AMERICAN
I
SHIM llMft.
Voi.tMft HI,
OMAHA, NKtlKAHKA, KlillUY, MAI; II 31, ivvl.
THE
FOR THE EDIFICATION
Of ht ml! rrifi of Si Pr.
mhkt FpUcer-al Church.
Ar lHt ftm Historical faclt L'l
tMor h Reading Public t
Thu Timt mul in
This VYar,
Kv. Williams' comments on our
article of IVb. 24th, appear on the
second mgi i thin litie. It 1 fimply
dchif o i f word. It contain not, a
M'intilla of evidence, not a verified fact
in oiMilion to what wo advocate.
It Is filled with assertions, denials and
charges, Mich ax any school Imy could
jumble together, Incapable of nif.
notoriously untrue, and absolutely mi
loading. Denuded of all its sophistry
I lev. Williams' article stands forth as
the most amusing screed which ever
onn tinted in a so-called Protestant brain.
It certainly was not written in what we
term calm and sober moments hut
when his Catholic blood was at fever
heat.
But, before we go into a discussion of
Rev. Williams' article wo desire to call
the readers' attention to one prom
inent thing in his little tut per. In
the first column, on the first page, in
what printers term the staff, set in
nonpareil type, it is solemnly affirmed
that the "Messenger is a parish paper
with a Catholic purpose." We suggest
that he change that line and make it
read "The Messenger is a parish paper
with a Roman Catholic purpose. " After
reading his article wh ;h appears on
the second page all will agree that
the suggestion is timely.
In the third paragraph of his effusion
Rev. Williams' says: "THE Ameiji
CAN politely but firmly declares of us
that we are "a Jesuit in the garb of a
Protestant minister." Rev. Williams
was not mistaken when he penned those
words ho simply, deliberately, stated
an untruth. But that seems to be his
strong point in writing. In a former
issue of his paper he put words in our
mouth that were never there, and
shows ' the animus which ' prompted
their use by saying in the last issue
that it is "truo The American tries to
crawfish." No man has yet seen an
item in these columns that justifies
Rev. Williams or any other man in the
assertion that we "tried to crawfish."
Ve understand the English language
and a man, "though a fool," can under
stand what we write. If wo make a
mistake we correct it, believing a man
can afford to treat his opponents with
courtesy and fairness. And that is
what Rev. Williams will get when we
deal with him whether he accords us
the same treatment or not.
We do not object to Rov. Williams
wearing any shoo that fits him, but ho
must not say, in the hope of creating
sympathy for his cause, that we have
said something which we have not.
lie must be honest.
In the fourth paragraph ho says
"For whatever sins may bo laid at the
door of the Jesuits, no one can justly
charge them with moral cowardice, or
with the infamy of warring upon wo
men, as is the case with those "Ameri
can patriots" who are represented by
such sheets as The American." What
holy men they are who rob a destitute
widow of her last dollar through the
plea that the soul of her dear departed
la suffering the torments of the damned
in purgatory! What honest men who
' will forge correspondence between
parent and child in order that the latter
may bo Induced to sign away his In
heritance for the benefit of the church!
(llaffulle Ciocci Narrative pages 39 to 41.)
What truthful men who will tell an
untruth and confirm it with nn oath!
(Father Garnet connected with the Gun
powder Plot in England.) It is these
beasts who believe "faith is not to bo
kept with heretics," except in cases of
"ecclesiastical utility;" who believe the
Machiavellian policy "the end justifies
the means," who believe the highest
notch in christian perfection is
attained when they become in the
hands of their superior aB the "clay in
the hands of the potter, as a corpse, or
as a rod in the hands of an enfeebled,
old man," (page 3030 of the Encyclo
paedia Brltannica,) or when they subju
gate independence and take pride in
learning to OBEY. It is these crea
tures, these slimy, crawling, creeping
things, who teach that you must do
wrong if your superior declares it
right, (page 3030 of Encyclopaedia Brit
annic;) for "ecclesiastical utility,"
whom Father Williams would choose
for associates in preference to members
of patriotic organizations. It is these
men, whoso chief justifies the commis
sion of any or every crime for the fur
therance of Jesuit schemes, whom Rev.
