Elsie Duncan Yale.

The Catholic fortnightly review (1905 - 1912) (Volume 15) online

. (page 1 of 95)
Online LibraryElsie Duncan YaleThe Catholic fortnightly review (1905 - 1912) (Volume 15) → online text (page 1 of 95)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook








The Catholic

Theoiogicai Un«an


Chicago, ill.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from

CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois



Catholic Fortnightly Review

Founded, Edited, and Published







Bridgeton, St. Louis County,

1 1 rr^


The Catholic Fortnightly


Founded, Edited, and Published by Arthur Preuss


VoivUme; XV

January i, 1908

Numbe;r I


A Remarkable Centenary 4

The Holy House of Loreto (III) 5

Modernism in America 9

Should We Demand a Share in the Public School

Fund? 11

Editorial Shop-Talk 14

The Medieval Church and Bridge-Building 15

"The Secret of the Success of the Salvation Army" 16

Minor Topics:

A Parable 18

To Investigate the Cures Wrought at L,ourdes 18

Catholics and the Y. M. C. A 18

Our Negro Missions 19

What if the Banks Had Failed ? '. 19

Rare Coins in a Jesuit College 20

What About the Motu Proprio ? 20

Warning Against a Fakir 21

J_,ea's Works and Methods 21

"Doctor" Bok Docet 22

The Blood of St. Januarius 22

More than One Language 23

The Clergy and the "IJlks" 23

"Poniponio L,eto" 24

Apropos of La Salette 24

A Complaint Against Catholic Music Publishers 24

A Dose of Their Own Medicine 25

The History of the German Jesuits 26

Flotsam and Jetsam 27

Book Reviews and Literary Notes 29

Herder's Book List 31


\ Published on the first and fifteenth day of every month. *i Subscription Price
two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) a year; foreign, two dollars and seventy-five
cents ($2.75;. ^1 Publication Office: Techny, 111. T[ Communications for the
Editor and Publisher should be addressed to: Bridgeton, St. Louis County,
Mo. II Remit either by registered letter, postal or express money order, bank
draft, or postal note; never tend cash in unregistered letters. f To personal
checks five cents should be added for Exchange. \ In sending notice of change
of address, do not fail to give the old address as well as the new one. H Forms
close ten days in advance of publication date. 1| Advertising Rate: twenty
cents net per agate line. For space apply to Mr. A. Cogho, 1915 Virginia Ave.,
St. Louis, Mo.



A Remarkable Centenary

n li li

Tiis year the science of comparative philology will enter
ujion the second century of its existence.

It was in 1808 that Friedrich von Schlegel published
at Heidelberg that epoch-making work of his Uber die
\gb7 Sprachc mid Wcisheit dcr Indicr, which is generally con-
^ l| ceded to contain the germ idea whence in the course of
years developed the science of comparative grammar or linguistics.
Schlegel was the first to recognize the importance of Sanskrit and its
close relationship to what are now known as the Indo-European
tongues. In his Lectures on the Science of Languages, Professor Max
Miiller states that "this work [Uher die Sprache und Wcisheit der
Indier] became the foundation of the science of languages/' and that it
"was like the wand of a magician." Before Schlegel's time there had
been more or less accurate surmise that the principal tongues of Europe
formed with Sanskrit and Persian one definite linguistic family ; but no
one had clearly perceived the general outlines of kinship.

As Professor Miiller writes, "it surely required somewhat of po-
etic vision to embrace with one glance the languages of India, Greece,
Italy, and Germany, and to rivet them together by the simple name of
Indo-Germanic. ' This was Schlegel's work. And in the history of the
human intellect it has been truly called 'the discovery of a new world.' "
Lindemann, in his Geschichte der deutschen Literatur, speaks similarly
of Schlegel's book, as laying the foundations of Indian [Sanskrit] stud-
ies in Germany and as the medium that acquainted the scholars of
Europe with the culture of India.

Since the publication of Schlegel's basic work, one hundred years
ago, the progress of linguistic science has been steady and rapid. Many
scholarly papers detailing its wonderful development, especially during
the second half of the nineteenth century, were read by eminent spe-
cialists before the "History of Language" section at the great interna-
tional Congress of Arts and Sciences, held during the Universal Ex-
position of 1904 at St. Louis.

