SPIRITUAL INTIMIDATION.
WE will not go so far as to say that there is no species of intimidation applied exclusively by ecclesiastics, and which, therefore, may technically be called spiritual, that ought not to be treated as the exercise of an undue influence.in a political election. The major excommunication, as it was sometimes put in force in old days, undoubtedly amounted to Boycotting of a most formidable kind, not only in spiritual concerns, but in civil and social life; and the attempt to enforce or even the threatening of the major excommunication for any political act, if it were within the limits of practical pos- sibility in modern times, which it hardly is, might have a most formidable tendency to cause not only spiritual, but physical loss and injury to an honest and independent voter. Still, this is just one of those exceptional cases in which spiritual intimidation entails all the consequences of physical intimidation, and is, therefore, though it would be wielded by ecclesiastics if it were wielded at all, within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Bill without any express inclusion of spiritual intimidation amongst the unlawful agencies to be prohibited and punished. We go, therefore, entirely with Mr. Arthur Arnold and those who hold with him that spiritual intimidation alone,—spiritual intimidation not involving physical injury and loss,—ought not to have been made penal in the Corrupt Practices Bill at all. The net result of the long argument in the House of Commons was admitted to be this,—that no spiritual teacher is worth his salt who does not, on sufficient occasion, denounce sins which affect political life, just as much as sins affecting the moral and social life ; and that no spiritual teacher who really believes that the consequence of sin is suffering, either in this world or in the next or in both, can properly abstain from point- ing out this consequence to his congregation, and from pointing it out in any kind of language which is best fitted to bring it home to their hearts. Well, if that is admitted, it seems to us as clear as daylight that the only difference between undue influence and due influence, is the difference between a conscientious exer- cise of this influence by spiritual persons, and an unconscientious exercise of it? Is that a matter on which a Judge,—perhaps of another faith and almost certainly of another phase of culture and political beliet—sitting in judgment at the trial of an elec- tion petition, can properly pronounce with any sort of authority ? Let us suppose that Mr. Healy, brought up as he has been in the heart of Catholic Ireland, and in habits of almost in- vincible ignorance as to English modes of thought on many subjects, were suddenly seated on the English Bench, and sent to try an election petition in any English borough in which it appeared that every Minister of the Baptists, of the Methodists, and of the Independents in the place had been preaching vehe- mently during the whole election that Ireland was the one fatally diseased spot in the United Kingdom, that the only remedy for its disease would be to isolate it completely from the rest of the Empire and to govern it by a wise despotism, and that no man was a good citizen, or could expect to find salvation in the next life, who did not vote for a serious effort to rule Ireland for ten years by something like despotic government, in the hope of redeeming her from her present moral degrada- tion. We are putting an impossible case, we admit, but we are putting it advisedly, because we believe that Mr. Healy sud- denly called upon to try an election petition in such circum- stances as these, would not be at all less capable of treating these spiritual denunciations as conscientious, than many of our Irish Judges at present are of treating the spiritual denunciations of the priests in Ireland as conscientious. And yet, how would England like a judgment such as Mr. Healy would pass on the corrupt character of such an election ? If it comes to this,—as we think it does,—that the only difference between undue and due spiritual influ- ence is the unconscientiousness or conscientiousness of that influence, we can hardly insist too much on the extraordinary difficulty in which many of the Irish Judges are placed, in attempting to estimate the political conduct of the Irish priests. As we have already intimated, many of these Judges are of a different faith ; all of them have lived in a totally different plane of culture from the priests whose political interferences they are called upon to judge ; and what is most important of all, almost all of them have throughout their lives been in the habit of thinking that what the priests desire for Ireland is mischievous, and what they dread is desirable. Is it possible for a Judge in that position to form an estimate worth having on the conscientiousness or unconscientiousness of an Irish priest's action ? Mr. Healy, in the case we have supposed, could not be more violently prejudiced than Mr. Justice Lawson was in the trial of that election petition for Galway in which Mr. O'Donnell was unseated by a decision characterised by even Mr. C. Lewis, the Protestant and Conservative Member for the City of Londonderry, as unfair. The simple truth is that it is childish to pretend that Judges of one political creed, religious faith, and social caste, can judge with any approach to fairness the conscientiousness or unconscientiousness of the use made of their spiritual influence by priests of a violently opposed political creed, religious faith, and social caste ; and yet, so far as we can see, the sole distinction between the use of due and undue spiritual influence in political elections is the difference between a conscientious and an unconscientious use of it. If a priest honestly and sincerely believes that a par- ticular political act is a sin which God will punish,—j tat, for instance, as many a Protestant Dissenting minister would seriously have believed that the attempt to prop up the Slave power in the Southern States of America was a sin which God would punish,—he is bound to state that belief, whether in the pulpit or on the platform. And if he states it then, as Mr. Gladstone frankly admitted, he cannot but state the consequence which he sincerely expects to attach to the commission of that sin. It is of the very essence of spiritual influence that it enters necessarily into all the duties of life, the political duties amongst the rest, and that the use of it must appear " undue " to those who think that it is used for mischievous ends. Suppose that a proposal had been made to endow the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland,—a proposal like that of the Maynooth Grant on a larger scale,—and that half the Dissenting ministers in England did their best to paint in the most graphic manner the sins of which the Catholic Church had been guilty,—the sanction given, as Lord Acton believes, by Pius V. to the assassination of Queen Elizabeth, the horrible dishonesty of Roman casuistry, and the rest,—how is it possible that these representations,—many of them, no doubt, inaccurate and misleading,—should not be regarded as "undue influence" by the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom ? And supposing there were a Roman Catholic Judge on the Bench who had to try an election peti- tion, how could he well refrain from declaring that " undue spiritual influence " had been used in the very effort to induce simple people to believe, on the faith of their pastor, a number of doubtful, misleading, false, or even thoroughly calumnious statements ? Yet is it seriously to be asserted that Judges ought to go into the character of statements of this kind, with a view to deciding whether the spiritual influence used has been due or undue ?
Even in relation to the refusal of the Sacraments and to ex- communication, we believe that Parliament would be wise in refusing altogether to meddle, and in saying that these are matters which must be left to each Church to determine for itself. As a matter of fact, we believe that nothing is rarer, or likely to be rarer, than a use of such weapons as these for political purposes in such a country as Ireland. The Roman Church now hardly ever excommunicates by name, did not excommunicate by name even Victor Emanuel, and hardly ever refuses a com- municant, except when great scandal would be caused by not refusing one,—as when a man or woman has long been living an openly sinful life, generally known to the congregation. Personal excommunications are weapons which the Church hardly ever dares to use, and when she does dare to use them, it is for pur- poses plainly and conspicuously moral and spiritual. In our day, there is no case of " undue " spiritual influence which could be determined to be so by Judges of a different faith and a different political creed, with any chance of commanding popular respect and adherence to their judgment. Therefore, we say that the attempt to bar out undue spiritual influence is a blunder, which.
we should have liked to see the Government deliberately eschew, and which, as it is to be made, may, we hope, be as little used as possible by the Judges. It is certain that when- ever any man is found guilty of " undue " spiritual influence he will be regarded as a martyr, and will gain far more proselytes in prison than he could ever gain on the platform.
Previous page