Williams would choose for companions
In preference to an A. P. A. And it is
,.f It,..- it. t;tn It.. tti-.l
IW tnf, Hit r'' l Ji 1.1 t'l
I mj ',(1 y I.ie.n5," tiini
j t tv t. t iit v lv'timi i'V, twthr
t.ntii;n r rvitiiu', u niteMi !
te it Pnttint ami join any "ii t.ot.ti t
ihnr h, fur thi Mike of acting mrv
ffi'tnilv to itmb-rmine I rnlMtUm
mil) le t l. ml hf power of the pa-y
TheC l the 1I gtinittd to U-lU'Vf O.nt
thu liiw !' done in the KnglUb. Pro-
t.-stjint i liuivh on gnut ncale." It i
thin cl whom Knitter Witiinmn would
nuft In common ground, to nnh o
commend.
In the next loumJrMph he mvi "our
itiifitlon if Mmi'lv Unit of clitlMiati
iimiihtiod:" My tihl! Whither hrn
chrUtiiuiiiy drifted? What plane liao
mmihood reached? When a man w ho
claim to U a Protectant Divine tua
liens, cetmures and condcmnti a vant
army of christian men ministers and
laymen in order to cool his indignant
Roman Cuthollc Hood? Surely these
are those latter days when the man of
sin stands revealed and the end of time
haM come.
He contin.'s: For every purMse
of this delmto wo stand simply as a man
and as a christian, utterly laying asid
for the time every contention that may
exist between Canterbury and Rome,
just as wo would lay aside every con
tention that might exist between Can'
terbury and Geneva, if it were the
Presbyterian church that was attacked
by such anti-chrintian defamation as
that with which The American as
sails Roman Catholics week after
week." Show your readers one case
where we have defamed Roman Catho
lics and we will apologize to them
You term this a debate," then cite
your authorities, produce your defamu
tion; let us not deifr in assertions- but
facts. ' ' , V ' .
Nothing is to be gained by general
denials, by indiscriminate charges or
inuendoes. "
This age is filled with reading, think
ing, men and women, capable of judg
ing between the merits and demerits of
what we may write, and as they are our
audience let us be candid." 'When and in
what way have we defamed - Roman
Catholics? .I'm
But it is the next sentence where the
Roman Catholic blood crops out in Rev.
Williams' article. In it we find a posi
tive renunciation of not only the claims
of his own church but of every other
Protestant church so far as it and they
claim to bo truo churches of God. Hear
him: "Wo are not in position to speak
for the Roman Catholic church as an
ecclesiastical organization whoso dom
inating head sits enthroned at Rome,
supreme by Divine riijht, orcr all chris
tian and over all earthly powers."
The next paragraph contains nothing
deserving of notice being composed of
thirteen lines of senseless drivel. But
in the one that'follows it he reiterates
his groundless charge that The Amer
ican wnges an unmanly warfare on
christian womanhood. Slate an in
stance. Give us the date, volume and
number of the paper in which the
warfare occurs. This assertion ho
follows with another equally as
groundless and even more foolish.
He says he stands "as a chris
tian to denounce its infidel attack on
principles that are common both to
Catholic and Protestant Christianity."
If Rev. Williams tells the truth and
we presume he does since he has only
twice, in as many months, credited us
with saying things wo never uttered
one of the best little mothers who ever
raised a boy and taught him to honor,
love and revere God and His Word
must have felt greatly mortified when
she saw it in our paper. And yet,
Father Williams niiwtf bo in error. It
has been less than two weeks since a
leading Infidel was in our office, com
plaining that there was too much God
in it that thero was not a line in favor
of Free Thinkers.
Father Williams says "if Roman
Catholics are plotting, 10,000,000 of
them to destroy the civil and religious
liberty of the other 00,000,000 of us,
that should be susceptible of proof."
It is susceptible of proof. But what
will Father Williams accept as proof?
Will he accept the late display of
armed Hibernians on our streets on St.