The battles that raged during the first two decades of the nine-
teenth century between the supporters of the old classical and the cham-
pions of the new comparative philology are now a mere matter of
history. The curious reader will find them described in the preface
to the latest edition of Professor Max Miiller's Lectures, and more
fully in Benfey's classical work, Geschichte der Sprachzi'issenschaft und
oricntaUschcn Philologie in Deutschland. After Schlegel had given
such an impetus to the study of Sanskrit, the classical speech of ancient


India, Franz Bopp of Berlin found it possible to compile the first scien-
tific comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages. It was
published in 1816 under the somewhat cunibrous tit\e,Coiijugatious-
systcni dcr Sanskritsprachc in Vergleichung mit jenem der gricchischcn,
latcinischcn, persischcn und gcnnanischen Sprache.

As the science is of German origin, so too has it received its later
development chiefly at the hands of German scholars. A mere recital
of names like Bopp, Grimm, Pott, Scherer, Humboldt, Ben fey, Curtius,
Schleicher, Roth, Weber, Oldenberg, Delbriick, Osthofif, Kiibner,
Miiller and Kagi, proves the debt this science owes to German learn-
ing and research. The three standard works which represent the
growth of comparative philology up to the date of their respective
publications, were all written by Germans. They are Bopp's Compara-
tive Grauwiar (1833), Schleicher's Coinpcndiuni (1862), and finally,
Brugmann's Grundriss (1886).

it is a matter for congratulation that Catholic scholarship was not
siciw -in recognizing the importance of this new learning in its bearing
on questions of historical criticism and Biblical exegesis. Msgr. de Har-
lez and Dr. Van den Gheyn in Belgium, Dahlmann, Hardy, Stolz,
Strassmeier, Epping and Bickell in Germany, De Caro in Italy, have
made notable contributions to either Indo-Germanic or Semitic philol-
ogy. No doubt the centenary year 1908 will see a renewed activity in
this progressive science. The leading journals will publish articles sum-
marizing the rapid advance of philologic research, especially during the
last decade of the past and the opening years of the present century.
It would by no means be labor lost if some competent scholar were to
show what Catholics, and especially our Catholic missionaries, have
contributed to linguistic science. Part of this field is already covered
in an admirable manner by P. Dahlmann, S. J., in his fine monograph
Die Spyachkundc tiiid die Missioncn.^

The Holy House of Loreto

[Canon Chevalier's Reply to His Critics]
HL (Conclusion)

What I have already said renders it unnecessary for me to take up
one by one, and to refute in detail, the twenty-three articles published
in criticism of my book in the Antigonish (N. S.) Casket. Such a
procedure would, moreover, exceed the limits assigned to me by the
editor of the Catholic Fortnightly RE;viii;w.. It has been thought
the convincing force of my book would be destroyed by particular crit-
I No. 50 of the "Erganzungsheftc zu den Sfiinincu aas Maria-Laach. B. Herder.


icisni of details, but this is, for the most part, mere childish quibbling.
My critics have forgotten the saying of Descartes: "It were, it seems
to me, doing human judgment a grave injustice to will that it should
go farther than the eyes can see." I have indicated above the outlines
of my work. My opponents have been careful to conceal them. They
will not take into account historical facts: "Hie present arbitrarily
forges the rings in the chain of tradition, so that tradition no longer re-
mains tradition, but becomes an agreeable echo of the opinion which
happens to be in favor for the tinie being." This has been true of Loreto
ever since the fifteenth century. To reply is not to refute. With a hearty
desire and impelled by preconceived notions one may find an answer to
anything. Did the Molinists leave unanswererd a single one of the ar-
guments of the Thomists, and vice versa? And yet these polemics,
pushed to the extreme, accomplished so little in deciding the question of
grace, that Rome imposed silence upon the combatants.

The writer in the Casket founds the tradition of Loreto :

First, on the omnipotence of God. I have answererd this in ad-
vance at the very outset of my work : "The account which I give does
not controvert any doctrinal point; it is not, therefore, necessary, in
order to estimate its value, to have recourse to the lights of theology
and to test its conformity with the dogmas of the faith. The power of
God is without limit, but it remains to be proved that He has exerted
it in this instance." (pp. 5 and 6).

