''•■'-•■'-' rarragg Class. Book CopyrightN ( COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CHALLENGED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THIRTY-TWO QUESTIONS WITH THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA BY DR. C. A. YARBROUGH MACON, GEORGIA published under auspices The Patriotic Societies of Macon macon, georgia 1920 *< Copyright, 1920 By C. A. Yarbrough MM 22 mo ©CI.A570137 'Fools Detide, Philosophers Investigate " TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introductory 5 "About Roman Catholics" — Newspaper Advertisement 7 "How It Began" — The Thirty-two Questions Submitted 7 Copies sent to Mr. A. J. Long and Hon. A. D. Daly 10 Correspondence with Mr. Long 11 Laymen's Answers to Questions 14 Objections to Answers Forwarded to Association 18 When One Is Responsible for Sin of Another 43 Roman Catholics and Liquor Traffic 61 Immutability — Subject of, Discussed 69 Association Challenged to Debate 70 Adendum — Remarks on Marriage and Unity of Teaching 72 Letters from Association Answering Objections : Questions Furnished Helpful Index to Anti-Catholic Mind 74 Association Not Formed for Evangelical Purposes 75 Suspicion and Trust 76 Rules of Right Reason 77 Duty of Citizens 81 Regarding the Papal Index 83 If Catholics Are Satisfied 87 Index Does Not Hamper? 89 As to Bad Popes 95 Abridged History of Popes 97 Index Defended 119 "Intention" 121 Intention of Index 126 Papal Infallibility 131 Papal Dogmas 133 Pope Not Infallible in All Things 136 If Pope Should Be a Bad Man 138 Infallibility, Supremacy, Inspiration, Revelation 141 Syllabus of Errors Not Authentic? 142 Pope's Commands to be Respected and Obeyed Even if Not Assented to Internally 151 Layman's Oath _ 154 Baptism — Impeachment 156 Cardinal Gibbons, Sunday Visitor and Bishop Keiley on Baptism 157 Actual Baptism 159, 163 The Confessional 166 Cardinal Gibbons Asked to Furnish Copy of Pontificate Romanum 168 Priest's Hand-Book 169 Masonic Influence and Power ,. 182 Rule of Right Reason 184 Subjects Consigned to Debate 186 Who is Representing Catholics in Georgia? 190 Ferrer, Spanish Modernist, Shot 193 Teaching of Papal Text-Book on Union of Church and State 32, 195 Concordats 199 Romanism and Education in the Philippines 201 Origin of Papal States 203 Syllabus of Errors — Misquoted ? „ 208 Catholic the Only True Church Established by Jesus Christ 215 Persecution of Catholics 217 Subjects "Open to Investigation" ? 218 Bedrock of Protestantism 220 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued page Can Laymen Accuse Priest? 222 Right of Catholics to Investigate 225 Jesuit Order 226, 228 Children of Church to Speak for Her 230 "Peculiar Constructions" „ 236 Subjects for Debate 237 Expediency 242 Ne Temere Decree — Marriage Law 247, 249 Marriage Law 251 Priestly Celibacy 254 Laws of God in Force at All Times 256 The Divisional Difference 259 When is One Outside of the Church? 262, 264 Protestants Can Be Saved 264, 265 Folder, "Battle Against Freemasonry" — Object? 267, 271 Joint Publication 271 Pope Teaches Protestants Can Be Saved? 272 Who Are Outside the Church? 276 What is the Advantage of One Being a Catholic? 277 Heretics Universally Excommunicated 282 Catholics Obey Conscience 283 The Pope Alone Has Right to Reason 284 Cardinal Newman on Conscience 287 Heretics To Be Killed 291 Scottish Rite Masons and a Priest — A Parallel? 293 Busenbaum on Conscience 294 Does Pope Rule the Soul? 298 Authority and Obedience as Viewed by Masons 302 Five Charges Against Freemasonry 303 Holy Water, Scapular, Rosary 309 The Glories of Mary by Lugori 310 Priests to Swear Falsely 321 Cardinal Jacobatius on Conscience 321 Prohibited Books 327 When Human Law Is Not Law... 327 Comments on Long Letter Concluded by Association 330 General Albert Pike — A Plea for Peace 333 The Bishop's Oath — As Printed by a Jesuit Priest 334 The Oath as Contained in Pontificate Romanum in Latin 336 Translated 337 Papal Church Dared to Meet Oath in Court — A Challenge 342 Oath of Bishop Makes Oath of Knights of Columbus Unnecessary 343 Private Judgment 351 Secret Societies Condemned 352 Who Started the War? 353 Correspondence on Proposed Debate 356 Threatening Letter to Rev. T. F. Callaway 370 Anonymous Letter 375 Letters to and from Mr. John J. McCreary on Bishop's Oath 375 A Hotbed of Organized Bigotry — A Folder by a Priest of Alabama 387 Letters of the Rev. John Wesley _ „ 394 Conclusion 402 If the Protestant World Had Its Back Against the Wall — ? 405 Catholics Can Not Appeal to Civil Law to Stay Orders of the Pope 406 Retrospective _ 407 Necessity for Organizing - 410 INTRODUCTORY TO master any subject — whether art, science, music, language, or profession — requires several years' study and close appli- cation, and the expenditure of considerable money ; for these rea- sons, few people undertake the task of becoming proficient in more than one. Any one, though, with the time and means, may master several branches, and some do ; but it is usually only those who purpose teaching, writing, etc. The average person can, how- ever, by a little application and at a nominal expense secure a sufficient knowledge of the arts and sciences as to understand their main principles, and have the satisfaction of knowing their value to society in general. This is true in regard to the subject of Roman Catholicism; a knowlege of it cannot be acquired in a day, week, month. It has so many phases which affect the spiritual, physical and intellec- tual world that it is necessary to devote considerable time and money to it to secure even an insight into the system. That this is true is evidenced by the fact that to become a priest twelve years or more must be spent studying the various subjects nec- essary to qualify one for the priesthood. Many good people have never given this question an hour's consideration, and if their attention is called to any abstract proposition relative thereto, they are apt to say they do not be- lieve it. To inform them that aqua pura in Latin means "pure water" in English, and then hear them say, "I don't believe it!" represents the attitude of those to the papal system who have never given it any attention. It would be a waste of energy and foolish to try to go far enough in the discussion of the Latin tongue to prove to their satisfaction that aqua pura means "pure water" — they would have to devote months to the study of that language before they would believe. I have spent many months in the assiduous study of Roman- ism; have closely read thousands of pages of literature, from non-Catholic and approved Catholic sources, yet I must confess there is more to learn. But what I have gleaned, I have en- deavored to so present it in these pages as will give a clear and concise understanding of its main features, treating of certain fundamental principles of the system that should be considered seriously by every one who enjoys the blessings of Liberty pro- vided by the Constitution of the United States, and is a compen- dium of reliable information that every person should possess, which cannot be secured otherwise than by following the course pursued by me. I believe the reader will be convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is a deadly foe to the Constitution of this country, and every human right and liberty guaranteed by it. To my Catholic friends — especially the jpriests who may read after me — I challenge you to meet the issues herein on the ros- trum before the people. To resort to the boycott, slander or murder, as Pope Leo XIII seems to teach you should do (see dis- cussion and comments on Question No. 13 ) , will not strengthen the position of the Catholic church in America; and if any one should address me, answer those questions which the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia failed to elucidate. I shall be glad to hear from any one who desires to take issue with me on any one of the vital questions presented herein, and promise to give them a hearing in the next edition. In the large volume of matter passing between the Association and the author, all of which was prepared with more or less haste on the part of each, it was natural for numerous errors of various kinds to have been overlooked, as at the time there was no thought of putting it all in book form, and as far as I can do so without changing any material word or thought, I shall cor- rect errors in the correspondence, where I am sure of the mean- ing which the Association wished to convey. That no alteration in any of the manuscript has been made can always be verified by reference to the originals, which are being carefully preserved. The Author. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CHALLENGED •••• HOW IT BEGAN IN the spring of 1917, I received a pamphlet from the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia entitled "A Plea for Peace." At that time advertisements were running in the local papers from the Association, containing requests similar to the invita- tion in the pamphlet, as follows: "ABOUT ROMAN CATHOLICS. "Get your information first-hand. Upon request we will tell you their belief and position, their practices and obligations, their rights and duties, as they bear on civic and social relations, public questions and good citizenship. "Write to the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, 107 9th St., Augusta, Ga." The following list of thirty-two questions was prepared and forwarded to the Association by registered mail : Macon, Ga., May 2, 1917. Catholic Laymen's Association, Augusta, Ga. Gentlemen : I am in receipt of your pamphlet, "A Plea for Peace," and in accord with the invitation extended on last page will submit the following questions, which I trust you will answer, namely : 1. Does the Roman Catholic Church, positively or impliedly, require its members to believe any doctrine or truth that cannot be understood by the human intelligence? 2. Does your church, impliedly or otherwise, teach that its members must accept as true any assertion made by a religious superior because of his authority? 3. Is it not true that to break the seal of confession is a mortal sin? If it is, how do you know the priest does not use the im- moral, obscene theology of Dens and Liguori with Catholic women in the confessional? Name date and authority for discon- tinuance. 4. Are you acquainted with the general text and tenor of the various encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and others against Free- masonry, and if so, do you agree with them and feel bound to carry out their commands? 5. Are Roman Catholics taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the voice of God Almighty? 6. Are you acquainted with any directions emanating from the Vatican at Rome for Roman Catholics to take part in politics, so that constitutions and legislation and governments may be changed to conform to the principles of the Roman church, and if so, what are the "principles" referred to? (7) 8 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 7. Does your church believe and teach that all men are free to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, at all times and under all circumstances? 8. Do you and your church believe in free public schools, sup- ported by the State and free from the control of any church or religious organization, including your own? 9. Do you and the church you represent believe in the separa- tion of church and state? 10. If a Protestant minister and a Roman Catholic barkeeper were candidates for the same office — for mayor — which would you feel in duty bound to support? Which would generally re- ceive the greater number of Catholic votes? ^ 11. Should your church become dominant in America and recog- nized as the religion of state, would you accord freedom of opin- ion, of press, of speech and of worship to other denominations, even when same actively oppose the Roman Catholic church? 12. If you answer in the affirmative, please state what you would do if the pope should command that such toleration be not granted. 13. Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach that (1) the church has the right to employ force, (2) that non-Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or in person, (3) that the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth by death? 14. Does the Roman Catholic church claim the right to control education? If so, name one country where the church has been in control for centuries in the past where the percentage of ignorance is as small as it is in any Protestant country. 15. Are Roman Catholics taught that the civil authority ought to be subordinate to the ecclesiastical authority? 16. Do you think there is any persecution of Catholics in this country, and if so, on what grounds and by whom do you think it is being carried on? 17. Do you and your church recognize any other church as "Christian"? Has any pope ever so declared? 18. In case of conflict between the laws of your church and the laws of the state, which are you in duty bound to obey, as a matter of religious conscience? 19. If it be true that a large percentage of your fellow-citizens fear the alleged intention of the Vatican to make the Roman Catholic church dominant in the political affairs of this country; to suppress Freemasonry and secret orders generally ; to control the press; to abridge freedom of speech; to prevent religious toleration of other sects, churches or creeds, and to control the public school system or destroy it, would you be willing, in order to dissipate such ideas, to declare openly, without mental reserva- tion or equivocation, on your honor as American citizens, that if such be the intention or purpose of the Vatican or the pope, or any part of the clergy or laity of your church, to resist the execu- tion of such designs to the uttermost and join your fellow- citizens in repudiating such attempts? 20. If you answer that you would, please state in what way or The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 9 manner such information could be brought to your careful, con- scientious attention for consideration — if you could investigate such questions independently of your priest? 21. The Jesuit order was abolished in 1769 by Pope Clement XIV; it has been excluded from almost every civilized country many times; not permitted even now to enter Roman Catholic Spain, although another pope lifted the ban from the order. Please state why it (a) was abolished, (b) barred from other countries, (c) kept out of Spain now, (d) how one pope can "abolish and forever destroy the Society of Jesus" and another re-establish the order. 22. If baptism is essential to salvation and membership in your church, and if its validity depends upon whether or not the offi- ciating priest had the right "intention" at the time of baptizing a subject of the church, how can any one know that he is a mem- ber of your church — from the pope on down? Do you require a certificate from the priest wherein he declares he had the right "intention" at the time of performing the ceremony? 23. If your priest can turn wine into the blood and body of Christ, please state why he cannot turn water into wine. 24. As your church forbids its members to discuss or study, independently of priest-censorship, any subject relating to reli- gion, morality, ecclesiastical (church) history, etc., on what in- telligent basis do you expect to see peace and harmony estab- lished between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics? 25. Is there any appreciable number of Catholics of Georgia in any manner affiliated with the American Federated Catholic Societies? 26. To what extent do you think the organizing of this society has been instrumental in arousing an anti-Catholic spirit? 