Newspaper Page Text
a (3K?) 'x .x E
IS AMERICA BECC
$y rDoctor Juan
PABT 11.
llad I to give au answer to this pregnant question
only by consulting my personal feelings and
experiences, 1 would express myself as the most
pessimistic man that ever lived in America.
Perhaps few, if any, have suffered more on account
of Roman Catholic iniluence and perhaps
few, if any, have experienced so many times
Roman Catholic power and Protestant indiffer
ence, yea neglect, as the writer of these articles.
Nevertheless in spite of my own personal feelings
and in view of many facts, and some knowledge
of American civilization, I am profoundly convinced
that a bright and hopeful future awaits
Protestantism in America, provided Protestants
speak lovingly, plainly and consistently the truth
to the American people, and that a dark and uncertain
doom awaits Romanism.
I have indulged in some personal allusions at
the beginning of this article because it may be
that more than one of my readers thought me too
optimistic in my last article. If such were the
case, I beg to inform my readers that I never
could have reached any optimistic view of the
situation were there not convincing facts and
reasons on which to base my conclusions since
many of my own personal experiences induce me
rather to a gloomy pessimism than a bright optimism.
Let us study the Roman Catholic problem more
closely and then we may be convinced that although
all appearances seem in favor of the
nriininn nf rvrunfinf* 4-#-* 4-La ?P
v/|/?M?vu vx giuxibUig tu LUC IVUIliUU VUII1UI1C
Church a wonderful and steady growth in membership
and power, in reality, the true Romanism
has not yet advanced one step in America, has
not yet gained any hold at all on American public
opinion, yea more, the public religious conditions
are such that even native Roman Catholics
will to-day utterly reject Romanism could
they realize at once what the true Romanism is.
The Roman Catholic Church consists in a highly
centralized organization with a set of definite
doctrines and an organized hierarchy rather than
in groups of individuals. Therefore we can only
assert that Romanism advances so far as this set
of doctrines are publicly accepted and this organized
hierarchy recognized as such, otherwise we
can not correctly and truly say that Romanism,
as such, gains any real prestige, power or in
.fluence.
These Roman Catholic doctrines are of two
classes, one class is called dogma and the other
common theological truths accepted by the whole
Roman Church; both kinds of doctrines are so
essential to salvation that every one who disbelieves
or rejects any one of them is absolutely
under condemnation. The only difference between
the two lies in this: when a Catholic publicly
rejects a doctrine, so-called dogma, he becomes
ipso facto a heretic and is excommunicated;
and when a Catholic rejects a doctrine of the
second class, that is one of the common thelogical
truths, he commits indeed a mortal sin, he is undoubtedly
under condemnation, he may be excommunicated,
but he is neither a heretic nor cut off
from the visible Roman Church.
Both kinds of doctrines are set forth authoritatively
and have been catalogued officially by the
Roman Catholic Church in the famous document
or so-called Syllabus of Pius IX.
We may say without any exaggeration, but on
the contrary, with perfect accuracy and complete
soundness that the Syllabus of Pius IX is,
so to speak, the Magna Charta of the present day
Romanism, that it givas the true views, aims, purposes
of and finality to the Roman Church; that
it is, as Lteo XIII has called it, a beacon to guide
- i
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE S
MING CATHOLIC?
Ortz Gonzalezc.
Catholics in the sea of errors of the present age.
We may add that a national church or an inmdividuai
which neglects or does not accept v
fully and entirely each and all of the doctrines
or teachings of the Syllabus can not be called
a follower of the Roman Catholic Church.
Now then, in this document, which will be
taken up later more in detail, are condemned, as
dangerous errors, all the principles which rule
the civilized nations of the world to-day and
under this general condemnation are the Ameri
can Constitution and American ideals.
This document condemns, as heresy, religious
freedom and ireedoin of the press. It reproves
as dangerous doctrine the separation of Church
and State; it proclaims that kings and presidents
and all rulers must be servants of the
church rather than of the people, even as public
oltieers. It teaches that all schools and universities
must submit to the control of the church,
etc.
nave any of my readers ever heard through
tnc puoxic pi ess any Catholic bishop, arcUbishop,
or caidinai advocating in America such doctrines/
Would the public press which praises
so much the lioman Catholic Church and which
is so eager to accept the opinions of the lioman
CaUionc hierarchy endorse or propagate any of
tne doctrines mentioned above and which are the
essence and kernel of the liomanism of today 1
1 may be mistaken. I may have overlooked the
public press, though 1 am paymg to it a constant
attention, but 1 assert that so iar as my knowledge
goes there is no instance, there is no case
according to which I ever have seen any Catholic
dignitary telling honestly the truth about
Komanisin through the public press; on the contrary,
bishops, archbishops and cardinals speak
in America more like Protestants than Catholics,
'iliey speak of religious freedom, they speak of
separation of Church and State; they speak of
their loyalty to and love for the American Constitution,
etc., but 1 repeat 1 never met with any
Latholic dignitary either brave enough or honest
enough to state publicly the real doctrines and
aims of Romanism.