Secondly, on the consensus of opinion of a civilized people and of
the local religious authorities. From this can be drawn no other histor-
ical proof than the legend itself, which is to beg the question. The
masses are, in the matter of superstition, susceptible to every manner
of illusions, and the faithful often drav/ their leaders after them.

Thirdly, on miracles. Miracles wrought in the sanctuaries of the
IMessed Virgin Mary prove her goodness and her power ; nothing more.
Here is a resume of the most striking miracle obtained at Loreto. It
deserves to be cited, if for no other reason, because of its originality.
On July 16, 1489, there arrived at Loreto a nobleman from Grenoble,
Pierre Orgentorix (or Argentorix), in company with his wife Antonia,
who was possessed with seven devils. After having striven in vain, by
every means in his own country, to deliver his wife from these im-
portunate guests, he decided to take her to Italy. She was exorcised in
vain at St. Jules' in Milan, St. Geminiano's at Modena, and at St. Pet-
er's in Rome. In despair Pierre was about to return to France, when
a knight of Rhodes counseled him to try Loreto. Ten men led Antonia,
ni spite of her resistance, into the church. As soon as the penitentiary.
Stefano di Giovanni Francigena, had begun to read the exorcism", the
demons set to shouting and declining their names. The first called him-


self Sourd. He fled, extinguishing the candle. The second, Heroth,
boasted of having perpetrated the death of the Duke of Burgund
(1419), and went forth crying: 'It is not you, but Mary w^ho expells-
us.' The next day, the third devil, Horrible, gloated over having in-
cited Ilerodias to demand the head of John the Baptist. The fourth,
Arctus, had instigated Herod to slaughter the Innocents. Interrogated
;is to the nature of the place where they were, he affirmed that it was
Mary's room. He even pointed out on the left the spot where the
Virgin was at the moment of the Annunciation, and on the right the
place where stood the angel." Angelita, who is responsible for
publishing this strange account, also reveals the nqmes of the three
other demons : Ventilot, Bricher and Serpent. Riera adds that the vicar-
general of the Carmelites asked the fourth devil, whether the members
of his order had been charged with the care of the house of Nazareth.
The demon replied that they had, adding that this same honor was due
to them at Loreto. For having invoked the spirit of untruth the Car-
melite deserved to be deceived. The authentic annals of his order deny
that his brothers ever had a monastery at Nazareth.

Fourthly, on the assent of the popes. I have demonstrated re-
peatedly and to the point of satiety, that previously to 1507 not a pope
affirmed the translation, and that Julius II, in his bull of that year,
spoke of the Holy House as coming from Bethlehem, which is not a
mistake of the copyist (I have persuaded Mr. Bishop to agree to this),
as has been vigorously maintained. If it were a mere copyist's error,
it is high time to correct it in the registers of the Vatican, where the
bull exists in the original. Preceding popes had granted indulgences to
the church (after 1387) and mentioned a miraculous image, but not
one word concerning the transportation by the angels of the Holy
House, and all the sophisms advanced to jvistify this silence do but
render it the more eloquent.

The Casket reproaches me bitterly (somehow all my opponents
are bitter ; it is clear that we have not the same conception of Christian
charity) with having committed a slip of the same sort as that of Julius
II, by saying that the Mantuan relegates the disparition of the Holy
House to the period of the Emperor Heraclius. I reproduced on page
243 of my book his text in its entirety, but I only gave an extract at
page 142, where I am accused of omitting the phrase "tunc etiam. ..."
Was it indeed necessary? Let us recall the dates. Heraclius was Em-
peror of the East from 610 to 641. Mahomet died in 632. By writing:
"Sub Heraclio Romanorum imperatore. . . . Tunc etiam Mahometi
invalescente perfidia. . , . Turn quoque fuit ipsum Cubiculum. . . .,"


does not the Mantuan give us to understand that he attaches these three
events to the same epoch ?

As for Recanati having been burnt in 1322. it does not follow from
that fact that documents concerning Loreto were destroyed there. It
would be necessar}' to produce texts at least mentioning the existence
of such documents: but no such texts are forthcoming.

