AN HISTORICAL TRUTH SOCIETY.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPE(TTATOR.")
Sra,—The secretary of the Catholic Truth Society in the Spectator of September 13th makes very liberal assumptions for his controversial purposes. I never dreamed of quoting the words of an anonymous lady as " evidence " for any disputed fact; I merely cited her in illustration of the frame of mind necessarily begotten in ordinary people, who cannot refer to original authorities, by the competition of avowedly sectarian Societies, professing to appeal to the same historical sources, yet flatly contradicting each other. In order to avoid the offence which Mr. Britten has now seen fit to take, I coupled with his Society, for politeness' sake, the names of two Protestant Societies ; but as he now compels me to say what I know of Catholic Truth Society methods in particular, I will produce evidence which will, I hope, convince most of your readers that my collocation did grave injustice to the other two Societies.
(1) In the Catholic Truth Society's pamphlet called "All About Monks and Nuns," by Canon Foran (twentieth thousand), we read on p. 14:—" With regard to immorality—that is, I may say, a com- paratively modern charge. So far as history reveals the past, though there are many and various charges made against monks and nuns, the breath of slander never tarnished their fair name. Their contemporaries in the midst of whom they lived thought no evil of them." Here is a most important statement in flat contra- diction to notorious facts. Not only is the morality of monks and nuns the common theme of the mediaeval satirist, but even the terrible catena of quotations from pious and orthodox contempo- raries given in Mr. Lea's " Sacerdotal Celibacy" might be almost doubled in force by any student who had time and inclination to pursue this subject to the end ; and the official papers of the Church (pace Abbot Gasquet's handling of the evidence) tell sub- stantially the same tale. The real obstacle to truth on this subject is that the British public, Protestant though it be, is naturally impatient of listening to the sordid story in all its details, and lends a candid ear to apologists who cannot all be acquitted of intentional deception. For instance, though the able Roman Church historian Alzog [ed. 1850, p. 569] admits much of the real truth on this subject, yet this admission is piously expunged from the translation of his book which, under high ecclesiastical sanction, has flooded the Anglo-Saxon market. There can be few better testimonials to the Reformation than the unwillingness of the modern Protestant public in general to hear more of scandals which were once the common theme of Roman Catholic moralists and novelists alike.
(2) Father Riokaby, S.j., in his " Persecution" bases one of his two main arguments on the statement that "the common
Protestant notion is that whatever belief or opinion [a man] holds, he is not morally accountable to God or man for believing and thinking so." I wrote pointing out that, as all civilised religions assert man's responsibility to God for all his thoughts as well as his acts, a statement so improbable antecedently as that contained in the words I have italicised needed some definite proof, for which the vast body of Protestant divinity must afford abundant materials. The writer, as may be imagined, failed to produce anything but the veriest mockery of evidence, and declined to allow me to publish the correspondence, though I pleaded that my letters were in no sense private, and that a writer who publishes so grave a charge without proof owes that proof to any reader who may require it. I may add that the other main put of the same pamphlet—an assertion that the Church would never have persecuted people like modern Protestants--is Ratently false, as the writer might have found by merely referring to the indices of Inquisitors' manuals, and tUe fairteecth to dev'eUteallth d'ailtmieL
- -
(3) Father Coupe, S.J., in his "Alleged Failures of Infallibility" has to answer three main questions in the case of Honorius. This case has been very fully discussed by Bishop Hefele, by far the greatest Roman authority on the early Councils, and an authority whose conclusions even a Protestant should always carefully con- sider, though he may reject them. On the three main questions on which the infallibility of Honorius depends I will quote Father Coupe's words [C.], followed by Hefele's [H.] :---(1) [C., p. 11] "Was Honorius condemned as a heretic ? Most certainly not. [H., English translation, Vol. V., p. 182] " That however the 6th (Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt." (2) [C., p. 12] "Did the letters of Honorius contain heresy? Most assuredly not !" [H.] speaks of "the fundamental assumption" "that the letters of Honorius are thoroughly orthodox" as "inadmis- sible"; he says again, "in several passages of both his letters, he did not endeavour to express the orthodox thought" ; yet he manages to convince himself that the Pope "thought in an orthodox sense" (pp. 55, 194, and Introd. p. x.) (3) [C., p. 13] " Were these letters, then, emcathedra? Most assuredly not I" [H.] "For my own part, I confess myself here on the side of Penacchi " (a Romanprofessor who had recently written "the most important [book] which has lately appeared in defence of Honorius") " that the letters of Pope Honorius were put forth auctoritate apostolica, or, as we say, ex cathedra" (pp. 61, 188).
The net result, therefore, is this : What the greatest Romanist historian of the subject, even with the Council of 1870 before his eyes, expressly asserts, Father Coupe is not ashamed categorically to deny, without professing
to have fresh sources beyond those which the great man had so extraordinarly discussed, or even thinking it worth while to let his readers know that his own conclusions were diametrically opposed to those of this overwhelmingly greater authority. Why this extraordinary method of dis- cussion P It was actually forced upon the learned Jesuit by one of his own fundamental assumptions. " If the adversary
could demonstrate one single false ex cathedra utterance of one single Roman Pontiff, straightway we might give up
Catholicity, we might deny Christianity P" I quote here only three of the many similar points I have met in my attempts to see both sides by looking here and there at Catholic Truth Society pamphlets. I have answered the secretary's challenge as concisely as I could, yet, even so, I fear that there would be no room for full discussion in your columns. Therefore (though I am a busy man, and tried in my first letter to avoid this particular controversy) I now propose to Mr. Britten that I should write him an open letter on " the falsehoods, intentional or ignorant, of his contributors, in Catholic Truth Society pamphlets and in their other writings, with special reference to the well- known writers whom I have mentioned by name." Let him answer me himself or through one of his Society's writers, on the understanding that the correspondence shall proceed
until (1) either party shall give up, leaving a last word to the other ; (2) each shall have reached a limit of space to be agreed upon beforehand, say twenty thousand words ; or (3) the expiration of (say) one year from the date of the first letter. The correspondence thus closed, I will undertake, whatever its issue may have been, to print at least five hundred copies and publish them at a reasonable price, Mr. Britten having given me full leave before the correspondence begins. There shall be no added notes or introduction beyond the reprint of these Spectator letters by way of explanation. If Mr. Britten is only half as anxious for the whole truth as his challenge implies, he will no doubt welcome my offer.—I am, Sir, &e.,
G. G. COULTON.
[Mr. Coulton's challenge transfers the controversy to another field. We cannot publish any more letters on the subject.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