27. Does your church teach, directly or impliedly, that mem- bers must not accuse the priests or bishops even though it be known to them that prelates have committed grave sins? If so, how can a man protect his home? 28. Would your association prosecute a priest if he were to wrong a member, by appealing to the laws of the land? 29. A soldier, being under command of superiors, must say and do only as he is ordered regardless of his personal opinion or wishes. Does this principle obtain in your church? If so, what can your association of laymen hope to accomplish? 30. Why is it a venial sin, that must be confessed, for a Cath- olic to attend a Protestant church service, but it is not made a sin by your church for its members to engage in the sale of in- toxicating liquors? 31. If your church is the only true church, and its only aim is the salvation of souls, and Catholics are taught that there is danger of losing their souls in going to Protestant churches, why does not your church teach and command its members to keep out of the liquor business, if it does not consider entering a Protes- tant church worse than running a barroom? 32. The Ne Temere decree of your church was enforced in America in 1908; non-Catholics believe your church becomes 10 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged more insistent in its demands and efforts to enforce the decrees of the Vatican in proportion as it grows in numerical and politi- cal strength. If this is not true, please state why this decree was not ordered enforced in this country at an earlier period; say, for instance, at the time of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars? In answering the above interrogatories, do not state your opin- ion, or what you may wish as individuals and citizens, but as Roman Catholics, proving your answer in each instance by citing your highest church authority, that is, popes and councils. The above questions, I assure you, have not been formulated in a wanton spirit of levity, or antagonism ; they voice a few of the many points in the fundamental differences between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics, as I see it, and on their adjustment to the American ideals of democracy depends the future. Trusting you will favor me with an early reply, I am, Respectfully, C. A. Yarbrough. In answer to the above, the following acknowledgment was re- ceived from the Catholic Laymen's Association, on its printed stationery, as were all other letters from it: Augusta, Ga., May 7, 1917. Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, American National Bank Bldg., Macon, Ga. Dear Sir: Your letter of the 2d by registered mail just re- ceived. The thirty-two questions will be answered just as soon as we can get to them. A large number of inquiries, and the limited time I can give to the Laymen's work, forces me to beg your indulgence for a few days. I appreciate the spirit that prompted your inquiry and trust that the information sent you will answer your questions fully and completely. Very truly yours, (Signed) J. J. Farrell, Mgr. Having been informed through the press that Mr. A. J. Long and Hon. Augustin D. Daly, of this city, were officers of the Lay- men's Association, copies of the above questions were forwarded to them, with the following note : Macon, Ga., May 7, 1917. Dear Sir: Some three weeks ago I received a pamphlet from the Catholic Laymen's Association, title, "A Plea for Peace." I understand you are a member of this body, therefore, I am sending you the enclosed letter. Respectfully, C. A. Yarbrough. Although the Hon. Gus. Daly is an attorney and ex-Recorder of the Police Court, he has never acknowledged the communica- tion. Mr. A. J. Long, a prominent merchant, replied as follows : The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 11 Macon, Ga., May 14, 1917. Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. Dear Sir : Your favor of the 7th inst. received. I also received the list of questions and impolite suggestions attached thereto. Your letter and questions have been forwarded to Mr. J. J. Farrell, of Augusta, Ga., who will endeavor to answer them cor- rectly. Yours very truly, (Signed) A.J.Long. The following letter was forwarded to Mr. Long: Macon, Ga., May 22, 1917. Mr. A. J. Long, Macon, Ga. Dear Sir : Your letter of the 14th inst., acknowledging receipt of mine of the 7th, to hand and, while it does not call for reply, I am at a loss to understand what you consider as being an "im- polite suggestion," and would kindly ask you to advise, being more explicit in reference thereto. If the letter contained an impolite suggestion, it was not inten- tional. Yours respectfully, C. A. Yarbrough. To this, Mr. Long responded: Macon Ga., May 23, 1917. Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. Dear Sir : Replying to your letter of May 22d. The third question in the list you sent me on May 2d contains the "impolite suggestions" that I referred to in mine to you of the 14th inst. You suggest in that question that immoral practices arise from the confessional, and you call for a defense of the confes- sional rather than an explanation of the same. You may have asked the question without thinking how it sounded, at the same time a Catholic's religion is so much a part of him that he naturally takes exception to those who question his belief or practices as such. You also imply in many of the questions that I, on account of being a Catholic (if the implication doesn't apply to me it doesn't apply to any other Catholic) , am not and cannot be as good an American citizen as you or anybody else. This implication I re- sent as "impolite," because my patriotism should not be ques- tioned by any good citizen, unless for specific reasons arising from some personal act of my own, for which I am responsible to you as a good citizen and therefore subject to your criticism and prosecution if need be. To say that I am not a loyal American because of my religion is striking at the very foundation upon which this country so firmly stands, and the man who charges his fellow-citizen with disloyalty because of his religion is himself a bad citizen, because he is seeking to tear down the structure of American principles 12 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged which was built by the brains of men of many religious beliefs, and has been maintained by the blood of the patriots from; all denominations. If you earnestly desire information about the Catholic Church and the practices of Catholics, you can get it first-hand by per- sonal investigation and observation, which every Catholic will welcome and will assist you any way you may desire; but if your inquiries are prompted by a spirit of religious intolerance and its consequent religious prejudices and ill will, I for one do not ca,re to throw away my valuable time in exchaging correspondence when no good can come from it. Of course your mind will deter- mine whether or not our correspondence will continue. Yours very truly, A. J. Long. I will be glad to have you as my guest at any or all the services and show you through the church from pillar to dome and render any service in my power in your investigations. To this interesting epistle I replied: Macon, Ga., June 5, 1917. Mr. A. J. Long, Macon, Ga. Dear Sir: In relation to yours of the 23d instant — It is the duty of every citizen to investigate all questions — civil, political or religious — that may affect himself, his family, of his neighbor. In pursuance of this necessary qualification of worthy citizenship I have mapped out such course of procedure relative to the study of Roman Catholicism as I consider best suited to secure desired information as to the faith and prac- tices ENJOINED BY THE SYSTEM. No one disputes the fact that Catholicism becomes woven into the very warp and woof of those who are born and reared under its influence and is a very part of them; that does not signify, however, that Catholicism is right or wrong, but that fact does demand that those who are not reared under its teaching should by investigation and observation, ascertain what are its faith and practices and their fruits, and to what extent, if any, it would or seeks to interfere with their rights, faith and prac- tices as non-Catholics; and Catholics should know that all who are not Catholic are just as jealous, and zealous, in defense of their religion and other rights as Catholics. Being one of the promoters of the Catholic Laymen's Associa- tion, you virtually and technically invite questions: you are pre- sumed to know that any question, on that hypothesis, is for the purpose of eliciting information on that particular phase of Catholicism as a system, and the personal equation enters into it only as in that of a witness in a court of justice; and it is not germain whether the questions be such as require defense or explanation, provided the one or the other establishes what is the truth. Without an admission, or evidence of previous misconduct, any one would be a bad citizen if he should charge another with The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 13 disloyalty, just because he is a Catholic; such charge, as you rightly suggest, should be based upon act and, hence, subject to personal criticism or lagal action. These three elements (ad- mission, evidence of past record, and overt acts) enter very largely into my plan of investigating Catholicism, using such means and applying the same rules and principles in a way that are usual in legal procedure; this may be classed as "intoler- ance:" it is the only reasonable basis upon which truth may be established, to the satisfaction of a reasoning mind. With all the foregoing in view, I submitted to you a list of questions; in not answering, you exercised your prerogative, but as you turned the list over to the Catholic Laymen's Associa- tion, I shall take it for granted that answers rendered to the questions have your endorsement and are approved as such, un- less I am specifically advised to the contrary. Whether I am tolerant of, or prejudiced against, papalism, in degree, will be determined by my findings. In no event could I visit either prejudice or intolerance upon individual Catholics; if you would devote a little time to the study of it, you would doubtless find that the attitude of the Protestant mind to Catholics and to papalism is well illustrated by the attitude of the Government of the United States relative to the German people and the Imperial German Government. I should have answered sooner, but have been so busy I am just now answering. Trusting you will give this your attention at your earliest convenience, I am, Very respectfully, C. A. Yarbrough. Mr. Long has not answered this letter. LAYMEN'S ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Augusta, Ga., May 18, 1917. Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, American National Bank Bldg., Macon, Ga. Dear Sir : Replying now to the questions in your letter of May 2d, I give you the following answers seriatim. [The questions will be omitted here, presenting the answers only. — Author.] Answer to 1: The Catholic Church does positively require its members to believe truth that cannot be understood by the human intelligence, such as, that "there are Three Persons in One God,'* that "the Word was made Flesh," that "this is My Body," and many others. The Catholic religion is a supernatural religion and necessarily teaches supernatural truths, which, of course, are above the comprehension of the human intelligence. Answer to 2 : No. Answer to 3 : The seal of confession does not impose any obli- gation on the penitent, but on the priest only. The penitent man or woman is free to say what was said in confession, either by himself or herself or by the priest. Every penitent is free to tell to any person whomsoever anything whatsoever that was said or done in the confessional. Catholics frequently talk among them- selves about the admonitions and counsels given them in the con- fessional, the penances imposed, etc. This, of course, is a com- plete answer to that part of your question referring to Catholic women, unless indeed you presume to accuse them of concealing from their husbands, from their own daughters even what would be unnatural for them to conceal, and what they have every right to disclose. Answer to 4 : I am acquainted with the encyclicals you refer to and agree with their general text and tenor. They contain no commands to be carried out, but only prohibitions to be observed, which are in substance simply that Catholics should not become members of the society of Freemasonry, or in any way encourage or assist this society as such. Answer to 5 : No. Answer to 6: No, nor is anyone else, because no such direc- tions were ever given. Answer to 7: Yes, so long as they are decent about it, and orderly. Answer to 8 : Yes, we help support them, without protest and willingly. For ourselves we prefer parochial schools, in order to teach our children the faith of their fathers ; but we recognize the necessity of public schools and we patronize them where we can not maintain our own. And we pay our portion of taxes to sup- port them everywhere. Answer to 9: As applied in this country and secured under our constitution and laws we do believe in the separation of church and state. Answer to 10: Probably neither one; and very likely. A Cath- olic is in bad business as a barkeeper, and if he would listen to< (14) The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 15 the voice of the church, as pronounced in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, he would not be one. The Protestant minis- ter is in bad business as a candidate for office. One professing to carry the message of the Gospel between God and man, be he Catholic or Protestant, can just as well keep out of politics, and his being a candidate against the barkeeper would scarcely better matters. Catholics are as much divided in politics as any other class of people in this country. Answer to 11: Catholics have no desire whatever that their religion be recognized as the religion of state in America. We are perfectly satisfied, from the highest prelate to the lowest lay- man, with the rights guaranteed by our constitution. And we would oppose any change in our constitution looking to the recog- nition cf any religion as the religion of state. It follows that we stand for that freedom of opinion, of press, of speech, of wor- ship, to all denominations that our constitution and our laws now provide for. Answer to 12 : In the event you imagine, were it possible for it to come about, we would treat the pope's command as an usur- pation of our rights as American citizens to conduct our national affairs in such manner as we might think just and right. The pope has no authority to interfere in matters of politics or in the right administration of our civic affairs, and if he should, we would pay no attention to him. Answer to 13: (1) NO. (2) NO. (3) NO. Answer to 14: The church has the right to teach all religious truth. She claims no other right in matters of education. The second part of the above question is based on a misconception. The church has not been in control of any country in the world, neither for centuries nor for a century, nor for any length of time. The percentage of illiteracy in countries where the ma- jority of the people is Catholic compares favorably with that where the majority of the country is non-Catholic. As proof of this, we can begin right at home. The percentage of illiteracy in the United States is most in those states where there are fewest Catholics — North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi and Ala- bama, for example. We do not say, however, that this is because there are more Protestants than Catholics in these states. We know that there are reasons that fully explain the backwardness of those states along