Patrick's day? Will he accept the fact
that 500 Hibernians have lately been
admitted to the state militia of Illinois,
after drilling illegally with arras for
nearly seventeen years? Will ho ac
cept the declaration sent out from
Rome loss than two years ago with the
consent of the prisoner of the Vatican
that the pope had set aside $5,700,000
for exceptional purposes, such as
war, winch was puoiisuea in the
Omaha Daily lice of Sunday, May 24,
1891.
If he will not accept that what will
he accept?
Rov. Williams speaks of "landlord-
cursed Ireland." We move to amend,
by striking out "landlord-cursed" and
inserting in lieu thereof 'priest-ridden."
H, !r -'.! ti t lit') Oil
Oit:ii lin n tilrmi' iwil bli ttiitn
.!, t, ml !. 11 l l.tn.i 'l
t.otfu '.A . ! . 1 HiH
raitti'Mi tin' rs'iiit me ii t tin
111! of null tiH., We ivlaj
mi!r !h liupivt,n Hint Mary Hur
ruilt, Sjwr-iiUr, Atvrii, Homl.1 m.I
1'itvtie -iv It Wil mul cuti.ti'inmil to
di-Mth. hU" IjMtgtilin wni lit. iunl
Ui liupriiMioiii lit for lif at ln"d ln!r
by a lawfully com.iitut-d eouil tnartUl.
And thin U umvptlhln ui pennf. We
Itavo iMinirliow pit il Intomirlnnd that
the wm treatment wan aiwrdiMl to
Guitau an to HiiithU i t a!., but accord
lujf to 11, v. William, n nuixt W Itopo
lcsly Ignorant of American lilMory.
Hut, Mich Is our worthy opponent's
argument. So subtle, mt convincing
and at times no oarcaM ic.
"Hut Roman Catholic arc aiming to
bring America Into spiritual subjuga
tion to the bixhop of Rome!" ho con
tinues. That does not concern the A.
P. A. or the Orangemen. They care
not how, when or whero a man wor
ships God. So far as they are con
cerned thero w ill 1h no object ion raised
to spiritual Rome. There will Iw ob
jections raised however to political
Rome and that is what we arc bound
together to defeat. No man who be
lieves the pope of Rome can absolve
him from his oath of allegiance to this
country ith'ould lie invested with citi
zenship much less bo qualified to hold
office. Probably you will say that the
church does not teach that pernicious
doctrine, and if you do wo can get
the proofs to back up our chargo
that that is a tenet of the Roman
Catholic church. (Soe page 3"2, vol.
Tll, Jiyiwr't Ardent. )
v. After considerable gush about the
Jesuits, and a few concealed flings at
the Orangemen, ho says if Bishop
Seannell will permit, ho will stand in
the place (probably meaning his place)
and answer The American's question
He takes up the first one, "does not the
Roman Catholic church hold that all
persons married outside tho iniliionco
of said church those married by min
isters of other denominations and by
civil olllcerV are not legally married?"
IlQ,answefs-.poHlHly no, and follows
it "with' a" wWV-cto.,' attempting to
justify One wrong by another. We say
that is a doctrine of the infallible church.
It was declared by Pius VII. in 1808,
(Quarterly Register, Vol. III.', page 8!),
quoted by Rev. J. G. White on page 13
of his tract "Facts for tho People") and
reaffirmed by Pius IX. in 1855, Vatican
Documents No. 51, in his allocution as
to the government of Sardinia.
To the second question, "Does it not
hold that tho wives of all men so mar
ried are concubines and their children
"illigitimates?" he also says "no," nnd
goes on with his attempt to justify one
wrong by another. Wo answer, tho
Roman Catholic church dors teach that
very thing, and refer you to tho above
mentioned allocution of Pius IX.
He asks that the question "Do you
not believe and tench that tho pope
has power to absolve from all sins, and
from oaths of allegiance?" bo divided,
and makes answer as follows:
When penitence intervenes between
tho sinner and his sin the Roman
church teaches that tho jmijhj can ab
solve from all sins. Otherwise God
Himself cannot absolve from sin, for it
would be contrary to Ills justice and
nature to do it.
lie follows this with a declaration aH
to what tho "ministerial attache of
The American would do in similar
cases, about which ho Is about as com
petent a judge as ho Is a defender of
the papacy.
