William Montague Connelly.

Political Romanism; a pocket manual online

. (page 1 of 5)
Online LibraryWilliam Montague ConnellyPolitical Romanism; a pocket manual → online text (page 1 of 5)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

.Bl C7



*♦..,. •\o






, 1875 .h





"^Tfl FrieMs of Civil aifl Relipis Liherlf.

Believing that, whether you are men of native or foreign birth,
whether you are Roman Catholics or Protestants, whether you
are capitalists or laborers, the great majority of you sincerely'
desire the permanence of our Republican institutions, we, on
behalf of great principles and important political measures
address you. You surely do not desire that free institutions
shall be destroyed or subverted even to give political power
and pecuniary emolument to the party to which you belong, or
the church to which you are attached.

When you see clearly the issues presented, you will prefer the
civil and religious liberty of your children and of your
children's children, to all shams of party or religion. There is
no doubt that you would willingly shed your blood in defence
of free institutions, if they were openly or directly assailed, but
there is danger that many of you may be led to think it a good
thing to crush out the civil and religious liberty of those who
do not think as you do. Be assured that this would be the de-
struction of free institutions. It would result in the slavery
of your children as well as those of others.

If you are friends of civil and religious liberty you should
not wish to force any one to be or not to be Roman Catholic,
Protestant, Infidel or Hebrew. You should have as much re-
spect for the rights of conscience, of person and of property
belonging to the man of another political party or religious bee

lief, as you hare for your own. The right of every one to secure
enjojment of life, health, reputation, property and opinion,
is the foundation of our Republican institutions.

This is why no set of men, the leaders of no political party,
the heads of no church organization, have special right to direct
or control the government for their advantage, or the promo-
tion of their religion. This is why there should be no union of
church and State, no using the law to enforce religious dogmas,
no taking of public money to aid church enterprises, no exemp-
tion of any private property from bearing its fair share of public

Holding these opinions, we claim that to maintain free insti-
tutions against insidious encroachments, there should be recog-
nition of certain facts.

1st. Civil government is for the regulation of civil affairs in
the community according to the will of the majority, so that
individual rights may be secure.

2d. No church has the right to assume any functions of the
State, or to restrict State authority in the regulation of civil
affairs according to the will of the majority.

3d. There should be no alliance of any church with the State.
No money collected by taxation for public uses should be given
to any church enterprises or political partizans, and no private
or church property should be allowed to evade paying its fair
share of taxes.

4th. The State should promote the welfare and protect the
bights of the whole cotnmunity by advancing the education

needful to itiake tilen useful citizens, by establishing relief for

the unfortunate, by fairly representing the ivill of the majority,
by securing justice between man and man, and by maintaining
civil and religious liberty.

Taking these positions, we ignore and denounce the claim of
any church that she has a right to limit the civil power of the

We denounce efforts to destroy the Public School System, or
to subvert it by making the State support secta ian schools of
any denomination.

We denounce all misappropriations ofpublic money to support
any church or private enterprises.

We denounce all unjust exemptions of any class of private
property belonging to individuals, to churches, or to chartered
corporations, from paying its fair share of taxation. It is not
Republicanism to tax some men's property and forever ex-
empt from taxation the property of others.

Are not these principles so just, so truly Republican, so need-
ful for the preservation of civil and religious liberty, that you,
reader, whether you are Roman Catholic, Protestant, Hebrew
or Infidel, and whether you are foreign born or native, can
heartily support them.

We ostracise no man for his religious or political opinions,
but if we know that a man is seekitig to subvert free institutions
we will not be willing to place him in power.

If a Roman Catholic is not an enemy of our public school
system, if he does not consider it right to prosecute and wage War
with heretics, if he condems abstraction of money from the pub-
lic treasury for private or sectarian objects, if he is opposed to
all union of church and State, and the control of the State by


the church, and would not give the Roman Catholic church any
greater rights and powers than others, and is an honest and
capable man, we have no objection to seeing him in office
whether he is native or foreign born.

"We war on no man for having been born one place or another.

