Newspaper Page Text
March 20, 1912 J T H E P
NEW LIGHT ON AN ACCEPTED FABLE;
OR, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA.
PART II.
HY REV. JUAN ORTS GONZALEZ, D. D.
1 was greatly amazed to hear time and again,
when I first came to America, about four years
ago, that Catholics were the first to proclaim in
this fair land both religious and political freedom,
and that they accomplished this great
achievement just at tho very time when Puritans
and Episcopalians were engaged in both political
and religious persecution. Then I was a Catholic
living among Catholics and I received very cautiously
this legend. I was and am very well
aware of how easily my former brethren can
fabricate "False Decretals." invent miracles.
and alter history, but my amazement was greatly
increased when after becoming a Protestant I
found out that Americans as a whole accept, as a
matter of fact, the statement that in Maryland
religious and political freedom was brought by
Catholics as suck and through Catholic influence
and Catholic government as such. My astonishment
reached its climax when about two years
ago Cardinal Gibbons protested against the project
of erecting a monument as a memorial of
religious freedom in Maryland, solely because the
promoters of the plan thought of giving the
principal place and the most conspicuous preeminence
in the monument to Calvert or Lord
Baltimore, included also a Puritan and a Cavai;?
According to the printed accounts in the
newspapers Cardinal Gibbons said something like
this: Religious freedom in Maryland was accomplished
by Catholics only and Catholics alone
ought to be in the monument. Dating from that
time it was to me the most puzzling question how
could a statement of Cardinal Gibbons be correct
and if it was not correct how could Catholics
mislead and even deceive the American nation
about this historical fact. I candidly confess
that my first attempt to find true light and reliable
information ended in complete failure.
Encyclopedias, dictionaries, reviews, magazines
and historians as a whole admit, as a matter
of fact- that verv eflrlv in ATnrvlnnrt rolicrinnc
freedom was recognized and granted by Catholics
as such, and through Catholic influence and under
a Catholic government. (?)
This is what Kearney says in his Compendium
of History: "The leading features of the policy
adopted by the founders of this colony, claim
our warmest admiration. Whilst Episcopalians
of Virginia would suffer no other form of worship
among them, except that of the Church of
England, and whilst the Puritans of New England
punished with tines, tortures and exile all
those who differed from their creed, the Roman
Catholics of Maryland, transcending the prospective
principles of the age extended their arms
and invited among them the victims of intolerance
from every clime."
Bancroft, the historian snvs- "Tta ViSotnrv
(that of Maryland) is the history of benevolence,
gratitude and toleration. The Roman Catholics
who were oppressed by the laws of England, were
sure to find a peaceful asylum in the quiet harbors
of the Chesapeake and there, too, Protestants
were sheltered from Protestant intoler
ance."
Frost, in his history of the United States,
says: "Although Sir George Calvert was a
r?
uoman Catholic, he allowed the most perfect religious
liberty to the colonists, under his charter;
and Maryland was the first State in the world in
which perfect religious freedom was enjoyed."
Notwithstanding the fact that Catholics had
seemingly the most substantial backing for their
RESBYTERIAN OF THE SC
claims; because' 1 noticed at once a lack of clearness
and accuracy in presenting the facts and in
speaking of the original documents; because 1
noticed that historians, as a whole reproduce
each other in regard to this matter, without questioning
or weighing all carefully the true value
aud historical genuineness of the original documents,
I kept alive my hope that sooner or later
I might be able to acquire fuller and more correct
and genuine knowledge of these things and
reveal to the public the real genesis and the true
historical facts of so important an affair.
I was acquainted well enough with the Roman
Catholic system and with the true history to be
convinced that such reports were not exact and
that the genuine and truly historical documents
would prove something very different. Thanks
be to God I believe that my persistency has been
rewarded. I feel able to-day to assert upon the
authority of genuine documents and truly historical
facts, and I hope to convince the most
bigoted Catholics if they will examine and ponder
the evidences that religious freedom in Maryland
instead of having been obtained solely by Catholics
as such was achieved exclusively not only
by Protestant influence, but by a large Protestant
majority against a Catholic minority which protested
and demanded of Cecil Calvert, the Second
Lord Baltimore, that the laws wherein were set
forth religious toleration should not be approved.
And my authorities are indeed of the best for
a faithful Catholic. I will quote almost exclusively
from the History of the Society of
Jesus, written by Thomas Hughes, S. J., a book
carefully revised in Rome and endorsed by the
censorship of the Pope himself, a book which contains
a great many photographic copies of the
original documents and which brings forth not
only new light on the subject, but which publishes
by hundreds hitherto unknown private
letters and gives in full the State documents in
their original language.