To tho second section of tho sentence
ho says: "Ah to absolving subjects
from their allegleneo, tho power to do
that used to bo asserted by tho Kpo8."
We will call to mind inconnectlon with
this admission, without quoting his
justification of ono wrong by tho cita
tion of another, by saying that the
Roman Catholic church is unchange
able; that "what tho church has done,
what she has expressly or tacitly ap
proved in tho past that is exactly
what she will do, expressly or tacitly
approve in the future, If the same cir
cumstances occur." (Orestes A. Brown
son in his Roman Catholic Quarterly
Iteview.) Brownson was tho foremost
Catholic writer in this country and his
words should re-echo through the
Plicart of every true patriot, and put to
shame such Protestttnt defenders of tho
papacy as Rov. John Williams of St.
Barnabas Episcopal church of this city.
And that expression by Brownson is
not so old, but what Rev. John Wil
liams could have read it the day it was
Issued had he been fortunate enough
to have secured a copy of the Ikview.
And, if we must admit it, we believe
Brownson is a better authority on
Roman dogma than Rev. John Wil
liams can ever hojie to bo--as ho had
the endorsement of the American papal
bishops in 1854, and published, accord
ing to his own words, only such articles
as they approved.
I; I 'ilKantk, (.11. mi!Ui all
v.til Oi liivlc nyn
And ft ! llh ltitftti lliolt .
Harn lite )'tl i't'j.u ii I'M
AMlHti N ltl, ) tlol In !(.'
ttit a t ttie i nt limn,!. ct i n-
aiv.n fSHil,! m i niftln tin m tt u r
nirn'iiM aUiinttcv .i t,o,in Mif i.
Mit mi n.nnl.m to iiduii fn-n
tlnir in champion' Tito lrlh !
lojul lo thi ir ow n oxer Ut? TmtUn
to tin ir qvinh I Yt ifinU!
What iicut fluty ei-t II It l
humlliitling to lime tin Oinnonmti
i(h-toti their loyally, how cnifltlng
then tlui IkMimny n( mii h n chtimcterl
a lion by a mtiiHi a champion. If you
iea4.
To the ipimtttoti, "ii you not lu'lleve
and leach that all w ho die without em
bracing that religion are damned, and
that the all go to hell?" he fay a "no"
with another justification. Wo any
"Yen" Ui that question, and you can
find tho evidence In "Familiar Kxplatm
tioim of Catholic Doctrine," n Romitn
(.Ntholic work edited by Rov. M. Mul
Icr, printed by Hen.lger Bros, in JHMS,
liearlng the imprimatur of Cardinal
Gtblxins and strongly endorsed by many
Roman prelates. Your attention is
also called to the following, taken from
"Familiar Explanations of Christian
Doctrine," Lesson xli:
Question. Sineo tho Roman Catho
lic church alono is the true church of
Jesus can anyone who dies outsldo of
the church bo saved?
Answer Re cannot.
Question. What do tho fathers of
the church say about tho salvation of
those who die out of tho Roman Catho
lic church?
Answer They all, without excep
tion, pronounce them infallibly lost for
ever. "Is It not a fact that your church is
seeking to destroy tho efficiency of tho
public schools?" Is the next question
which Father Williams answers in
"his own way." Just what he intends
to say is not quite clear, lie may mean
to convey tho Idea tha t tlioy arc not
making such an attempt, or ho may
mean to admit that they are. True it
is, he says, after getting his second
wind, that Roman Catholics are asking
for a division of tho school fund. Ho
Bio declares that they violate no law
in making this request, and asks If it Is
wrong to levy a tax for tho support
of religion, why is it any less a wrong
to levy a tax to support a system of
education that is confessedly opposed
to tho interests of their religion? The
premises from which Rev. Williams
argues in this instance aro manifestly
absurd, and wholly wrong. He mis
understands why Rome opposes tho
public schools. It Is not because tho
spiritual end of the corporation will
Buffer for whatever of good thero is in
it that cannot bo hurt by tho most im
partial or indiscriminate study. Tho
objection is made because political
Rome will suffer. It Is political Romo
not religious Rome which seeks tho
destruction of tho public school system.