1 said in the iirst part of this article that a
foreigher reading the public press will believe
that America is a Catholic country; but were
the foreigner a Roman Catholic theologian never
will he recognize in the Catholicism of the public
press the real and true Romanism. Lie will see
that some of the utterances of Archbishnn Irp
laiin or Cardinal Gibbons are more in accordance
with Protestantism than with Romanism.
Let us examine three very significant instances:
The article of Cardinal Gibbons in the
North American Review, March, 1909, answering
the Protestant Ministers' Association of New
York; the speech of Cardinal Gibbons at his
Jubilee last October in the presence of Taft,
Roosevelt and several hundred of leading Americans,
and Cardinal Gibbons' interview as it was
published in the Outlook last November. The
main bearing of the article in the North American
Review is that. Amopionn P.atVuUS/ic
-- *vv??? VULUUIIV/O ICJUitC 1L1
the separation of Church and State and that they
are more tolerant and liberal than Protestants
were in the past and are in the present. There
are beautiful expressions in that article, like these:
"They (American Catholics) love their country
with the spontaneous and ardent love of all patriots,
because it is their country and the source
to them of untold blessings. They prefer its form
of government before any other. They admire
its institutions and the spirit of its laws. They
accept the Constitution without reserve, with no
deaire, ns Catholic*, to sec it changed in any
O U t H [ February 28, 1912
lea Lure. Tiiejr tan with a clear consaian? swear
lo uphold it.
'ilia main bearing of his speach at the Jubilee
was also love for the country, loyalty to the Constitution.
But the most siguincant instance is
the view expressed in the Outlook last .November:
"The Almighty has appointed the charge
of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical
and the civil; the one being set over
divine, and the other human, things
neither obeys the other within the limits to which
each is restricted by its constitution."
Some of my readers may say if such is the
case about the Koman Catholic Church in the
United States, if their views are so tolerant and
liberal and so submissive to the Constitution,
t hnfi Inf llinm ?-? -* '1 1 *" 1 1-1 - 4 - 1 1
ww ivt lugm gu auu ici us uui iruuuiu iu ueienu
ourselves aud our country from their attacks.
it is necessary to have been a iioman Catholic
theologian to understand iuily and to explain
satislactorily how Cardinal Gibbons could appear
in public so loyal to the Constitution, remaing
at the same time faithful to Romanism,
which condemns utterly the Constitution, and
how he could yet believe himself honest and
consistent.
11.very one not well acquainted with the Roman
cuuioiic system of mental reservations aud with
tue last documents of tne JSacred Congregations
and the last instructions given by Ceo Alii about
now a Catuolic can swear to a constitution and
nevertheless reject, without saying so publicly,
what is contrary to the Churcli, can not underKtRTui
how (!?flin!ioc n a ri hu 1innno*
? ?v .. vuu k/W iiuuvob UliU LUiWmtUt
when they uphold by oath two exactly opposite
systems oi" doctrmes, but I can explain it, certainly
not according to the plain honesty and
truthfulness of Protestantism, but according to
the sinuous system of ethics of the lioman Catholic
Church.
Keserving for another article a fuller exposition
of this subject, let me illustrate the point
in question by taking as an example the last
interview with Cardinal Gibbons published in
the Outlook, which 1 have quoted above: "The
Almighty has appointed," etc.
Any one reading this quotation will readily
believe that Leo Xlil advocates both the separation
of Church and State and the independence
and sovereignty of each in its own chosen held
when in truth, in the very bull quoted by Cardinal
Gibbons the Pope advocates the union of
Church and State and the dependence and sub
ordination of the State to the Church in all
moral and mixed questions, which means almost
all kinds of questions, especially the duty of the
State to authorize no other religion in public
but the Roman Catholic, etc.
Besides that, even in case that Cardinal Gibbons
or Archbishop Ireland were entirely honest
in their utterances, not making any mental reservations
but holding to the Protestant view in
these matters, we do not advance anything at
all and the Americans and Protestants who rest
peacefully upon such declarations exhibit a very
slight knowledge of the Roman Catholic syatem.
The opinion of any bishop, or archbishop or
cardinal, and even the opinions of all the bishops,
archbishops and cardinals taken together are of
no weight whatever when They are in conflict
with the teachings of the Popes.
Every one, from the highest and most powerful
to the lowest and most humble, not only can,
V\nf mnef /IJoaKaw a1 ^
uuu uiuob uiowutj vai uiuai uiuuuus III Allicnca
if he tenches anything against the official teach
i.igs of the Church.
Let lis sum up briefly the scattered matter of
these two articles: Although the public press
and the government are very subservient to the
Roman Catholic Church, Romanism has not yet
succeeded in fastening upon public opinion any
of the fundamental doctrines Jnt the Roman