educational lines. Similar reasons prevail in regard to countries as in regard to states. Of course, you know that the first schools, the first colleges,. the first universities on the American continent were started by Catholics. You doubtless know that the first free schools of modern times, practically every university of Europe, the very systems of education in vogue throughout the civilized world originated with Catholics. Answer to 15 : No. Answer to 16 : There can be no doubt of the fact that there is a systematic campaign of villification and slander being carried on against the Catholic Church and her people in this country. It is being conducted by two classes of persons : first, those who work it for the sake of the financial returns it brings them in the 16 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged way of subscriptions and donations, and second, those who aim to destroy all religion and are merely attacking the Catholic Church as being the oldest and most vigorous exponent of Christianity. Answer to 17: The Catholic Church does not recognize any other church as having been founded by Christ. Christ estab- lished but one church. Our church teaches, and we Catholics be- lieve, that the Catholic Church is that church. Answer to 18 : In case of the conflict you imagine, either the church authorities would be exceeding their just powers or the state authorities would be exceeding their just powers, and it would be the duty of every man, Catholic or not Catholic, in such a case, to determine for himself as a matter of conscience which of these authorities was the usurper and firmly to stand for the other. Answer to 19 : Yes. Answer to 20 : Those who claim to be in possession of such in- formation must themselves find some respectful way of bringing it to the attention of others. Of course, we can investigate such questions, if at all, independently of our priest. There is no ques- tion of any sort open to investigation that we are not as free to investigate as any other persons. Answer to 21 : The Jesuit order was abolished as a matter of internal church policy. It is barred from some countries and in some countries from some dioceses, for the same reasons. Every society within the church, Jesuit, Dominican, Francsican, etc., exists by consent of the head of the church, and can be suspended, abolished, reinstated or created anew as the Roman Pontiff may deem necessary. They may enter this diocese or that Or be ex- cluded from one or another as the bishop of the diocese may deem to the best interest of the church in that jurisdiction. In some dioceses only one or two orders are permitted charges, in others more, in some all may have charges. The whole matter is a ques- tion of internal church policy. Answer to 22: Baptism is not essential to salvation. It is not essential to membership in the Catholic Church. Its validity does not depend upon whether the officiating priest had the right "intention" or not; its validity does not depend upon whether or not a priest officiates. Any person, Catholic, non-Catholic, Prot- estant, Jew, or Infidel can administer valid baptism. Answer to 23: Christ did not direct His apostles to turn water into wine. He Himself turned water into wine, but said nothing about it. He later changed wine into His blood, said, "This is My Blood," and then directed His apostles to do what he had done in commemoration of him. To be commemorative, this act must go on to the end of time. The priest has authority to carry out His directions. But he has not the authority to turn water into wine, as you suggest. Answer to 24 : Your presumption is all wrong, for our church does not forbid her children to discuss or study independently of priest-censorship any subject relating to religion, morality, eccle- siastical (church) history, etc. You evidently have been badly misinformed on this matter. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 17 Answer to 25: Yes. Answer to 26 : I will say to no extent worth mentioning. Answer to 27: No, the church does not teach this, either directly or indirectly, explicitly or impliedly. A Catholic may protect his home in the same way a non-Catholic may protect his. Answer to 28: If it were necessary to secure redress, we would. Answer to 29: The principle of action between a soldier and his superior officers does not obtain between the church and her children. The principle of action in the Catholic church is rather that prevailing in a well-regulated, God-fearing, devoted, affec- tionate family. Answer to 30: It is not necessarily a sin to attend a Protes- tant church service ; it depends on many circumstances. It is more than likely a sin for Catholics to engage in the indiscriminate sale of intoxicating liquors, although that, too, depends upon circum- stances. You should know also that what is termed a venial sin is not a matter of confession. Answer to 31: In the Third Plenary Council the hierarchy of the church in the United States expressly enjoined upon Cath- olics to sever their connection with the liquor traffic. Answer to 32 : The reason that the Ne Temere decree was not put into effect throughout the United States until 1908 was be- cause of the absence of a sufficient number of Catholic priests in this country to render the observance of this rule practical on the part of Catholics. The church is always solicitous not to enjoin upon her children a rule of conduct that would be generally a hardship and for this reason the rule requiring all Catholics who marry to come before a priest was delayed until the number of priests was such as to make one available in most any part of the country at most any time. To cite authorities for each of the above questions as you here request would require space unlimited; I am sure it will be agree- able to you, and I prefer, that you will point out any answer which is not entirely satisfactory, and I shall then support that with such authority as must make it satisfactory. If any of these answers are not satisfactory to you, I shall be glad to treat more at length such as you may indicate. Yours very truly, J. J. Farrell, Chm. Mr. J. J. Farrell, Macon ' Ga " Ma ^ 25 ' 1917 ' Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, Augusta, Ga. Dear Sir: Yours of the 18th inst. received. Press of business has prevented giving your answers more than a scanscion glance. After careful perusal, will avail myself of your kind request, by taking up further with you such questions as may not be an- swered satisfactorily. Thanking you for your letter, I am, Very truly, C. A. Yarbrough. 18 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Macon, Ga., Sept. 7, 1917. Catholic Laymen's Association, Augusta, Ga. Gentlemen: Your answers to my questions have been care- fully reviewed, and as a whole, they are not satisfactory. I have gone into each one to some extent in order to make it clear wherein and why they are unsatisfactory, and from the various reasons advanced, you will learn the general impression made on the minds of those who study this subject at all from a standpoint of fundamentals. The conclusions relative to each question are based on a careful analysis of such reliable information available at this time, in conjunction with the manner in which the questions have been treated by your Association. I am devoting some thought to this matter ; I deem it the duty of every citizen worthy of the name to investigate any and all questions that may affect him, his family or his neighbor, whether such questions be social, political, religious or otherwise. I have weighed such evidence as is at this time available, direct and indirect, attaching to each such weight and importance as its source warrants, and the means of each witness for knowing what is the truth; eulogistic literature, from inside and outside sources, have no appreciable influence: as long as Catholic and pro-Catholic speakers and writers ignore the canon law of the Church of Rome, and contemporaneous acts, overt and covert, demonstrate that such Vatican laws areof full effect and force whenever expediency warrants, just that long will there be opposition to Catholics politically. Your answers to my questions would be ample and satisfac- tory to one who is governed by the Index of the Roman church, but you ought to know that those who are not barred by the Index from reading the history of your church, its laws, the- ology, etc., require more than the mere assertion of laymen; such must be from official utterances of those who are recognized as having the right to speak for and in the name of the pope con- cerning what may be the "intention" of the Roman church, as non-Catholics are more concerned with this than with the ques- tions of faith and practice, for the time being — "faith and prac- tice" always follow the culmination of "intention." If, in my analyses of your answers, I have not revealed the essence or genius of Roman,Catholicism, I would be very glad to have you correct me. Very truly, C. A. Yarbrough. With this letter was a paper, "Reasons Why Answers to Ques- tions Are Not Satisfactory." To get the original questions, the Association's answers and my objections or criticisms of answers assembled in order of their individual connection, the correspondence will be collated under each question number, followed by the answer of the Asso- ciation, then my criticism. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 19 No. 1: Does the Roman Catholic church, positively or im- pliedly, require its members to believe any doctrine or truth that cannot be understood by the human intelligence? Association's answer: The ^Catholic Church does positively require its members to believe truth that cannot be understood by the human intelligence such as, "there are Three Persons in one God," that "the Word was made Flesh," that "this is My Body," and many others. The Catholic religion is a supernatural religion, and necessarily teaches supernatural truths, which of course are above the comprehension of the human intelligence. No. 2: Does your church, impliedly or otherwise, teach that its members must accept as true any assertion made by a reli- gious superior because of his authority? Answer: No. CRITICISM OF ANSWERS BY AUTHOR Questions Nos. 1 and 2 — These two are practically one ques- tion, they being a sub-division of a single sentence from the Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII against Freemasonry, i. e., "they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be under- stood by the human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by reason of his AUTHORITY." He very clearly im- plied the well-known rule of the Catholic church, that laymen MUST believe as true any assertion made by a religious superior, because of his authority — all bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, etc., are "religious superiors," and in answering a part of the sentence affirmatively and the other in the negative, you demon- strate that either you or your pope is in error. Stated in a sentence, your answer to Question 2 is the position the whole non-Catholic world sustains to the papacy; if you maintain that attitude in fact, you destroy the very foundation upon which the superstructure of the Catholic church rests. In electing him pope, the cardinals delegate to him the place of God Almighty on earth, with all the AUTHORITY of God; he in turn proclaims to the cardinals, bishops, priests, etc., what he considers is truth, and vests them with AUTHORITY to teach it, and no layman has the right to question. Through this door enters all the sayings of the papal "Fathers" which laymen can not read or study, but must accept from the priest that which he has been "authorized" to proclaim, as a rule and guide for their faith and practice, regardless of whether it be from Holy Writ or the Traditions of Men. To illustrate how far this "authority" is recognized by Cath- olics, you say you believe in the Real Presence in the Mass, just because priests and bishops say the pope says it is; and it seems to non-Catholics that a mind subscribing to that is willing to do anything required by the law of those in authority. Your answers to Questions 1 and 2 reveal a general lack of knowledge of the spirit of Catholicism that is surprising, and 20 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged you presume to teach others! To those who really understand the principles of a proposition, the slightest allusion embodying them is instantly recognized, even if the verbiage is different. In this case you failed utterly to recognize, not only the basic prin- ciples underlying the questions, but also the language of one of your greatest popes. Students discover deep mysteries concerning the Past, Present and Future, pertaining to man, which call for an exercise of faith in God and His Providence when they swing out of range of the human intelligence; at that point, Catholics and non-Catholics must separate. By reason of his "authority," the pope makes laymen rely upon him and forbids exercise of reason in all mat- ters Past, Present and Future, demanding that what has been said, he may now proclaim, or decree in the future, must be accepted by Catholics unquestioned on pain of excommunication — a principle in its operation far exceeding the "authority" God exercises, thus erecting an insurmountable barrier between Catholics and others, as the main preoccupat'on of true Catholics is, to endeavor to bring all men under this authority of the pope, who become highly incensed when they discover non-Catholics industriously engaged in barricading against subjection to papal "authority." No. 3 : Is it not true, that to break the seal of confession is a mortal sin? If it is, how do you know the priest does not use the immoral, . obscene theology of Dens and Liguori with Cath- olic women in the confessional? Name date and authority of discontinuance. Answer: The seal of confession does not impose any obliga- tion on the penitent, but on the priest only. The penitent man or woman is free to say what was said in confession, either by him- self or herself or by the priest. Every penitent is free to .tell to any person whomsoever anything whatsoever that was said or done in the confessional. Catholics frequently talk among them- selves about the admonitions and counsels given them in the confessional, the penances imposed, etc. This, of course, is a complete answer to that part of your question referring to Catholic women, unless indeed, you presume to accuse them of concealing from their husbands, from their own daughters even, what would be unnatural for them to conceal and what they have every right to disclose. CRITICISM You say the seal of confession does not apply to penitents. Liguori, the Doctor of the whole church, says, relative to the Sacramental Seal: "The penitent is bound by nature to keep SECRET ALL THINGS said to him by his confessor, IF their exposure would bring damage to the confessor (i. e., priest) or injury and contempt on the Sacrament." VI, 647. Prop. 1367, ques.: "Must the priest be denounced who plans The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 21 with a woman . . . that . . . she feign sickness when he comes to her house in order to act criminally with her?" Ans.: "No," with reasons assigned that every man should read. Prop. 1370, ques. : "Must the penitent be denounced who solicits in confessional?" Ans.: "No," with reasons. Tertullian, one of the holy fathers of the Roman church, teaches that bashfulness ought not to cause neglect of confes- sion. Saint Ambrose, on Confession, says: "Confess FREELY to the priest the HIDDEN SECRETS of thy soul, and SHOW THEM, as thou wouldst thy hidden wounds to thy physician." On this subject a Catholic Catechism, having the imprimatur of Cardinals Wiseman and McClosky, states