That this is so oven Father Williams
will not attempt to deny.
"Why, then, should it bo a crlrno In
Roman Catholics to claim tho right to
educate their own children in their
own faith, and to bo exempt from taxa
tion for tho support of Protestant child
ren?" ho continues. This question Is
not ambiguous, but it is calculated to
place Romanism and Protestantism In
a false light in their relations to each
other, and we believe it is done Inten
tionally. In tho first place, no objection
will bo made to Roman Catholics edu
cating their children in their own
private schools as far as that education
relates to faith, but the government
has the right to say what amount of
education shall bo required of each of
its citizens, and if the education ac
quired by attending thoMo same private
schools is ltelow tho standard sot by the
law-makors of this country, every citi
zen has a perfect right to object. They
havo a perfect right to demand a halt,
and as tho average intelligence In tho
Roman Catholic church in these United
States is far below tho minimum at the
present time, it would not bo putting
it too strong to say, "educate your
children or we will educate them for
you." In tho second place, even though
they do pay taxes and refuse to send
their children to tho public schools,
thoy aro not contributing to tho sup
port of Protestant children, as tho
Roman Catholic church has billions of
dollars worth of unimproved, untaxed
property which should lie uon tho
assessment rolls, tho revenue from
which would more than off-sot what
little papists contribute for the support
of tho public schools. This Is susceptible
of proof.
The next question, "when was the
edict of Pius VII. rescinded, which
branded the wives of all Protestants as
concubines and their children as illigi
timates," is answered in Father Wil
liams' "own way," namely, a justifica
tion of ono wrong by another. He says:
"Popes rarely rescind their own, or
limit pcii, .-!V rdli't. !tti'i;li
t!u j itn time do, 1ml Mo V If-fjiH iii'y
ptniiil Ibitti to ! In in 'IninnHMn
,1. ..i. in.t, ' l, il,,i , ),tif of I dm
Still i itvnnn.1ttiv " "ItlHOI'lllliti llllHI.
tii.l. " n net j,'!! II li tmd wild lln y
fiviM til!) Midi lln'lll In lH Into
ileciti tu.l.i hit KtiiMt aoitlil liaic In n
jut fm jmiv, II rmt tulti a trill',
A we mi U-fure Mtfd, Ihn rilicl
of 1'iun VII m tvatlititml li.V Plus
IX. la 1 V. whli h idton the IllH limitfe
iitilihiia uf tl,o Human cot'imratiort, and
hi ill),'" out III bold relief the Word of
tli. !,. A. HrownwMi which wo ImVe
quoted bIkivc. v, WIllinitiK know
tlm IxuikI of the I tumuli liitiivh-that
oho mil r changea flin l '! f riiift tit.
This tut, unclirUtian and unmanly
e)iarae,irliitioii of the wive atiit child
ren of At. I, Proli'stantscan lie condoned
and explained away by Roman sympath
izers w hoitro proud of the fact that they
havo Koimiii Catholic blood In their
veins, but how heinous tho crlmo If a
ProtcNtunt asks "Do not priests ask of
females in the confesHlonal obscene and
Immoral questions?" If this Is not
Jesuitism what Is It? If this Is not
attempting to tear down Protestantism
and itp-build popery on its rums wo
cannot read or understand tho English
language. Out upon such Protestant
ism! It deserves moro pity than con
tempt for its ignorance, so thinly
veiled by pretensions to much learning.
To tho next question Father Wil
liams returns a squaro-tood answer.
"Priests often havo men and women
confess to tlmm that thoy have perpe
trated serious crimes." Ho also admits
that they allow such criminals to do
part without offering to turn them over
to a policeman. As with other wrongs
committed by Romo ho Justifies their
action by saying lawyers and doctors do
exactly tho same thing that all aro
protected by law.