We war on no man for his religious belief, but we want to
be sure that the men who are placed in office are not enemies of
free institutions.

We deprecate the ostracising of any man because of his

Wb equally deprecate the electing op any man who is put
forward because he is expected to favor the designs op a
church on the public treasury, on civil liberty, on the bible,
and on public schools.

We beliete that at this time the Bishops of the Roman Catho-
lic church are more dangerous to free institutions than the
ministers of anj other church.

They declare the policy and direct the whole fofce of the
Roman Catholic church.

l^he Position of Roman Catholic i'riests.

Inhere are estitnated to be in the Tnited States about 8,500,-
000 Catholics controlled by otie Cardinal, seven Archbishops,
fifty-seven Bishops and 4,500 Priests.

Father Stack, a Roman Catholic priest, sajs:

" the fact is, the Catholics of America— mote than one-fifth
of the population— are governed by absolute, irresponsible
power,centered in the class of bishops, and wielded by them

without regard of any law, civil or ecclesiastical. And so su-
preme is the arbitrary will of every individual bishop within
his diocese that there is no appeal from his fiat. The editor of
the New York Freemen's Journal, who is himself a leader of
Catholic thought, an able and fearless advocate of the Church,
has, with more truth than irony, nicknamed these bishops
"the little popes of America." And a distinguished priest,
writing in the Freeman ( 1869,) describes them as " playing the
triple role of judge, jury, and hangman." Nor is the descrip-
tion overdrawn. These American bishops accuse and condemn,
expel and suspend, excommunicate and punish, without fear
of accountability to any law. The 4500 priests of America
are reduced to a mere caste, and are so enslaved as to be mere
tools in the hands of the bishops. The priests have no sort of
representation ; they have no voice in synod ; none in the elec-
tion or nomination of their masters, the bishops. Instead of
holding iheir oflBce for life, as the law of the church guarantees,
they are liable to be deprived of their rank and emoluments,
and to be cast friendless upon the world by the caprice of the
bishop's will. Their honor, their reputation, their livelihood,
are at the mercy of the bishop. I might say their very life is
at bis mercy ; for if you deprive men of the means of living —
and the avocation of a clergyman is the only one for which
most of them are qualified— do you not virtually deprive them
of life? But has the priest no remedy in the Church ? He has,
and he has not. He has, de jure ; and he has not de faclo.
The law of the Church provides for an ecclesiastical tribunal to
try and adjudicate in all differences between priests and bisho^:s.
But the bishop interposes his non placet ^ and will not allow any
such thing as an ecclesiastical tribunal iu America. What,
then, is left for the priest but to have recourse to civil law to
enforce his righti of contract with the Church ? And yet if he


80 falls back on his citizenship, he is likely to get excommuni-
cated for his pains. The priests are slaves, and, at the same
time, the instruments of the enslaving power. They are the
men who move among the people, and talk to them and execute
among them the orders of the bishops. There is not a Catho-
lic paper in America that can afford to strike out, with any
hope of success, independently of the bishops. No Catholic
dares to sue a bishop except at the peril of his soul's salvation,
and thus Catholics are practically debarred, as far as bishops
are concerned, from enjoying the common rights of citizen-
ship. The law of the land might as well be blotted out when
there is question among Catholics of power of bishops."'


The oath that must be taken by all Roman Catholic Bishops
when they receive the pallium, is given in the Pontifical Ro-
manum in the Antwerp, Paris and Roman Editions, and it
contains in Latin the obligation : "Heretics, Schismatics, and
Rebels to the said Lord (the Pope) or his aforesaid Successors,
i will to the uttermost of my power, prosecdpb and wage war

with, so help MB GoD AND THOSE HOLY GoSPELS OF GoD."

Under the authority of Pope Clement 8th, and Pope Urban
8th, and with Catelanos' notes, it is determined that this Ponti-
fical oath "shall not at any time be changed in whole or in part,
and nothing shall be added to it and nothing subtracted from
it." The Pontificale further says : "when the Pallium is sent
from the Apostolic See, the Pontiff to whom the delivery of it
is committed, meets with the elected in his own church or in
some church of his diocese on a fixed day. When the pallium

is spread on the altar, covered with the silk in which it was
carried, mass being finished, the Pontiff sitting on a gold stool
recites the oath of fidelity from the Archbishop elect in the name
of the Apostolic See, the elect kneeling before him in his pon-
tiPcil? vnd without gloves."