that confession must be "1 — entire, 2 — sincere, 3 — clear;" entire: confess all grievous sins; sincere: conceal NOTHING; clear: when the priest can understand EVERYTHING well; DISTINCTLY name and specify different sins. If a penitent is ashamed to make a SINCERE confession, this Catechism declares it "procures him neither remission of sins nor peace of conscience; but that the confession, as well as the communion which follows it, is another grievous sin — a sacrilege — and deserves eternal damnation." Deharbe, pp. 284-5-6. From a priest's hand-book, approved by the late Archbishop Quigley of the Diocese of Chicago, under general caption of Con- fession, sub-topic "Adultery," we discover the Church of Rome in the nineteenth century endorsing and practicing the doctrine of Ambrose of the fourth century, as follows : "Have you deliberately indulged or taken pleasure in impure thoughts? HOW OFTEN? Have you entertained impure de- sires? Have you committed unchaste acts when alone? IS THIS A HABIT? Have you been guilty of immodest acts with an- other?" p. 160. The above proves beyond a doubt to a reasoning mind that priests of Rome MUST tear from women that garment of mod- esty which nature supplied, and probe the very secret recesses of the heart in the confessional, and lay bare to a bachelor her inmost thoughts, unless the priest is disobedient to his SYSTEM. I am not satisfied with your answer to that part of the ques- tion relating to seal of confession. As to Catholic women — I accuse them of nothing, but in the light of the preponderance of available evidence, I DO accuse your system of religion as being an enemy of, and Catholic men as recreant toward, womanhood, regardless of race, color or creed! The foregoing quotations from the practices of your church stand as a challenge for real manhood to defend womanhood against one of the deep- est pitfalls ever dug in the pathway of the human race. I question this practice of your church, that seeks to tear even 22 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged the fig leaves from the race; and since you enter a denial to the fact, I will demonstrate, on your own ground, with the theory of your own church in action, that the confessional and its seal are facts. You suggest, like a heretic, that it would be "unnatural" for a woman to conceal certain things from her husband or daughter, and in doing this you vitiate, destroy and nullify your answer to No. 1. (This is one of the dogmas of your church that swings out beyond the ken of the human intelligence, re- quiring an unquestioning faith in the AUTHORITY of a pope to make it right.) When you take the faith and practices of the Roman church into the realm of NATURE, they at once become supernatural, unnatural, or repugnant, depending solely on the state of mind superinduced by early influence and whether or not the Index has operated to an end. There must be repentance for, before God forgives, sin; He needs no Versicle. Now, then, on p. 275 of Catechism we cite: "Does the priest truly remit sins, or does he only declare that they are remitted?" Ans. : "The priest does really and truly remit the sins in virtue of the power given him by Christ." Here we see that the priest is ENTITLED to know and MUST ascer- tain exactly what sin has been committed before forgiving it, or prescribing penance therefor; and it is reasonable to infer that one who believes the priest CAN forgive sin realizes the neces- sity of CONFESSING any sin, and by that very fact must also believe that the priest is so close to God as to partake of His divine nature, essence and qualities, and, believing this, will naturally tell him what she would consider unnatural to tell her husband or daughter ; to ascribe this power to a man carries with it all the rights and prerogatives of God. It was at your solicitation that these questions were asked relating to the faith and practices of your church, and the bur- den is upon you to satisfy a reasoning mind as to what is the truth ; repeating the original request : Please state date of decree and name of pope abolishing confessional ; the foregoing citations from authoritative sources establish the fact of the confessional and the seal, which remain part of Catholic faith and practice till some general council or pope orders discontinuance. In my brief research I find there are many requirements in your faith and practices, established on traditions of men, that ap- peal to the uninitiated as unnatural, and the confessional is one of them. Of course, I understand a great deal depends upon train- ing; mothers have often cast their baby girls to alligators at the behest of their priests, who trained them to believe that to do so was natural and pleasing to their god. If you begin early enough with a child, and persist in a necessary oversight, you have a Chinese woman of large stature and a small foot; if you can govern what it reads or hears, and place its intellect under The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 23 the Index, when it becomes an old man he will call a roaring furnace a refrigerator, and a refrigerator a furnace, and be sincere enough to fight for it, however unnatural or supernatural it may appear to those not subject to such training. A mind that can be so trained as to believe a man can turn a little piece of rice cake and a little glass of wine into separate and distinct bodies of Christ — the veritable blood, flesh, bones, etc. — it seems to me, is capable of believing that that man can do nor say anything incompatible with God. If this is not a correct interpretation of the spirit of this doc- trine, please setjne right. No. 4 : Are you acquainted with the general text and tenor of the various encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and others against Freemasonry, and if so, do you agree with them and feel bound to carry out their commands? Answer: I am acquainted with the encyclicals you refer to and agree with their general text and tenor. They contain no commands to be carried out, but only prohibitions to be observed, which are in substance simply that Catholics should not become members of the society of Freemasonry or in any way encourage or assist this society as such. CRITICISM Your answer here is palpably inconsistent with other answers, on which I desire more light. The general text and tenor of the decrees against Freemasonry is epitomized by Pope Leo XIII, on pp. 88-106, Great Encyclical Letters. He says: "The parti- sans of evil seem to be combining together . . . lead on or assisted by . . . the Freemasons, . . . They are now boldly rising up against God Himself . . . utterly despoiling the nations of Christendom, " and makes use of "fraud or audacity;" that it is his duty to use his "AUTHORITY to the very utter- most against so great an evil" and to bring more "into light its power for evil and to do what We can to arrest the contagion of this fatal plague." Asserts if a member is disobedient, "to sub- mit to the direst penalties and death itself . . . punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes punishment for his crime . . . arms men's right hands for bloodshed after securing immunity for their crimes." Masonry "is in antago- nism with justice and natural uprightness" and is "essentially opposed to natural virtue . . . that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view, namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced . . . Criminal acts . . . their very foulness strike with horror . . . they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be understood by the human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by 24 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged reason of his authority . . . they declare to the people that State and Church ought to be altogether disunited," and that "the rights of the church are not spared;" that Freemasonry caused the pope to be "thrust out from . . . his civil prince- dom;" that Masonry teaches "the multitude should be satisfied with a boundless vice." It teaches "all men have the same rights" and that "each one is naturally free . . . teaches that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any AUTHORITY other than that which is obtained from themselves," and that "power is held by the command or permission of the people." Because Free- masonry holds that all religions should occupy the same place in society, he says, "In this insane and wicked endeavor we may almost see the implacable hatred and spirit of revenge with which Satan himself is inflamed against Jesus Christ. — So also the stupendous endeavor of Freemasons to destroy the chief foundations of justice and honesty, ... in this grave and wide- spread evil, it is Our duty, Venerable Brethren, to find a remedy. . . . We pray and beseech you ... to join your efforts with Ours, and earnestly to strive for the extirpation of this foul plague . . . tear away the mask from Freemasonry . . . and by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the people . . . as to the depravity of their opinions and the wickedness of their acts;" that "the whole principle and object of the sect lies in what is vicious and bad." Under direction of the bishop, all parents, religious instructors and priests are to "use every op- portunity in their Christian teaching, of warning their children and pupils of the infamous nature of these societies. . . . The sect of Freemasons . . . excite one another to an audacity for evil things. . . . Let us take as our intercessor the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so that she . . . may show her power over these evil sects, in which is revived the contumacious spirit of the demon, together with all his unsubdued perfidity and deceit." On behalf of the Catholics of the State of Georgia, you say you are familiar with all the above — its general text and tenor — and AGREE with it. Is this attitude a result of a first-hand knowl- edge on your part of the tenets and practices of the Masonic order, and by observation you have found that Freemasonry "is in antagonism with justice and natural uprightness and is essen- tially opposed to natural virtue," or are Catholics in duty bound to oppose the order in obedience to the authority of religious superiors? Leo XIII specifically orders all Catholics to "earnestly strive for the extirpation of this foul plague" and further commands "parents, religious instructors and priests . . . use every op- portunity ... of warning their children and pupils" against the order; and "by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 25 people as to the artifices used by societies of this kind in seducing and enticing men into their ranks." You say, however, that the pope has issued no commands to be earried out by Catholics — but do agree with what he says against the order! With a few changes in the text, Leo's encyclical against Free- masonry so thoroughly describes the Jesuit order as demon- strated by history and methods, that it would seem he used some old enyclicial against the Jesuits, substituting "Freemasonry" for "Society of Jesus." To Americans, Freemasonry, like religion, has a right to exist under the Constitution of the United States; and it is logical to presume that those who would seek its destruction, because de- manded by an alien influence, are ready and eager to destroy any other right under the Constitution that cannot be subjugated to such influence ; and there are many millions of people in America who are neither Masons nor church members, who take exception to any influence that would tend to destroy this provision of the Constitution; because they know if Freemasonry can be "extir- pated," in like manner all religions save the Roman could be de- stroyed, which would ultimately result in union of Church and State, the objective of all true Catholics — especially when under the direction of the Jesuits. Perhaps you Catholic laymen — and priests — have not consid- ered this fact : If the Grand Masters of the various Grand Lodges of the several States had issued letters against Catholicism simi- lar to that of Leo against Freemasonry, in connection with the powerful influence they could wield outside of the order, the Catholic church long ago would have been stripped of her faith and practices in action, so that its existence would be about as that of a Protestant church in Spain. Is not this true? Can you offer any reason why the order should not pursue this course? So far, however, it has remained practically impassive and indif- ferent, no Grand Lodge taking notice of papalism to my knowl- edge. This alone should convince a reasoning man that Leo did not adhere strictly to the truth in his letter against Freemasonry and that in causing Catholics to assume that attitude against the order, with its attendant strife, committed a grave blunder, exer- cised poor judgment and very little consideration for the welfare, peace and harmony of his subjects in this country, in committing his "children" to the task of "extirpating this foul plague ; " and it would be comical, if it were not so tragic, for Catholics of Georgia to make a "Plea for Peace" in a State where there are twice as many men affiliated with the Masonic order as there are men, women and children in the Catholic church — a small minor- ity pleading in one breath, "Let us have peace," yet virtually say- ing in the next, "We desire to extirpate you!" You agree with 26 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Leo that this order, composed of the best men in every commu- nity in the nation, should be destroyed because of its "evil" nature ! Like a sturdy, grown man, Masonry has taken very little notice of the pope and his children up to the present; but some day "patience may cease to be a virtue," when Masons and Protest- ants may teach their children the history, canon law and theology and "intention" of the Roman church; teach them how an old man in Italy can force millions of American citizens to hate their fellow-citizens and would command them, if strong enough, to "extirpate" them because they refuse to let him dictate what they shall read, think or say. The existence of the Roman church de- pends upon the Index and the accident of birth, as is evidenced by your several answers to my questions. The law, history and theology of the Roman church — ah! they reveal the "intention" of papalism! The pope does well to maintain his Index for his own existence; but in calling on those under his authority to assist him in the processes of "extirpation" of those who refuse to be circumscribed in their investigations by such Index, he can not well expect those whom he would so subjugate to go to any great pains to place his "children" in public schools and political office where they may assist in carrying out his "intention." No. 5: Are Roman Catholics taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the voice of God Almighty? Answer : No. CRITICISM To this you answer "No." Leo, Great Encyclical Letters, p.S04, declares: "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." On p. 458: "We hold the place of Him who came to save that which was lost." On 380: "Obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith." 194: Catholics "must allow themselves to be RULED and DIRECTED by the AUTHORITY and leader- ship of bishops, and above all by the Apostolic See." 193 : "The supreme teacher in the church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, COMPLETE SUBMISSION and OBEDIENCE of WILL to the church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to GOD HIM- SELF." 183 : "It is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to RULE with SUPREME POWER" members of the Catholic church, and (130) says that "what the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind." These citations from