To tho next question, "aro not tho
Jesuits today exactly what they always
have been tho worst enemies of tho
governments which harbor them?" ho
"presumes" they aro today what thoy
always havo been, and, after throwing
In ono of hit sarcastlc(?) assertions
parenthetically, declares that ho
"would give the palm, In that respect,
to men who flaunt tholr orange banner
in this froo land." How ho hates tho
orange! But It's that Roman Catholic
blood that national trait which will
not down. Why, Rev. Williams, is it
worse to flaunt tho orange in this free
country than It is to flaunt tho green?
Is an Orangeman a greater bigot than
a Hibernian? Is It more a crime for us
to assail Romanism than for you to
assail Orangoism or A. P. A. Ism by
Inuendo?
By what process of reasoning do you
arrive at tho conclusion that a Roman
Catholic, who has committed tho most
atrocious crimes, and has been hanged,
goes straight to tho bosom of Christ,
while Abraham Lincoln, who was mur
dered by a I Ionian Catholic, goes to
hell, and suffers unspeakable agony
while time endures?
Rev, Williams in answer to this
question says It Is authoritatively
denied that Booth was a Roman Catho
lic. By whoso authority? By that of
tho Roman Catholic church? Edwin
A. Sherman, who took occasion to look
this matter up, says Booth was a Ro
manist; so does Gen. T. M. Harris, one
of the memlters of tho court martial
who tried Surratt, Payne, ct al., as
does Rev. Chas. Chinlquy, and as do
men who live In Omaha today, who knew
Booth, Surratt, Pay no and Atzerodt.
Will Rov, Williams glvo us just ono
authority in support of his many asser
tions? Ho says Booth's crlmo was com
mitted by political feeling and not by
religious conspiracy. And wo desire
again to Inform Rev, Williams that
that (tho political end) is what wo aro
opposed to in Romanism. Wo care not
ono iota how a man worships God. If
ho does not believe as we bollovo It
will not effect our standing when we
appear beforo that "last, supreme judge
God who will render to each man
according to his works," Rev, Wil
liams in the next paragraph says:
Bishop Seannell arrives at no such
conclusion as that propounded by THE
American. Ho does not believe that
a Roman Catholic convicted of, and
hung for atrocious crimes goes straight
to tho bosom of Christ; neither does he
teach that Abraham Lincoln went
straight or at all to hell, or that ho
suffers, or will suffer unshakable
agonies while time endures. That Is
intended to bo another clever question
to fire the American heart, but it is
Intrn of utter ignorance of what the
Roman church dm'B teach, either as to
bad Catholics or to good Protestants.
So you say. But we have long lx
foro this proved you as ignorant of
Roman dogma as you aro of the Intents
and purposes of the A. P. A. and the
Orange associations, and shall now prove
that you do not know what you aro
talking about when you mako that
assertion. Tho Roman Catholic church
does not distinguish any difference
betwocn good and bad Protestants.
There is but ono class according to
its dogma the class that is born to be
damned. Neither does it recognize
d il,lil llifti i !' I liin Hum,
Ixtihe a HMtt lh-Ititttmt! t loot h - II,. y
all t'tt HkhUv ti aclt li'n n, ti II il
t tint tihl ii ll.ilr tilmlim I. mil i i l
lit. Ir U-l tjol'nr fn (' U ,
Milium lm Ictitf mmim l f,vt IliU
community ,j-y lest ted tunii
t limw optftl.tM nil i(iii Ml. iti mul. r itU-cim-li'M
, iii.v.uy fuf llietr RhSl
ami )ilil.n Imi j ' m lt, tin h lm! If
1!hi former iiplnliuitk bale ! a tut
rvltahtii an tlniftc hn m ixptvM t In
I bin article, IhU community ban Ui'tt
sadly lttiHHd iihiii, f Fnibt-r WH
Haiti wlrt ct fi r lo a nUmlioil Itiminn
Cat hoi hi wink referred to ele hem
In this article, iiiiuiely, "Familiar Ex
planation of Catholic ii hi tines," ho
will find, on page l.'it tlitn declaration:
"7b fw sipiirtiffil front Ihr ttt'inr nulhnr
ity of the, tepr, is to lie )arnUit from
1mI, iitiif fit nor nn pfftfc in thr I tiiiifiatl
oOirM." If Kev. Williams dis s not
have Hint Utile hook in his library, lie
can liiul the same words quoted on page
Hi of "Our Country," by Rev. .loslah
Strong, 1). D. In Ihn same Catholic
Isstk, on page 101, he will II ml that It
Is held that "all those, w ho wished lo
bo saved, must die united to tho Catho
lic church; for out of her there is no sal
ni Vm," lie will also find it Is taught
"that anyone ttoparated from her (the
church) however praiseworthy a life he
may think he leads, by this crime alono
lo., by his separation from I ho unity of
Christ, ho will Is; debarred from
life eternal, and tho wrath of God will
remain upon him," (Appendix page I).)