How comes it that this Bishop's and Archbishop's oath is never
published in Roman Catholic papers, when they give ornate and
minute descriptions of such ceremonials. Is there a concious-
ness that such an oath is against the spirit of toleration and re-
ligious liberty?


The Roman church claims that she has from God the right to
define and thus limit the authority of any state or nation in
which she exists. She always has and does now oppose the
right of the state to subjtct her priests to the same civil duties
as are required of other men. She always has and does now
oppose the right of the state to allow liberty of Speech or the
Press. She always has and does now oppose the right of the
State to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to see whether any one
is held in ecclesiastical imprisonment contrary to his or her
own will.


The present Pope has declared void laws of Spain, Piedmont,
Austria, New Grenada, Mexico and Sardinia, that gave tolera-
tion to other than the Roman Religion, and established freedom
of the press and religious worship. Last year the Pope declared


that Prussian subjects should not obey the laws pai^sed by the
Prussian Legislature, in relation to schools supported by the
State. The Pope has very recently demanded of King Alphon-
so that the Roman church shall be placed in Spain as it was
before the revolution, that is: all other public worship forbidden,
and Protestant churches and cemeteries disallowed.

If Rome could, she would demand in this country, what
she demands in Spain. It is for that end that she is using
all the influence she can command .


"There must be less petty jealousies amongst us; nationalities
must be made subordinate to religion, and we must learn that
we are Catholics first and citizens next. Catholicity does not
bring us in conflict with the State, yet it teaches that God is
above man, and the Church above the State.' ^ — Bishop Gilmer,
{Roman Catholic.)

' ' This doctrine is the legitimate and logical result of the Dogma
of Infallibility, and makes the Church identical with God, and
its authority paramount with His. It is but one step fiom this
position to the Inquisition. All that is wanting is poicer to
compel comformity, for Romanism, so expressed, to crush civil
and religious liberty. — Cleaveland Leader .

"The ecclesiastical power is superior to the civil, and defines
the limit of one and the other." — M. Captl, {Great Roman
Oath olic authority . )

" Whenever any Law of man, whether relating to spiritual
or temporal aifairs, conflicts with any Law of God, as it is in-


terpreted to the world by the infallible Pope of Rome, it is to
be disobeyed and the latter is to be substituted for it."— Western

'' If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed,
they will fall by the hands of the Romish clergy. — La/ay ette.

Give the Roman Catholic Church the power, and she would
be untrue to her whole history, untrue to the utterances of the
great body of her clergy, untrue to the threats of ber church
papers, untrue to her convictions, untrue to the oaihs of her
Bishops, if she did not persecute and wage war on heretics, did
not seek to control or break down what she calls the Godless
public schools, did not abolish the free reading of the Bible and
toleration of all religions. She has never yet had the power in
Maryland to do so. It may be said that Methodists, Baptists
and Presbyterians would do the same if they had the power.
We are not considering now what other sects might do, but what
the Roman Catholic Church has done, is doing and swears to
do. Certainly no other Church claims the right to declare the
limit of the power of the State. In no other Church do Bishops
swear to oppose free toleration of other religions.

Roman Catholics are as much interested as any other citizens
in knowing whether under the guidance of Bishops and Jesuits,
the Church they love is the friend or foe of religious liberty.

The heads of the Roman Church are now laboring to consol-
idate its different parts. This is the purpose that influences the
dedications to the Sacred Heart of Jeeug, the Catholic Temper-
ance unions, «&c., &c.



The Romanist Church always urges and applauds the abstrac-
tion of public money from the public treasury and giving it to
aid her enterprises. No Romanist paper, Priest, Bishop, Arch-
bishop or Cardinal has ever uttered one word of condemnation
of Tweed, Connolly, Sweeny, and the other New York ring
thieves, for having stolen from the public treasury and given to
Romish Church enterprises in three years, $1,915,456 92 of the
people's money, nor one word of condemnation of the same
thieves having given, in the same three years, $3,500,000 worth
of public property to the same Romish enterprises.