one who reigned so many years seem to indicate that Catholics are "taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the voice of God Almighty." If this is not the literal teaching of your church, words and language con- vey no meaning to those outside of it. Do you maintain your The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 27 answer "No" to this question? If so, support it with reasonable proof. No. 6: Are you acquainted with any directions emanating from the Vatican at Rome, for Roman Catholics to take part in politics, so that constitutions and legislation and governments may be changed to conform to the principles of the Roman Church, and if so, what are the "principles" referred to? Answer: No, nor is any one else, because no such directions were ever given. CRITICISM You answer, "No ... no such directions were ever given." There seems to be a wide gulf between your answer and the fun- damental teaching of your church, indicating either you do not understand the faith and practices of your church or that you realize they are wrong, or that you are attempting to "deny the faith." Speaking as to the "Chief Duties of Catholics as Citi- zens," Leo says, pp. 190-1, that "the laity should, as far as possi- ble, be brought actively into play . . . the church ... is to con- tend as an army drawn up in battle array," and that "neither can any one of its members live as he may choose, NOR ELECT THAT MODE OF FIGHTING which best pleases him." Also, 194: That "what we are bound to believe, and what we are OBLIGED TO DO, are laid down, as we have stated ... by the Supreme Pontiff . . . the church directing her aim TO GOVERN THE MINDS OF MEN ... a task she is wholly bent upon accomplishing." These utterances establish the essen- tial poise of the Catholic mind, if they are real Catholics, and the following also emanating from the Vatican directs the line of ac- tion of Catholics politically : Says Leo, p. 198, "the church cannot give countenance to those whom she knows to be imbued with a spirit of hostility to her; who refuse openly to respect her rights. . . . These precepts contain the ABIDING PRINCIPLE by which EVERY Catholic should shape his conduct in regard to public life." That "it is fit and proper to give support to men of acknowledged worth, AND who PLEDGE themselves to deserve well in the Catholic cause;" that (202) "the political prudence of the Pontiff ... is ... to regulate the actions of Christian" («. e., Catholic) "citizens. . . (130) It is also of great mo- ment ... to take a prudent part in the business of municipal administration and to endeavor above all to INTRODUCE EF- FECTIVE MEASURES . . so public provision may be made for the instruction of youth in religion" (i.e., in Romanism) ". . . it is generally fitting and salutary that Catholics extend their efforts beyond this restricted sphere, and GIVE ATTENTION TO NATIONAL POLITICS," and says that "these Our precepts are addressed to ALL nations. . . ." (131) : "Catholics have just reasons for taking part in the conduct of public affairs . . . 28 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged and to use their best endeavors to INFUSE, as it were, INTO ALL THE VEINS OF THE STATE the healthy SAP AND BLOOD of Christian (papal) wisdom and virtue . . . (132) : First and foremost it is the duty of all Catholics worthy of the name ... to endeavor to bring back ALL CIVIL SOCIETY to the form and patterns of Christianity (Catholicism) which We have described," and that where there is freedom of thought, of press, of speech, or of conscience or writing, "it is lawful to seek for a CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT as will bring about due liberty of action" for the Church of Rome to suppress such freedom, and apply the Index. He further says "it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as the origin and exercise of power." That (197) "it is always urgent, and indeed the MAIN' PREOCCUPATION to take thought how best to consult the in- terests of Catholicism." In an Encyclical, November 7, 1885, Leo says: "All Catholics must make themselves felt as active elements in daily political life in countries where they may live. All Catholics should exert their power to cause the Constitutions of States to be modeled on the principles of the true church." Considering your answer to this question leads to the conclu- sion that Catholic laymen know very little of the "faith and prac- tices" of the Roman church, and what it demands of them, or that such faith and practices teach small regard for truth. Not only is the foregoing a command for Catholics to interfere, as such, with the politics of a land, but is their warrant to over- throw a government, if it takes that and it can be undertaken without danger to the church in the outcome. Do you wish to revise your answer to No. 6, so dogmatically made? No. 7: Does your church believe and teach that all men are free to worship God according to the dictates of their own con- science at all times and under all circumstances? Answer : Yes, so long as they are decent about it, and orderly. CRITICISM In qualifying your answer, you make it necessary for me to restate the proposition, using different phraseology: Represent- ing the Catholics of Georgia and speaking for them, please state who is to define whether or not they are "decent about it, and orderly" — the pope representing all his predecessors and various councils and "fathers" (Dens, Liguori, Loyola, Aquinas, etc.), or the chief of police representing the crystalized democratic will of the people? Observe well: if you answer, the pope, then your answer above is untrue, and you are a false exponent of the "faith and practices" of Catholicism; and if you say, the chief of police, it will be an admission that your church is wrong in its The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 29 faith and practices; if you attempt to plead "expediency," you would place the Eternal, Unchanging God on the same plane as a ward-healing politician, as by inference your pope, Leo, taught, saying "the weaker power yields to the one which is stronger in human resources," p. 122. In Catholic Spain, where the Catholic church has a concordat with the State, Protestants cannot have a house of worship that can be recognized as such. "Expe- diency!" A refuge behind which "intention" hides! Pope Pius IX said : "The State has not the right to leave every man free to profess and embrace whatever religion he should deem true." (Prop. 15, Syllabus of Errors.) No. 8 : Do you and your church believe in free public schools, supported by the State, and free from the control of any church or religious organization, including your own? Answer : Yes, we help support them, without protest and wil- lingly. For ourselves we prefer parochial schools, in order to teach our children the faith of their fathers; but we recognize the necessity of public schools and we patronize them where we can not maintain our own. And we pay our portion of taxes to support them everywhere. CRITICISM You seem to base your affirmative answer on what you are doing, instead of what the church teaches, thus qualifying it, which may be termed expediency; otherwise I cannot understand how you can answer "yes." In "The Rights of Our Little Ones," p. 24, qu. 40, a Catechism printed by Benziger Bros., w;e quote: "Does education lie within the scope of civil authority? Answer: "Education does not lie within the scope of civil au- thority, wherefore the State cannot, without violating higher and holier rights, usurp the right and discharge the duty of educating the young." This makes your answer seem void of truth. Pius IX, Sylla- bus of Errors, says: "She (the church) has the right to deprive the civil authority of the entire government of the public schools." Leo XIII said Catholics should "endeavor that not only a suitable and solid method of education may nourish, but above all that this education be wholly in harmony with CATHOLIC FAITH in its literature and system of training ... to pro- vide with special care that all studies should accord with the CATHOLIC FAITH," p. 135. "As to public schools, it is well known to you that there is no ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHOR- ITY left in them," p. 167. (A source of sorrow to all true "chil- dren.") Also, that "they who would break away from Christian (papal) discipline are working to corrupt family life, and to de- stroy it utterly," p. 206. Catholics are admonished to "strain every nerve ... to hold exclusive authority to direct the education of their offspring." Your answer may be an honest 30 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged wish of some individual Catholics — but we are not discussing individuals, but the SYSTEM and its DEMANDS according to its faith and practice. In the priest hand-book, sanctioned by Archbishop Quigley, in the confessional the priest must ask the penitent: "Do you send your children to Catholic schools?" Since the pope demands the right to control education, it may be interesting here to cite a few figures, showing what has been the uniform result of such control. The percentage of illiteracy in Roman Catholic Austria is 18, Bulgaria 65, France 14, Hun- gary 33, Italy 37, Portugal 58, Spain 58, Argentina 54, Bolivia 82, Brazil 85, Chile 49, Mexico 70. The percentage of illiteracy in Protestant England and Wales 0.2, Switzerland 0.3, United States 8, Australia 2. For this wonderful and important differ- ence there is evidently a fundamental difference in the spirit and practice of Catholicism and Protestantism, not racial — and there is but one answer to this momentous question : The Roman Catholic Index; and many millions of Catholics in America, if true to their pope, would establish the principles of the Index to all America, in accordance with the aim of the Church of Rome, which is, as stated by Leo, to "GOVERN THE MINDS OF MEN," and if they are not true to the pope in this matter, they are not Catholics, but heretics, and are in the wrong aggrega- tion; but as Catholics, if they accept the Index themselves, they necessarily believe it should be universal in its application, as witness the efforts to muzzle the press, by Catholic Congressmen, preventing free speech, using mob violence and resorting to as- saults and murder — acts which have been frequent the past few years. The fruit from this tree, wherever it is permitted to fructify, has ever been the same — the amount of fruit it brings forth al- ways depends upon how strong it becomes in "human resources," which the pope construes as a "divine right" to "legislate, judge and punish" — and operate the Index. No. 9: Do you and the church you represent believe in the separation of Church and State? Answer: As applied in this country and secured under our constitution and laws, we do believe in the separation of Church and State. CRITICISM Your answer to this question is evasive and misleading. Your church teaches, and Catholics must believe, that the pope is Christ veiled in the flesh and that the Roman is the only church founded by Christ; to imply, as you do, that Christ varies His requirements, of faith and practice, to suit the times and places, would destroy His nature as Immutable God. Leo is competent authority — let him tell you what is the ''intention" of the church, which is the basis upon which every question must be answered The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 31 (p. Ill) : "It is quite unlawful for the State ... to hold in equal favor different kinds of religion . . . (148) : Hence fol- lows that fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. . . . (161) : It is quite unlawful to demand, to de- fend, or to grant freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, or of WORSHIP." Being governed by expediency, your church may consider your answer valid; but "expediency" has nothing to do with what is the "INTENTION" of the church. The actuating desire and principle of your church is revealed in its intention; not by extraneous forces which it is not at present able to over- come. No. 11 : Should your church become dominant in America, and recognized as the religion of State, would you accord freedom of opinion, of press, of speech and of worship to all other denomi- nations, even when same actively oppose the Roman Catholic church? Answer : Catholics have no desire whatever that their religion be recognized as the religion of State in America. We are per- fectly satisfied, from the highest prelate to the lowest layman, with the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. And we would oppose any change looking to the recognition of any religion as the religion of State. It follows that we stand for that freedom of opinion, of press, of speech, of worship to all denominations that our Constitution and laws now provide for. CRITICISM Your answer is not in harmony with your popes. Leo XIII says (p. 358) : "Whosoever is separated from the (Roman) church is united to an adulteress," and that "justice forbids, and reason forbids, the State to be godless — namely, TO TREAT THE VARIOUS RELIGIONS . . . ALIKE and bestow upon them promiscuously EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES," therefore the rulers of the State "MUST preserve and protect" the Catholic religion. To Cardinal Gibbons, Leo wrote (p. 323) : "For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and Government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impar- tiality of your tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this be true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought that most desirable status of the church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for Church and State to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. . . . She would bring forth more abundant fruits if, IN ADDITION TO LIBERTY, she enjoyed the FAVOR of the LAWS and the patronage of the public author- ity," p. 323. Again he says (110) : "The STATE is clearly bound to . . . the public confession of religion," and that "it is a sin in the State not to care for religion." This is your infallible pope speaking on the "faith and practices" of Catholics, and you know 32 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged as well as I, and I know as well as you, that unless you had a dis- pensation to make such answer as you rendered, you would be excommunicated ; if that be not true, and you were not authorized to answer as you did, it shows a woeful lack of knowledge on the part of those proposing to teach others what are the faith and practices of Catholics ! On the other hand, if you deny the pope the right to teach as cited above, which is in substance that the United States should enter into a concordat with the Vatican making the Roman the religion of State, as in Spain, by that very denial you are forced to admit the contention of Protestantism, that the pope is only a puny man like any other puny man; and that if he blunders in matters as important as this, everyone has the right to question any faith or practice promulgated by papalism — and to deny papal infallibility is to accept the principles of the Reformation, which throw the papal Index into the waste-basket, and the exer- cise of the brains God gave each individual, by which each must "work out his own salvation." * No. 12: If you answer in the affirmative (Question 11), please state what you would do if the pope should command that such toleration be not granted. Answer: In the event you imagine, were it possible for it to come about, we would treat the pope's command as a usurpation * Since submitting the above Criticism to Mr. Farrell, I have secured a copy of a Roman Catholic school text-book, the "Manual of Christian Doctrine," published in Philadelphia in 1919, which is a standard text-book to be used in "classes of high schools, academies and colleges." The object of the book is stated in the Preface : "For the pupil the present volume is sufficiently complete to impart that knowledge of religion . . . that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayer." It was issued ac- cording to the Rules of the Index, bearing the Imprimatur of "D. J. Dougherty, Archiepiscopus Philadelphiensis." On the subject of "Union of Church and State" page 132, we find the following questions and answers : "117. What more should the State do than respect the rights and the liberty of the Church? "The State should also aid, protect, and defend the Church. "119. What then is the principal obligation of heads of States? "Their principal obligation is to practice the Catholic religion themselves, and, as they are in power, to protect and defend it. "120. Has the State the right and the duty to proscribe schism or heresy? "Yes, it has the right and the duty to do so for the good of the nation, and for that of the faithful themselves ; . . . ("Proscribe" means to utterly destroy, extirpate, kill out.) "122. MAY THE STATE SEPARATE ITSELF FROM THE CHURCH? "NO, BECAUSE IT MAY NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE SUPREME RULE OF CHRIST. "123. What name is given to the doctrine that the State has neither the right nor the duty to be united to the Church to protect it? "This doctrine is called Liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact that modern society rests on liberty of conscience and of worship, on liberty of speech and of the press. "124. Why is Liberalism to be condemned? "1. Because it denies all subordination of the State to the Church. 