Il ic trno tliof fa rna/l urifK T\i*a<it 4-Isaca /Iaah
? V ??> 11 t*v? muu IV/ iv>uu nnu j/i vyui IUUOC UUV/U*
ments one needs to know not only English, but
Latin, French and Italian, since a great many
documents are reproduced in one of those languages.
It is true also that the documents are
scattered all over the book and distributed in a
way that will try the patience of the most careful
reader, but for any one who knows the languages
mentioned above and likes to make a
thorough investigation of Maryland Catholic
affairs there is no other book so illuminating, so
full of genuine documents, so crowded with historical
facts?a book which proves conclusively
that true Romanism was, in Maryland, just the
same that it has been everywhere.
I have spoken so emphatically about the book
from which I shall quote because the greatest
mistake we commit in dealing with Roman Catholic
affairs is not to quote reliable authorities.
There is no other system or Church which uses
more- successfully to their own advantage any
blunder committed in this respect than the Romish
system and the Roman Catholic Church.
If you fail once, no matter how unimportant
the statement may be, no matter how true the
facts you may relafe in other papers and how
sound your authorities in other important subjects
they will use against you your unimportant
mivtakn nnrJ imr?AJir>Vi vmi na n linn aa a nolnm.
niator and as a wholly unreliable person. I
know so well their ways and their methods that
I shall never quote except from the Bulls of the
Pope, the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation
and from books which have been endorsed either
by the Popes themselves or generally accepted by
the Roman Cathqlio Hierarchy at large.
When you gather up the different views about
the origin of religious freedom in Maryland you
notice at once that there is not perfect uniformity
among Catholic historians or among Prote?t
)UTH (366) 3
;iiit historians, though all alike will tell you that
it was to the credit ol the Catholics.
One group oi" historians will tell you that religious
ireedoiii was granted in the hrst charter
to George Calvert, the hrst Lord Baltimore.
Another group which has read the original chart
or and knows tuat there is no clause according to
which religious freedom was granted asserts that
it was granted not in the first charter, but in the
second, which was not issued until after the
death of the first Lord Baltimore and therefore
was ascribed to Cecil Calvert, the second Lord
Baltimore.
And there is yet another group which after
reading both original charters and noting that
there is found there no clause granting religious
freedom claims that religious freedom or toleration
was granted by the Assembly in 1649.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, a book not only endorsed
by the American Catholic Hierarchy, but
shares of which belong largely to Cardinal Gib
bous, Cardinal Earley, Cardinal O'Connor and
others, has to say about this matter, Vol. II.,
page 228, under the heading Baltimore: "Catholic
Maryland, the first colony in the new world
where religious toleration was established. . . .
And although granting that George Calvert and
Cecil Calvert began to plan religious freedom,
the Catholic Encyclopedia adds: "Except for
the period of Ingle's Rebellion 1645-47 its government
(that of Maryland) was controlled by
Catholics from the landing of the first colony
under Leonard Calvert 25th March, 1634, until
after 1649, when the Assetnbly passed the famous
act of religious toleration(The italics are
mine).
The Jesuit author mentioned above knows a
great deal better who voted in the Assembly of
1649 and what the true Catholics did then and
after the voting, than the writer in the Catholic
Encyclopedia. This Jesuit knows well what men
composed the Assembly of 1649 which "passed
?x ' * - '
ine iumuus aci ox religious toleration," and H(
is not in favor of granting this honor to the
Assembly. He knows better, than any other
writer I have ever encountered the whole religious
situation at that time and he is content to
hud only some germ of religious toleration and
that, he tinds in the charters and not elsewhere,
at least as a Catholic achievement. Whether in
the charters or by the acts of the Assembly, I believe
T am fair in stating that in dealing with the
origin of religious toleration in Maryland there
are but three hypotheses, no more and no less,
according to Catholic and non-Catholic historians.
Either it was granted by the first charter,
the so-called Malon Charter, or it was granted by
the second charter, the so-called Maryland
Charter or it was passed by some of the Assem
nnes oi ireeinen. My task is very definite now.
I have to produce the clauses which have a direct
bearing on religious freedom. I have to examine
when these charters were issued, who requested
them and who issued them. It is also necessary
to know what the kings wTho issued the charters
and the Lords Baltimore who requested them
meant and how at the time they understood the
clauses which Catholics now claim mean religious
tolerance.
I have also to give an account as full and accurate
as possible of the several Assemblies,
particularly the one which passed the famous act
of religious tolerance and to find out who were
those men, etc.
If any one of my readers believe that I ex
pend too much time in dealing with this historical
matter, I beg him to reconsider his opinion.
Tfie Roman Catholic Church succeeds in America
largely because when Protestants produce
some documents or speak of some facts according
to which the Romish system appears an enemy to
(Continued on page 5.)