When the Roman Catholic Church in New York got in 1869
$510,071 82, in 1870 $464,681 05, in 1871 $421,625 64 of the
money that belonged to the public, and that the donors had no
right to give to the Church, the Methodist Church got in the
whole three years only $7,270 95, the Baptists only $5,325 83
altogether, the Presbyterians only $13,960 52 altogether, the
German Evangelicals only $3,691 16 altogether, the Reformed
Dutch only $22,220 06 altogether, and the Episcopalians only
$56,956 74 altogether.

It may be said that it was luck — that the other churches took
all they could get. Even that would not make the abstraction
right or the division fair, but the fact is that from the first many
persons and sectarian papers of the Methodist, Baptist and
other Churches, were opposed to taking such illegal donations,
and so strong was this feeling that in 1871 and afterwards the
Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Reformed Dutch, and Ger-
man Evangelical Churches in New York, neither asked nor
would receive such donations, which in 1871 alone amounted to
$421,625 64 to the Roman Catholic Chmch. Everjwhere in


all large cities the Roman Catholic Church has desired and
urged the donation to her of such abstractions. Her Arch-
bishops, Bishops and Priests have petitioned for such union of
Church and State, such abstractions of public money.

The Romanist Church bitterly denounces any public man who
opposes such misuse of money collected by taxation for public
uses. It is no proscription of Roman Catholics to oppose this
constant universal policy and practice of the Roman Catholic

While the Episcopalians, Reformed Dutch, German Evangel-
ical^, Baptists and Methodists, who pay three fourths of all the
taxes in New York, only had donations of public money amount-
ing to $357,774 47 in three years, the Roman Catholic Church ,
whose people do not pay one-third of the taxes, was presented
with $1,915,456 92 out of the public treasury, and had $3,500,-
000 of public property given to it also.

When Archbishop Bayley was welcomed here, a leading pol-
itician boasted that " no Roman Catholic institution asking
money from the city treasury had ever been refused."

The Western Catholic denounces those who favor taxing
ecclesiastical property in common with all other private prop-
erty, as "knaves " ''social pests," "immoral and disorgan-
izing drones," as "guilty of mendacious pretences" and
" hypocritical greed," and as "actuated by personal greed and
personal revenge," "undertaking to reform even the Creator

The American doctrine is that those who hold office in the
State or city have the right to pay just claims on the State or
city, but have no right to donate public money to any person
or institution when there is no legal claim.


The old south church property in Boston was donated for re-
ligious purposes over a hundred years ago, when it was worth
$6,000. The lot is worth now at least $500,000. It has never
paid taxes since its donation, and as the church was burned
down, the congregation wanted the legislature to give permis-
sion for them to sell the lot, pocket the money, and build a
church somewhere else. Mr. Josiah Phillip Quincy, a leader of
the church taxation movement, claims that the lot must be used
for religious purposes, or the back taxes must be paid, or the
proceeds of the sule paid over to the public treasury before the
church owners can give a title.

The National Bjptist says: — The whole matter is settled
when you have answered two questions. 1st. Has civil society
a right to give the public money to a religious or ecclesiastical
body, to a missionary society, a tract society or a church ?
According to the theory of all the state-church governments,
civil society has this right. Ts this the American view?

The burden of impartial taxation should fall indiscriminately
on all denominations, among which the Methodists have nine
millions more, and the Presbyterians but thirteen millions less
than the sixty-one millions of Catholic property.

A Committee of the Illinois Conference of the M. E. Church
has reported in favor of the taxation of church property. They
argue in their report that the Constitution forbids the State to
aid any religious denomination, and that laws which exempt
$382,000,000 worth of church property from taxation violates
the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The committee add
that the taxation of church property would be favorable to the
interest of religion by showing that the separation between the
Church and the State is complete.