2. Be- cause it confounds liberty with right; ..." The difference between the teaching of the Laymen's Association and the school-book is remarkable; the Association was "teaching" a "heretic," the text-book is for the "faithful." The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 33 of our rights as American citizens to conduct our National affairs in such manner as we might think just and right. The pope has no authority to interfere in matters of politics or in the right ad- ministration of our civic affairs, and if he should, we would pay no attention to him. COMMENT As an answer from an individual you may have replied in all truth and sincerity, but answering as you do for the Catholics of Georgia, I question the veracity of this answer. I very clearly stated previously, answers were to be made as to what the church taught, and not what individuals may desire, or wish, it taught. My comments on Answer 11 apply to this with equal force, supplemented by the following facts: All concordats between the Vatican and States provide, among other things, for the teaching of the Catholic religion to the young in the schools, by Catholic teachers exclusively, establishing the rule of the Lndex, which shuts out all knowledge on the part of the laymen of the laws, dogmas and history of the Roman church; its "intention," which in the course of time naturally results in having all laws of the land modeled after the laws of the Roman church, and hence, in all things political the church becomes dominant, and can then exercise her right as a "perfect society" to "legislate, judge and punish" and force all men to bow to the AUTHORITY OF THE POPE. So, while you say you would reject the pope's interference with "civic" affairs, you accept all those require- ments of faith and practice which are used as means to obtain the condition Leo so ardently craved — civil domination. To illus- trate: one means to this end is to make marriage a sacrament; children are then born into the church and kept there by the Index. This is proved by the fact that when priests of Rome officiate at mixed marriages, the non-Catholic party must sign an agreement to the effect that all children from that union are to be brought up in the Catholic faith without objection on the part of the non-Catholic. You say, however, that you would not allow the pope to inter- fere with civil matters in America. There are something like 17,000,000 Roman Catholics in America — they allowed the pope to interfere with the civic affairs in the enforcement of the Ne Temere decree; acting solely on the authority of the pope, your bishop refused to obey the laws of the State of Georgia. Yet, and notwithstanding all this, you say in one instance you would pay no attention to the pope, yet in others prove your allegiance. You know that the Roman church must have political domina- tion before she can establish religious domination; and that either the members are absolutely ignorant of the "intention" of their church, which may be classed as a crime against them on the part of the church, or that they know such intention and 34 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged fully concur in it, which may prove a crime against mankind, if ever the church secures domination. I cite you to the history of the Inquisition and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, to eluci- date my meaning. No. 13 : Does the Roman church, impliedly or otherwise, teach that (1) the church has the right to employ force, (2) that non- Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or in person, (3) that the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth by death? Answer: (1) NO. (2) NO. (3) NO. CRITICISM To the three sub-divisions of this question, you answer "NO," very emphatically. There is a wide gulf between what you lay- men say, circumscribed as you are by the Index, and what the church through its popes says, in regard to this question. I quote copiously from Leo XIII, he being a recent pope, being in the "chair" of Peter when Bishop Keiley was "consecrated." Quoting from The Great Encyclical Letters of this pope: On p. 154, he says the church "is therefore the greatest and most reliable teacher of mankind, and in HER dwells an inviolable right to teach them . . . she has never ceased to assert her liberty of teaching. . . . It is plainly the duty of those who teach to banish error from the mind, and by SURE safeguards" (like the Index, I suppose) "to CLOSE THE ENTRY to all false convictions;" that "the Catholic church is a society char- tered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself . . all needful provision for its maintenance and action," p. 112. "The church, therefore, pos- sesses the right to exist and to protect herself by institutions and laws in accordance with her nature," p. 106. That the authority of the church "is the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, nor in any manner dependent upon it. . . . Jesus gave . . . power of making laws, as also . . . the twofold right of judging and punishing t which flow from that power," 113, but be bewails the fact that some "despoil her of the nature and right of a PERFECT SO- CIETY, and MAINTAIN that it DOES NOT belong to HER to legislate, to judge or to punish," 160. Now, then, it is essential to its existence that a PERFECT SOCIETY have the right to LEGISLATE, JUDGE and PUN- ISH. These are the rights claimed and exercised by the several States of the United States, and the State, in maintaining these rights, will use FORCE, do HARM, and execute the DEATH penalty. Considering the Roman church a "perfect society," with the same rights exercised by the State, in his Syllabus of Errors, Prop. 24, Pope Pius IX authorized the definition of Leo XIII, The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 35 declaring: "It (the State) has not the right to deny $o the church the use of FORCE, or to deny to her the possession of either a direct or indirect temporal power." This nails your answer to (1) as false, and also destroys your idea that the Rom- an Pontiff claims to govern his "children" in spiritual matters only. Now, for (2) — Leo XIII says: "Now truth" is the basis on which rests "morality, justice, religion ... to allow people to go UNHARMED who violate it would be MOST IMPIOUS, MOST FOOLISH and MOST INHUMAN," p. 153. This applies to every person in America who refuses to bend the knee and intellect to papal authority — if this is not Catholic doctrine in America, it is not in Spain ; if this is not the attitude of Catholics to non-Catholics in Georgia, it is not in Austria; if Catholics in Georgia do not subscribe to that doctrine, they cannot convince non-Catholics of sincerity as long as they remain members of an association or society or church that demands what they know to be wrong. It is as obligatory on the part of Catholics to believe this, in order to be saved, as it is to believe in papal infallibility, the Real Presence, ad infinitum. So this establishes the fact that in their "faith and practices" Catholics are taught by their church to HARM those who do not agree with that church. As to your answer to division (3) — Leo says: "Thomas Aquinas ... is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special bulwark of the Catholic faith Let carefully selected teachers implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students. . . . Let the academies already founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine," p. 56. I will now let another theologian of your church tell you what, among other doctrines, "Saint" Thomas, the "Angelic Doctor," teaches. Peter Dens asks the question: "Are heretics rightly punished with death?" and answers thus: "St. Thomas (Aquinas) answers (2, 2. Ques. XI, art. 3 in corp.) Yes, because forgers of money, or other dis- turbers of the State, are justly punished with death; therefore also heretics, who are forgers of the faith, and experience being the witness, grievously disturb the State." In his letter to Cardinal Gibbons, Leo XIII admonished (p. 415) : "Lastly, NOT TO DELAY TOO LONG, it is also maintained that the WAY and the METHOD which CATHO- LICS have followed thus far for recalling those who differ from us is to be abandoned and another resorted to. In THAT matter, it suffices to advert that it is NOT prudent, Beloved Son, to NEGLECT WHAT ANTIQUITY, with its LONG EXPERI- ENCE, guided as it is by APOSTOLIC TEACHING, has STAMPED WITH ITS APPROVAL," p. 451. (Note. — In Comments on letter of Oct. 3, 1917, will be found the "method" Gibbons means, as decreed by Pope Innocent III, which is also embodied in the bishop's oath.) 36 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged The above completely refutes your answers to the three sub- divisions of Question 13, and demonstrates that Catholic laymen know nothing about the real teaching of the Roman Catholic church — at least proving that they are incompetent to enlighten inquirers as to their "faith and practices." No. 14: Does the Roman Catholic church claim the right to control education? If so, name one country where the church has been in control for centuries where the percentage of illit- eracy is as small as it is in any Protestant country. Answer : The church has the right to teach all religious truths. The second part of this question is based on a misconception. The church has not been in control of any country in the world neither for centuries nor for a century nor for any length of time. The percentage of illiteracy in countries where the majority of the people is Catholic compares favorably with that where the majority of the people is non-Catholic. As proof of this, we can begin right at home. The percentage of illiteracy in the United States is most in those States where there are fewest Catholics- North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama, for example. We do not say, however, that this is because there are more Protestants than Catholics in these States. We know that there are several reasons that fully explain the backwardness of those States along educational lines. Similar reasons prevail in regard to countries as in regard to States. Of course, you know that the first schools, the first colleges, the first universities on the American continent were started by Catholics. You doubt- less know that the first free schools of modern times, practically every university of Europe, the very systems of education in vogue throughout the civilized world, originated with Catholics. CRITICISM To this question, you say the church "claims no other right in matters of education," but admit that it claims the right "to teach all religious truths." Now, if the church has the right "to teach all religious truths," you must concede the right to control education, otherwise the first claim is vitiated,, for it would be as a king without a kingdom. But your answer is flatly contra- dicted by your church: Pope Pius IX, in Syllabus of Errors (Prop. 45), states the true doctrine of the Church of Rome in regard to education: "She (the church) has the right to de- prive the civil authority of the entire government of public schools." He was followed by Leo XIII, who commanded that "not only a suitable and solid method of EDUCATION may flourish, but ABOVE ALL that this EDUCATION be wholly in harmony with the Catholic faith in its LITERATURE AND SYSTEM OF TRAINING ... the training of youth most conducive to the defense of true faith and religion ... as for public schools .... there is no -ECCLESIASTICAL AU- THORITY in them," p. 206. It is then incumbent upon "parents The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 37 to strain every nerve ... to strive manfully ... to direct the education of their offspring ... to keep them away from schools where there is a risk of their drinking in the poison of impiety." * So, where "expediency" renders it possible, Catholic parents must send their children to Catholic schools so that the church CAN CONTROL EDUCATION I They must not go to public schools where they may drink in impiety — or learn to read Roman Catholic history, canon law, and moral theology. As far as possible the Roman church in America is acting on the doctrine of Pius IX, depriving the State of the entire edu- cation of Catholic children, and putting it under the control of the church; to control education is to control the State; so this fact alone destroys that part of your answer denying that the church has been in control at any time, anywhere. The Roman Catholic church was the religion of State in practically all Latin countries up to about the middle of the last century, just as it is the religion of State in Spain, in Austria; Ferrer was shot a few years ago for advocating a free, progressive public school system for Spain. Is there a "public" school in Spain to-day for the education of youth where the Catholic catechism is not taught? Is there one of such "public" schools employing a Protestant teacher? Do you not know enough about your own church to know that a concordat MUST provide for church-control of edu- cation, as a necessary means of MAINTAINING a concordat? And what is Spain's record? Sixty-five per cent, illiterate, after a thousand years of church-control of education, while America's total is about eight per cent! Your church could not claim to be a "perfect society" within itself with the right to "legislate, judge and punish," and omit to control education; that omission would, first, destroy her claim of being a "perfect society," and, second, as experience has shown, prove fatal to Catholicism not to control education. In exercising her right to "legislate," the first law Rome makes, where she can, is to "legislate" all children into the parochial school, just as she has the Catholic children in America. In the next part of your answer you seem to evade the issue. True, there are several Southern States in this Union where the percentage of illiteracy is greater than in others; but even in those States where there are more negroes and poor white people, the percentage is smaller to-day than that in Catholic countries where the Church of Rome is supposed to make a specialty of educating, as part of its "charter" rights; but, taking America as a whole, her illiteracy is smaller, with all her foreigners and * Note — The kind of school and education the Roman church demands, and which Leo XIII had in mind, is the parochial school, in charge of Roman priests, where the un-American doctrines are taught such as are quoted from time to time in these pages from the "Manual of Christian Doctrine." 