The Casket has judged it opportune to bring up a denial by Msgr.
\'erde published in the Ami dn Clergc. Xo one misunderstood that. It
is what one may call a diplomatic dementi. The Consignor's interlocu-
tor had noticed his declaration against Loreto at the close of the inter-
view. Besides he. is too intelligent to mistake the sense of the words
pronounced, and he had no interest at all in deceiving me. It is less dif-
ficult to perceive the interested motives — for the future — which inspired
his protestation.

I will give myself the pleasure of citing in conclusion the words of
Father de Santi, S. J., in his fine Etude historique ct critique on the
Litany of Loreto; they are just as applicable to the translation of the
Holy House :

"The opinion," he says, "which attributes great antiquity to the
Litany of Loreto is, then, a legend built upon an event comparatively
very recent. What is more curious, is that this legend took its begin-
ning, or at least was spread abroad, during the nineteenth century. In
this connection let us note the habitual attitude of those who defend
legends. We have an opportimity here to study it from life. The
more obscure an event is, the more profound is the silence of history
with regard to the same, and the more these good people appeal with
assurance to the ancient traditions which have transmitted it to us, to
the numerous writers who mention it, to the practices and customs
widespread among the faithful which sanction its authenticity, and so
forth." (p. 238).

And, lastly, I will mention a personal matter for the purpose of
bringing out more effectively the incomparable advantages of an a pri-
ori indifference in the scrutiny of historical questions, and also to show
with what conscientious fairness I have studied and treated that of Lor-
eto. In 1902 the cause of Joan of Arc struck a snag in the S. Congrega-
tion of Rites in an abjuration which the Maid was said to have signed
before she was burnt. The consultors declared that they could not pro-
ceed with the process as long as this testimony of the weakness of Joan
in extremis was held to be authentic. Canon Dunand. author of a
Histoirc complete de Jeanne d' Arc, asked me to lay tht question before
the tribunal of the Congress of Learned Societies at the Sorbonne.
After first disabusing myself of any prepossession whatever on the sub-


ject, I got together and compared all the texts bearing on that special
fact. I reached the end of my inquiry without permitting myself to be
influenced either by the desire of glorifying Joan of Arc, or the fear
of injuring the cause of her beatification. Although inserted in the
authentic report of Bishop Cauchon, the document containing the ab-
juration turned out to be spurious, and I did not hesitate to declare it
so. Not one at the Sorbonne or elsewhere raised his voice against my
documented conclusion. As my readers are aware, the cause was contin-
ued at Rome and ended in the glorification of "LaPucelle." Why do
those who approved me for demolishing that spurious document, take it
ill that I declare to be false certain papers concerning the Holy House?
I believe that I am serving the Church in the last case as well as I
served her m the first.

P. S. — I am happy to bear witness to my perfect accord with the
latest Encyclical of Pope Pius X, "Pascendi." In it His Holiness
recommends that questions concerning pious local traditions and relics
be not mooted in journals or reviews which are published with the object
of fostering piety, nor in a tone of persiflage or one tinged with disdain.
He in no wise forbids treating of these questions in serious, documented
works. It was for taking the initiative in this very thing — "exposing
the question of Loreto to the passions of daily journalism," — that I re-
proached the J\v-itc Francaisc (issues of December 3 and 4, 1906).

Romans, France. Ulysse Che;valie;r.

Modernism in America

The only American bishop who has tlius far, to our knowledge,
officially addressed his flock on the subject of jNIodernism and the now
famous papal Encyclical in which that spirit or tendency, "the quintes-
sence of all heresy," is so solemnly condemned, is Msgr. William H.
O'Connel', the new Archbishop of Boston. In a pastoral letter dated
November 30, 1907, and of which we find the full text in the Sacred
Heart Reviezv, Vol. xxxviii. No. 24, after giving a succinct and ad-
admirably luminous precis of the "Pascendi Dominici gregis," Arch-
bishop O'Connell says :

Though the jModernist system has few if any open advocates in
America, the danger of being weakened in faith by the Modernist spirit
is not to be lightly considered. The books of one of the recognized
exponents of Modernism are published here and have been widely cir-
culated. The non-Catholic universities of this country are pervaded
by a philosophy akin to that which is at the root of Modernist errors.
Scientific and historic literature is impregnated with it. This is not
without an indirect influence on secular education in general, and there


is a literature, current and wide-spread among us, which shows a mani-
fest eagerness to glorify any movement set afoot by erratic scholars,
which aims to weaken in the popular mind the strength of historic and
traditional Christianity. And so our student youth may unconsciously
move in an atmosphere which is favorable to the growth of the spirit
of the Modernist. The Holy Father's warning must keep him ever on
his guard.