The assessors of the District of Columbia have valued the lots
and church property belonging to the various denominations as
follows: Washington, $1,425,794; Georgetown, $115,955;
and county, $48,295, the whole teing $1,590,744. This is the
basis on which they purpose to tax them, contrary to previous

The Roman Catholic institution, the St. Mary's Industrial
School, has employed a Protectant lawyer to enable her to get
hold of the public money appropriated by the City Council and
stopped by injunction.

Romanism would banish the Bible.

Pope Gregory VIl condemned the general freedom allowed to
read the Bible in the vulgar tongue.

Pope Innocent declared the Bible too profound for the com-
mon people, and quoted the text "If so be that a beast touch
the Mountain it shall be stoned or thurst through with a dart."

Pope Clement II, in a Bull pronounced it a false, scandalous,
pernicious, blasphemous error to hold that all may read the Holy
Scriptures .

Pope Benedict XIV opposed a translation of the Bible.
Pope Leo XII issued an Encyclical against Bible societies.
Pope Pius VII issued a Bull forbidding the circulation of the

Pope Pius IX, in 1846, anathematized "those very crafty
and deceitful societies called Bible societies, which thrust the
Bible into the hands of inexperienced youth."

Archbishop Ximenes said, " It is utterly wrong to circulate
the scriptures in the vulgar tongue."


Cardinal Hosius said, " To give the Bible to the laity is to
cast pearls before swine. Bible translations have done harm. I
would not have any."

The council of Toulouse (1229) declared "That the laity
must not possess the books of the Old and New Testament."

The council of Terracona (1233) declared that any one priest
or layman who had a translation of the Bible and did not in
eight days give it up to be burnt should be esteemed a heretic.

The Synod of Oxford (1406) denounced having the Bible in


The Roman church is the foe of public free schools, unless she
can control them for her own purposes.

There are Roman Catholics who are the friends of public
schools, and there are others who have no special opposition to
public schools, but prefer to have their children under the priests
in the church schools, and would like to lessen their taxe3 for
education. But the Church as a church, controlled by the
bishops and Jesuits, is opposed to all schools not controlled by
the priests.

Rome has claimed that she only had the right to educate and
to marry, and she has opposed as far as she could civil mar-
riages and public schools. — Intelligencer.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Catholic clergy are
intent on incorporating their schools with the public schools, whtre
this can be done with safety to their own influence. But this
scheme is not likely to succeed any better than the other. —
J\>u> York Times,


Rome denounces all schools not controlled by priests.

Some Roman Catholics may not be foe>s of public or Protestant
schools, but the Roman Catholic church is, and its sentiment is
fairly expressed by the following: "I would as soon admin-
ister the sacraments to a dog as to Catholics who send their
children to the public schools." — Father Walker.

" "What Father Walker says is only what has been said by
the bishops all over the world, over and over again in their
pastorals, and we heartily endorse it." — Ntw York Tablet.

" When I see them drag from me the children, the poor little
ch^d^en, and give them an Infidel education, it breaks my
heaxt. — Pojpe Pius IX,

''When Catholic parents understand that they cannot have
absolution in the confessionals while they let their children go
to Godless or to Protestant schools, they will soon find a remedy.
— Freeman^ s Journal.

The schoolmasters of Italy, in a congress which they recently
held at Bologna, passed a resolution adverse to religious in-
struction in public schools. It asserts "the incompetency of
the State to impart instruction in dogmatic religion in public
elementary schools, and would leave to the municipalities, if
request be made by families, the faculty of regulating such in-
struction in the mode which they may consider the most oppor-

The Catholic Telegraph, of Cincinnati, says: "The 4Uh
and 48th articles of the Syllabus have authoritatively settled
for all time that the exclusion of religious instruction, [that is,
not of other religions but of Romanism,] is a damnable error
which Catholics cannot approve without a denial of faith and
commission of sin."


Last year fifty-one Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops
sent to the French Assembly a protest against establishing a
public school system, declaring that a public secular education

1 3 4 5

Online LibraryWilliam Montague ConnellyPolitical Romanism; a pocket manual → online text (page 1 of 5)