38 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged negroes, than any Catholic state, while the percentage of illiter- ates among her native-born white is about 2 per cent. The report of ex-President William Howard Taft, chairman of the Commission appointed by President McKinley to investigate the source of trouble in the Philippine Islands, reveals, under sworn testimony, that the Roman church rule in the islands was absolute — religiously and politically — covering a period of ap- proximately 300 years; and with over a thousand different priests of the church there, they could not boast of over 6,000 "educated" people. If a horse, dog, cat, flea, etc., can be edu- cated to where it displays almost human-like reason, that is suffi- cient evidence that race nor clime is a bar to "education." If you say that the Latin races are intellectually inferior to other races as a reason for their greater illiteracy where Roman Catholicism is dominant, then you admit that Catholicism is not the only true religion of Jesus Christ; and if you do not infer that they are inferior, you must admit that the Catholic church has been recreant to her trust. No. 15 : Are Roman Catholics taught that the civil authority ought to be subordinate to ecclesiastical authority? Answer : NO. CRITICISM From the various answers noted prior to this, I am not sur- prised to discover that in this you are also disagreeing with the teaching church. You answer "NO," while Pope Pius says the church "has the right to claim dominion in temporal things for the clergy and the pope," Prop. 27, and Leo XIII said "We . . . renew and confirm in every particular . . . those declarations and protests which Pope Pius . . . published o.gainst seizing of the CIVIL sovereignty and the infringement of rights belonging to the Roman church," p. 68. While Catholics in America let the church enforce the Ne Temere decree, in Italy, the home of the popes, Catholic Italians passed a law making it a penal offense for a priest of the church to perform a marriage ceremony ! Leo says: "Marriage ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers . . . but ... by authority of the church; it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler . . the Pontiff was thrust out . . of his right, the civil princedom;" the authority of the church "is the most exalted of all authority," is not "inferior to the civil power, nor in any manner dependent upon it," and that the church has "true power of making laws, as also the twofold right of judging and punishing," and, hence, naturally, where this authority of the church is not accorded this eminence over civil authority, then "it is lawful to seek for a change of government as will bring about due liberty of action" to the church. He further teaches 17,000,000 Catholics in America The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 39 that "It is a high crime . . . under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the church," p. 184. He is yet more emphatic, declaring: "If the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the Supreme Pon- tiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty; to obey, a crime," 185. No. 16: Do you think there is any persecution of Catholics in this country, and if so, on what grounds and by whom: do you think it is being carried on? Answer: There can be no doubt of the fact that there is a systematic campaign of villification and slander being carried on against the Catholic church and her people in this country. It is being conducted by two classes of persons ; first, those who work it for the sake of the financial returns it brings them in the way of subscriptions and donations, and second, those who aim to destroy all religion and are merely attacking the Catholic church as being the oldest and most vigorous exponent of Chris- tianity. CRITICISM The object of this question was to ascertain if you really be- lieve, as you say in your "Plea for Peace," by inference, at least, that Catholics and non-Catholics "are of the same flesh, with the same feelings, the same nature," etc., and to ascertain, first-hand, if Catholics think the principles of Protestantism* are merely academic, or if they believe such rights and principles are as vital and dear to non-Catholics as Catholicism is to Catholics. The answer you gave would be all one could expect from a person well drilled only in the Catechism; but it is not such as is ex- pected from one who is supposed to be so well versed as to invite questions relative to faith and practices and rights of Catholics as taught by the Roman church ; a broad vision would survey the whole field of controversy, and the following would be manifest: Practically all non-Catholics know, in a general, vague way, from the decrees of the church, that the Roman church is the relentless foe of every principle of Protestantism and the Refor- mation and constitutional civil government; that it has and will make use of every means to gain ascendency as expdiency or safety may determine — an assertion easily verified by all who are not hampered in their investigations by the Index; that Catholi- cism is opposed, because some think it seeks to foist upon the human race a world-wide monarchy; opposed by others as being the anti-Christ; still others, not a few, who believe it to be a gigantic scheme to aggrandize a few at the expense of all the rest, while still many more, who believe it to be an apostate from the true faith. All this, I repeat, would be seen by a broad vision, 40 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged and the different reasons assigned would be found resting upon the history of that church. From your answer, "ecclesiastical" history is a subject not open to investigation by Catholics; it makes no allowance for honest difference of opinion, and evidences you do not believe we are all essentially alike, but that Catholics, being flesh and blood, can strike at what the church directs and wills, while non- Catholics, being made of some India-rubber like substance, must bound away when hit. The Roman church in America has evidently mistaken the leni- ence and tolerance of Protestantism for ignorance of the "inten- tion" of the church, indifference or fear. The natural inference from your answer is, that the Roman church does not even credit non-Catholics with ordinary intelligence, if she thinks they will pursue the even tenor of their way while the Catholic forces are "mobilized" before their very eyes, under the leadership of Jesuits — natural foes of every principle they value — a force whose "chief preoccupation is how best to serve the interests of Catholicism," and whose very existence as an order depends upon adherence to the principles and purposes for which it was re- chartered, that is, the "intention" of the church to destroy con- stitutional government and Protestantism, control education and bring the world under subjection to the Roman Pontiff, soul and body, as each member thereof is to the Jesuit General. To those who study history, the nature of the claims of the Roman church, the "intention" of that institution, and compare all of it with sectional and international contemporaneous events, this mustering all Catholics into a compact body is a challenge, at present, for a test of political strength. The summary manner in which you dismissed this question seems to indicate you realized its important bearing on the anti- papal activities. No. 17: Do you and your church recognize any other church as "Christian"? Has any pope ever so declared? Answer: The Catholic church does not recognize any other church as having been founded by Christ. Christ established but one church. Our church teaches, and we Catholics believe, that the Catholic church is that church. CRITICISM This answer is very human, in part. It is natural for one to believe what he has is the best; so long as this opinion goes no further, there is no objection. But there is ample evidence tend- ing to show that the Roman church is not satisfied to set up a claim monopolizing only the spiritual kingdom and contend for such with the Sword of the Spirit, but, in imitation of temporal powers, wields carnal weapons, to invade and subjugate other kingdoms. It is by comparison and argument that the superi- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 41 ority of one proposition over another is manifested to reasoning beings; and that you may understand why many people are not willing to have the church exercise her "rights" in America, I will submit here a few figures showing conditions as they were found in places where the Roman Catholic, "true" religion, has been, and is yet, in the ascendancy. The number of murders to every million inhabitants in Catholic Ireland was 19, Belgium 18, France 31, Austria 36, Bavaria 68, Sardinia 20, Lombardy 45, Tuscany 56, Sicily 90, Naples 174; while Protestant England had only 4 to the million. Percentage of illegitimate births: In Catholic Paris 33, Brus- sels 35, Munich 48, Vienna 51 ; Protestant England 4. Further, the percentage in Protestant cities (as compared with Catholic cities of equal population) were: Bristol and Clifton 6, Manchester and Salford 7, Plymouth 5, Bradford and Birming- ham 6, Brighton 7, Cheltingham 7, Exeter 8, Liverpool 6, Port- sea 5; while Catholic Austria's cities showed: Troppan 26, Zara 30, Innspruck 22, Laibach 47, Klagenfurt 56, Gratz 65. The Vienna, Austria, Year-Book for 1905, gives 16,867 illegiti- mates to 38,847 legitimates. The criminal statistics for Germany in 1914 gave Catholics about 50 per cent, above non-Catholics. It is the object of your church, according to Leo XIII, to "GOV- ERN THE MINDS OF MEN." The above figures give some idea what results where this has been accomplished — the inevitable fruit where the Catholic Index is supreme, and it becomes su- preme wherever there are enough Catholics and priests to put it into effect. Do not understand me as intimating, even, that there are no good people in the Catholic church ; far be it from me. I believe there are, and have been, good people in jail. No. 18: In case of conflict between the laws of your church and the laws of the State, which are you in duty bound to obey, as a matter of religious conscience? Answer : In case of the conflict you imagine, either the church authorities would be exceeding their just powers, or the State au- thorities would be exceeding their just powers, and it would be the duty of every man, Catholic or not Catholic, in such a case, to determine for himself as a matter of conscience which of these authorities was the usurper and firmly to stand for the other. CRITICISM Your answer here is neither democratic nor Catholic, but de- structive of both theories of government which, if followed to its logical conclusion, in practice, would be the reign of anarchy — every man becoming his own judge, jury and executioner. Under democracy, the power to make laws is vested in the people; and any law, therefore, generally speaking, that is endorsed by the majority of the people, is equally binding on all who elect to re- 42 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged side where this form of government obtains, although Leo XIII says this "is in contradiction of reason," p. 145. A stable gov- ernment could not be established upon your theory; religious and moral questions cover every phase of human existence; all law is for the purpose of establishing a code defining what is moral, especially in our country where the power to set up a criterion is vested in the people. Your theory destroys Catholicism, and is the bedrock of Protes- tantism. For one to determine for himself whether or not a law is usurpation, such person must, essentially, have an individuality of both mind and conscience unfettered, to enable him to "think" and "choose," principles which are absolutely prohibited by the Roman church, and if Catholics in America practice these prin- ciples in any degree, it is because of the presence of Protestant principles, which forces the church, as a matter of expediency, to wink at their violation for the present, just as she winked at civil marriage until 1908, and permitted Catholics to marry according to civil law. Your church makes no provision for the individual exercise of conscience, therefore, a Catholic must be governed by AUTHOR- ITY of the church vested in the priest, who will define what is or is not to be considered usurpation; Leo XIII, p. 189, says: "It belongs above all to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, to teach all that pertains to morals and faith," and that "freedom of thinking and openly making known one's thoughts is not in- herent in the rights of citizens," 126, but declares that "the lib- erty of thinking ... is the fountain head and origin of many evils," 123. If you think your answer is in accord with your faith and practices, support it with decrees of a pope or general church council; no other citation will be competent. (Addendum Note — The Protestantant principle above alluded to is in the sense that Protestants think, choose and decide for themselves, and support or oppose given legislation; but after it becomes law, are obdeient to it.) No. 19 : If it be true that a large percentage of your fellow- citizens fear the alleged intention of the Vatican to make the Roman Catholic church dominant in the political affairs of this country; to suppress Freemasonry and secret orders generally; to control the press; to abridge freedom of speech; to prevent religious toleration of other sects, churches or creeds, and to con- trol the public school system or destroy it, would you be willing, in order to dissipate such ideas, to declare, openly, without mental reservation or equivocation, on your honor as American citizens, that if such be the intention or purpose of the Vatican or pope, or any part of the clergy, or laity of your church, you would resist the execution of such designs to the uttermost and join your fellow-citizens in repudiating such attempts? Answer : Yes. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 43 criticism To this question, you answer "Yes." I cannot make it har- monize with your answer to Question 4 : Freemasonry is a living exponent of all those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, many of which are embodied in this question; it supports free speech, free press, free conscience and non-secta- rian free public school system — in other words, Masonry cham- pions everything that Jesuitism seeks to destroy — and Jesuitism exists only to work against every principle of the Constitution mentioned in this question, and if Jesuits are maintained and supported in America by Catholics, they themselves are partici- pants of the work of Jesuits and other priestly orders, all of whom have assumed an oath of obedience to the pope, and you will not say the pope would concur in your answer to No. 19. If to Catholics the pope "Holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty," they cannot agree with him in the desire to "extir- pate" Freemasonry without agreeing also with his will to destroy all those principles which Freemasonry stands for. Are you laymen really full-fledged Catholics? Are you not taking particular pains to keep your literature out of the hands of the "faithful"? I infer you are directing your efforts exclu- sively among non-Catholics, as you do not use an authenticating "imprimatur" on your printed matter. In a republic, the power to make law being vested in the peo- ple, free speech and free press are as essential to its existence as air and water to the human system. As you are supposed to be answering for Catholics of Georgia, will state that Macon is in Georgia — the Catholics of Macon, in the year 1917, exerted every effort except display of violence to prevent free speech; in Alabama and Florida, the same; also in other sections of this country, adding mob violence to their efforts of persuasion: the priesthood of the Roman church opposes free speech, because it is a violation of the law of their church — not so much for what may be said; while Catholic laymen endeavor in many ways to prevent the exercise of this right, acting solely on the AU- THORITY of the priest, because the Index prevents them from knowing whether or not speakers are telling the truth or falsi- fying.