"But is it not in the intellectual sphere that the greatest danger
lies. The American people are not given to religious speculation as
those more idealistic, but in practical life their characteristics are pre-
cisely those by which the Modernist was influenced in framing his
scheme of doctrine and apologetics. If the modern age in general is
active, productive, utilitarian, this is true in America to a» superlative
degree. Animating this activity is the desire for material gain and pro-
gress. Divine Truth has little or no influence with many of those who
are immersed in these activities, though, they may be by no means
openly irreligious men. But religion and morality are interpreted by
them in the light of practical exigencies. Thus, in social life the false
respectability of divorce and of the limited family, not to speak of the
other evils, has compelled a rewriting of our fathers' code of morality.
In the commercial life, individual greed for gain has weakened the
sense of justice. Right for some has' ceased to be a moral faculty and
obtains only where there is might. The definition of business honesty
has become blurred. In civic life the sense that government is a sacred
trust seems in some to be blunted. Thus the atmosphere in which we
live is, in many respects, one of materialism. Catholic principles could
never have produced it, nor can they flourish in it. This atmosphere
may be just as stifling to the Catholic faith as is the intellectual atmos-
phere in which Modernism grew and developed. There is only this
difference : the Modernist, conscious of the atmosphere in which he
moved endangered the Catholic faith by seeking to bend it to the spirit
of his age, while Catholics about us, ignoring the evil influences affect-
ing them, unconsciously compromise their faith, not so much by failure
to profess its principles, as by practically ignoring its precepts, in sinful
deference to the manner of acting of those among whom they live.

"Error, besides being boastful, is audacious in taking itself for
granted. There is always danger, then, that its embodiment in the
characters with whom the Catholic deals in social, commercial, and
political life may so influence him that he would concede more than a
Catholic should to the immoral and unjust conduct of others, or even
commit the same faults because they are so common. The pernicious-
ness of this danger can not be over-estimated. The temptation to


imitate others, even though one feels that it violates the Catholic con-
science, is affecting that conscience with defiling corrosion.

"Every concession that is to be made, weakens the faith of the indi-
vidual and lefleots on the Church whose faith he professes. For the
world appraises his religion, not by what he says he believes, but by
what he does and what he is. Every Catholic owes it to his faith, to
his Church, and to himself to hold fast rigidly to every Catholic prin-
ciple, to persevere in every Catholic practise, to reverence and venerate
those who hold the place of Christ."

Should We Demand a Share in the Public School Fund?

In consequence of the action of the Catholic Federation, the dis-
cussion whether or not we shall demand a share in the public school
fund "will not down."

The question is at the present time purely academical, as there is
no place anywhere in this country, that we know of, where such a
demand is likely to be heeded. Yet the possible, not to say probable,
consequences of an imprudent agitation are so serious that the reasons
speaking against the demand, cannot be too often nor too earnestly set

A scholarly Wisconsin priest of wide experience, who took an ac-
tive part in the fight against the iniquitous Bennett law, writes :

When we fought for the very life of our Catholic parochial schools
against the Bennett law in Wisconsin, we were in hot fire, and burnt
children, you know, dread fire. That we came out unscathed, even
as the three youths from the fiery furnace, we owe chiefly to the fact
that we were able to tell our opponents : "We pay for our parish
schools; therefore the State has no right to interfere with them." If
we received assistance from the State, we should be deprived of this
most effective of all arguments. Were the State then to lay its hands
upon our schools, we should find it exceedingly difficult to offer resist-
ance and to gain public sympathy. And there can be no doubt that the
State zvill sooner or later make the attempt, as it is now the case in
England. We must realize that in America, too, Christians have to deal
with "the modern State," so-called, which aims ultimately at seculari-

The modern State and religion stand today everywhere in the
relation of Esau and Jacob : they are brothers, but hostile brothers.
This is not, of course, as it ought to be ; but it is an undeniable fact.
Catholics should shape their policy accordingly. They should not de-

Online LibraryElsie Duncan YaleThe Catholic fortnightly review (1905 - 1912) (Volume 15) → online text (page 1 of 95)