," we infer, of course, by their action in other matters,—the Bishops add : "We deem it our duty at the same time to remind them and our flocks, as we most emphatically do, that the Roman Pontiff has an in- alienable and divine right to speak with authority on all questions appertaining to faith and morals." That is a complete act of submission. If it had been possible to suggest a doubt that the adoption of the "Plan of Cam- paign" and of " Boycotting " involves no moral question at all, doubtless the Bishops would have done so. But they are well aware that the authority of Rome, according to all orthodox interpretations of the sphere of that authority, extends to the question of fact whether or not the moral course condemned has or has not been actually advocated by those whose words have been submitted to the Holy See, no less than to the question of the abstract immorality of that course. It is not open to the Bishops, and this they know very well, to declare that no such practices as the Pope condemns when he speaks of "the Plan of Cam- paign and Boycotting," have ever been recommended by the Irish leaders for the adoption of the Irish people. Indeed, Mr. O'Brien declared only the other day that he gloried in both those practices, and this in spite of the Papal condemnation of them. But it is not open to the Irish Bishops to say what Mr. O'Brien says without declaring themselves ipso facto heretics, and this they know perfectly -well. Accordingly, though they have made their submission in the language least humiliating to themselves, and have not reiterated, as they were probably expected to do, - the Pope's condemnation of the "Plan of Campaign and Boycotting" in their own words, they have said in very unmistakable language that they feel themselves bound by his condemnation, and that they shall disapprove of all those attempts to ignore and cast off the authority of the Holy See in these matters which so many of the Irish leaders are pushing forward. The Bishops must mow, in fact, side with Mr. Parnell as regards the "Plan of Campaign," though they can hardly have expressed their deep gratitude to him for his "signal services to religion and the country" without recalling that it is he, and he alone, who first struck out that formidable weapon of boy- cotting which has seared so many Irish consciences, and has now been condemned by the head of their Church as one which it is absolutely unchristian to employ. The Irish Bishops have surrendered without terms ; and if they have covered their retreat. with a great deal of artifice, from the eyes of bystanders willing to be misled, that cannot have much effect in the end. It will still be absolutely impossible for a priest to take part in a com- bination to force either the "Plan of Campaign" or "Boy- cotting," on his parish, without incurring the danger of censure from his Bishop. For the future, whatever offence is committed in these matters must be committed ty the tenants without the sanction of their priests and, against the formal will of the Church. We believe that the result must be a very great disposition to fall away from the policy of the National League, so far, at least, as it includes the use of these instruments of torture. If the legitimate agitation expands as the illegitimate col- lapses, why, so much the better for Home-rule. But as we happen to think that the legitimate agitation depends a great deal more on the illegitimate methods used to force it on, than the Irish national leaders are willing to admit, we shall be very much surprised if the disfavour into which the condemned practices are now pretty sure to fall, does not prove to be a paralysing blow to the whole agitation.
Previous page