By a reference to the allocution of
Plus IX., December 17, 1817, ho will
find this doctrine is sustained by tho
pope, for ho says: "Quite recently
wo shudder to say It certain men havo
not hesitated to slander us by saying
that wo share in their folly, favor that
most wicked system, and think so
benevolently of every class of mankind
as to suppose that not only Vie sons of
the church, but that the rest also, however
alienated from Catholic unity, ore alike
in the way of salvation, and may arrive
at rverhisliwj life. Wo sro at a loss,
from horror, to find words to express
our detestation of this new and atlrO'
cious injustice that is done, us." And so
wo might continue quoting page after
pti(;u of Rminin ttoirtrlnn which does not (
sustain what Rev, Williams has said,
but what would bo the use?
Were wo an older man than Rov,
Williams, wo should advlso him to
read, to study, and not write concern
ing something his words prove ho
knows nothing whatever about, or else
that ho wilfully misrepresent tho caso
to his readers, but as wo urn not ono
half as old as tho priest of St, Barnabas
wo shall not design to advlso our
seniors.
Itev. Williams believes Peter Dens'
theology Is a standard work In tho
Roman church. Of It ho says:
Answer. Peter Dens' moral theology
Is published In thu Latin tongue. It Is
Intended only for priests, and for tho
uk of students In moral theology, In
preparation for the priesthood. A
ttook dealing with tho sacred functions
of life, or with the transgression of
their rightful laws Is to bo considered
obscene or otherwise according to tho
moral purjtown of the writer, and the
use to which tho writer Intend to have
his book nit,
Ho then take up tho "Kreutzer
Sonata" which was excluded from the
malison account of Its alleged obscenity,
and says: "It was not an obscene book,
for It earno from tho heart of Its author
with a high moral purpose. If It were
written by Zola It would doubtless 1sj
obscene. Tho motive makes the differ
ence," Ho then accuses Itev, J, O.
White by Inuendo with having trans
lated Dens' work Into two tongues in
common use, and with having scattered
It broadcast with malignant or mercen
ary motives. It must seem a little
strange to some of our readers, that
this samo minister, Itev, Williams, can
see tho purity of purpose In Tolstl's
heart as ho writes and publishes a book
which the Histnl authorities say Is
otiscene, and a moment litter can look
Into Rev, J. G. White's heart and soe
tho damnable guilt, the mercenary
motive which prompted him to try and
open tho eyes of true and honest Roman
Catholics to tho danger In which they
were placing their families through
that damnable Institution, tho confes
sional! And now, to show you in a
small way, what may lm exacted from
tho Influence of that unholy institution,
we quote from Rev. Ed ward Hoochor's
"Papal Conspiracy Exposed," page 178,
as follows:
"It is because tho confessional has
become the soul trap of Satan and tho
well of all spiritual polutions that tho
popular mind has revolted from tho
system throughout Germany, and will
revolt from It, finally, everywhere."
On page 170 of the samo work tho
author asks, "What, then, does Bishop
Kcnrlck say as it regards tho uso of
tho confessional as a means of priestly
seduction?" and answers it In tho next
sentence as follows: "Ho confesses, in
express terms, that It has been so
C'ontliiui'd on Fourth t'uife.