* * Since submitting the above criticism I have discovered, in the Catholic Catechism, that Romanists are taught that one becomes answerable for the sins of another in NINE different ways, one of which is "BY SILENCE;" that is, if they know of a "sin" being committed, or to be committed, and are SILENT, they become as guilty as the one who commits the sin ; this accounts for the efforts on the part of Catholics to close halls against lecturers, mob violence, murder, and either boycott a person's business or resort to slander, to ruin both his name and business. According to laws of the Roman church, every principle of the United States Constitution — free speech, free press, free school, free conscience, separation of Church and State, etc., are sins against god the pope and a Roman Catholic is in CONSCIENCE BOUND to use any means to prevent another from sinning against the pope's church, or himself 44 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged No. 20: If you answer that you would (referring to Question 19), please state in what way or manner such information could be brought to your careful, conscientious attention for considera- tion — if you could investigate such questions independently of your priest? Answer : Those who claim to be in possession of such informa- tion must themselves find some respectful way of bringing it to the attention of others. Of course, we can investigate such ques- tions, if at all, independently of our priest. There is no question of any sort open to investigation that we are not as free to in- vestigate as any other persons. CRITICISM The first part of your answer here presents a problem, and a puzzle: according to the teaching of the church, the only way to bring any question before a Roman Catholic in a "respectful" manner is to send it through the Index via the local priest; Leo XIII positively lays down the rule by which Catholics are to be governed in such matters : "It is plainly the duty of all who teach to banish error from the mind, and by SURE SAFEGUARDS to CLOSE the ENTRY to all false convictions," p. 153, and as the Roman Pontiff is the supreme teacher of all truth, the church places the Index across the entrance to Catholic minds, which forbids them to read any book "which defends errors proscribed by the Holy See," p. 414; that "censors . . . must keep before their eyes nothing but the dogmas of holy church, and the common Catholic doctrine as contained in the decrees of General Councils, the Constitutions of Roman Pontiffs, and the unani- mous teaching of the Doctors of the Church," p. 419. Under the operation of this law of your church, no production from master minds of any country or age, explaining or defending the funda- mental principles of FREEDOM, which underly the Constitution of the United States, nor any other vital question based upon be answerable for it. THIS IS A DANGEROUS DOCTRINE, and will forever remain a disturbing factor until the pope or the Constitution becomes supreme. Observe, that to Question 19, the Association answered "Yes," which is in direct conflict with what is taught Catholics in their own schools, from text- books duly authorized by the Roman church. From the "Manual of Christian Doctrine," a Catholic school text-book, published in Philadelphia, 1919, with the imprimatur of Archbishop D. J. Dougherty, I quote the following from page 132, under the heading, "Union of Church and State" : Question : "119. What, then, is the principal obligation of heads of States? Answer : "Their principal obligation is to practice the Catholic religion themselves, and, as they are in power, to protect and defend it. "120. Has the State the right and the duy to proscribe schism or heresy? "Yes, it has the right and the duty to do so both for the good of the nation and for that of the faithful themselves ; for religious unity is the principal foundation of social unity. "122. May the State separate itself from the Church? "No, because it may not withdraw from the supreme rule of Christ." The pope, Vatican, clergy and laity are teaching and accepting this doctrine, in America — it destroys every proposition involved in Question 19, and com- pletely proves the answer "Yes" above to be untrue ! — and Farrell knew it, at the time. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 45 religion or morality, can be "respectfully" brought to the atten- tion of Catholics. (This seems to account for the general deca- dence of Latin countries, and why Catholics as a rule take no part in civic or reform measures.) If your Association will indicate how the Index can be "re- spectfully" eliminated, you will confer a favor; also explain why your Association had to get a permit or "dispensation" from, the local priest or the bishop before engaging in your present work. Leo XIII says, ex cathedra, that ALL Catholics "are bound to submit to preliminary ecclesiastical (i. e., priest) censorship at least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, ecclesiastical his- tory, canon law, natural theology, ethics, and other religious or moral subjects of this character; and in general ALL writings especially concerned with religion and morality," p. 419. This LAW denies Catholics the right to investigate AT ALL inde- pendently of priest-censorship any question covered by the Index — and insofar as the church and its faith and practices are con- cerned, any question of vital importance. Can you eliminate the words "if at all" and "open to investiga- tion" from this answer? If not, why not? Why such apparent effort to conceal facts relative to your faith and practices, after yourself inviting questions? Please give the name and address of JUST ONE Catholic lay- man in the whole State of Georgia who possesses an uncensored history of the lives of the popes, or history of the convents ; can you name five Catholic laymen in the State who know that a number of the popes were very immoral men, being fathers of children, and that an illegitimate son of a pope was himself made pope? Can Catholics investigate such questions AT ALL? Are they "open" to investigation? If not, why? No. 21 : The Jesuit order was abolished in 1769, by Pope Clem- ent XIV; they have been excluded from almost every civilized country many times ; are not permitted even now to enter Roman Catholic Spain, although another pope lifted the ban from the order. Please state why the order (a) was abolished, (b) barred from other countries, (c) kept out of Spain now, (d) how one pope can "abolish and forever destroy the Society of Jesus" and another re-establish it. Answer: The Jesuit order was abolished as a matter of in- ternal church policy. It is barred from some countries, and in some countries from some dioceses, for the same reason. Every society within the church, Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, etc., exists by consent of the Head of the Church and can be suspended, abolished, reinstated, or created anew as the Roman Pontiff may deem necessary. They may enter this diocese or that or be ex- cluded from one or the other as the bishop of the diocese may deem to the best interest of the church in that jurisdiction. In some dioceses only one or two orders are permitted charges, in 46 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged others more, in some all may have charges. The whole matter is a question of internal church policy. CRITICISM Your answer to this question is a convergence of paradox- ology. You say that the Jesuit order was abolished "as a matter of internal church policy;" that it was kept out of "some coun- tries . . and some dioceses for the same reason." Perhaps you misunderstood the question; I did not ask as to restrictions involving local internal "church" policy. Since you do not answer sub-divisions of the main question, I shall ask you to state if the following is not true: The Jesuit order was established by Paul III, in 1540, and abolished in 1769, and more than half of this time was in open resistance to the authority of the pope and the church, and that the matter of abolishing this order was a perplexing prob- lem for many popes. In issuing the decree of abolishment, Clement XIV assigned in part the following reasons, eleven popes "employed, without effect, all their effort," to overcome the evils created by the order; that they were guilty of "idolatrous ceremonies'' and that the kings of France, Spain, Portugal and Sicily "found themselves reduced to the necessity of expelling and driving from their states, kingdoms and provinces these very champions of Jesus" because "there remained no other remedy for so great evils," and that "this step was necessary in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against the other and massacre- ing each other in the very bosom of our common mother, the Holy Catholic church," and that in the church there could never be "a firm and durable peace so long as the said Society subsisted," issuing an order that it be "ABSOLUTELY ABOL- ISHED and SUPPRESSED . . . Our will and pleasure is, that these, Our Letters should FOREVER and to ALL ETERNITY be valid, PERMANENT, and efficacious." Now, then, it is true, that the principle of "internal church policy" was involved in the abolishment of the order, and is correct as to sub-division (a) of the question, but is not correct as answering (b) and (c). If the following facts of history are not correctly stated, please show error: As to (b) : The king of Portugal "issued a decree of ban- ishment against the Jesuits as traitors, rebels, enemies to, and aggressors on, his person, his states, and the public peace and general good of the people." (Cormenin.) The French Parlia- ment, composed exclusively of Catholics, decreed banishment of the Jesuits, denouncing their doctrines and practices "as perverse, destructive of every principle of religion, and even of probity; as injurious to Christian morality, pernicious to civil society, seditious, dangerous to the rights of the nation, the The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 47 nature of the royal power, and the safety of the persons of sovereigns; as fit to excite the greatest trouble in States, to form and maintain the most profound corruption in the hearts of men," and provided that "the institution of the Jesuits should forever cease to exist throughout the whole extent of the king- dom." Following Portugal and France, the King of Spain, head of one of the strongest Catholic States, banished the Jes- uits from his kingdom, as also the King of the Two Sicilies, and Ferdinand, Duke of Parma and Placenia, as a matter of INTER- NAL STATE POLICY. When the order was abolished by the church, the Jesuits found refuge in Russia. There they enjoyed every freedom, and were teaching in the schools. In expelling them from that coun- try, Alexander said they had "abused the confidence which was placed in them:" while enjoying toleration themselves "they planted a hard intolerance in the natures infatuated by them;" that "all their efforts were directed merely to secure advantages for themselves," and after making other serious charges, asks, "Where, in fact, is the State that would tolerate in its bosom those who sow in it hatred and discord?" In Russia, as else- where, they employed their religion as a pretext for interference with temporal and political affairs. The popular disfavor and distrust of Jesuits by the Italian people was so great that Pope Pius IX, the predecessor of Leo XIII, expelled the order from Italy. Under Bismarck, the Jesuits were banished from the German Empire about forty years ago, as a matter of INTERNAL STATE POLICY: they have rencently, this year (1917), been admitted again by that country, also as a matter of internal state policy, at present, as there is no difference between the absolutism of Jesuit and Kaiser.* (d) : While the pope is nominally the head of the Roman Catholics of the world, with authority to abolish or create, his authority is inferior to that of the Jesuit General : this is proved by the fact that after the proclamation of abolishment, the Jesuits refugeed to Russia, and refused to be abolished; from the very nature of its Constitution and principles, a Jesuit pledges his obedience to the General in terms stronger than the church requires of priests: "a Jesuit must regard his supe- rior as Christ the Lord, and must strive to acquire perfect resig- nation and denial of HIS OWN WILL and judgment to that which the superior wills and judges ... As for holy obedience, this virtue must be perfect in every point — in execution, in will, in intellect — in doing what is enjoined with all celerity, spiritual * Note — While the law against the Jesuit order was repealed in 1917, they were admitted into Germany on some sort of understanding With the Kaiser about six months before the World War began ! 48 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged joy, and perseverence ; persuading ourselves that everything is just; suppressing every repugnant thought and judgment of one's own, in certain obedience; . . and let everyone persuade himself that he who lives under obedience should be MOVED AND DIRECTED under divine providence BY HIS SUPE- RIOR, JUST AS IF HE WERE A CORPSE (perinde ac si cadaver,) which allows itself to be moved and LEAD in ANY direction." (Nicolini.) In substance, Leo XIII requires this at- titude of mind and body from all Catholics: have no more will than a dead man regarding his Superior General. This, per- haps, explains why god the pope thought it best for the good of the church to abolish the order, "forever and to all eternity," while another one thought he blundered, and re-establish the order as a matter of internal church policy. Is not this a natu- ral deduction from the facts? God's purposes, as revealed by His laws, are immutable: yesterday, to-day and to-morrow are all an eternal NOW with Him — He would not say an organization, with fixed principles and purposes and laws should be utterly destroyed to-day, and on another, declare He had made a mistake, that it was too good to be destroyed: that is "expediency," not "immutability." From what I can learn, it seems to be the object of the Jes- uit order to bring the world under subjection to the pope, and hence, under the Jesuit General, who is, in fact, "the power behind the throne" in the Catholic church ; therefore the intense hatred of Jesuitism toward any principle of FREEDOM, and its opposition to any one who advocates freedom of mind or body; from this known principle of the Jesuits arises the popular suspicion against the Catholic church — Jesuitism uses any means to gain an end: will use Catholic or Protestant, or will become anything, even as a dead man, to carry out the will and object of the church. Though they spoke ex cathedra, the facts prove that several of the infallible popes were extremely fallible in dealing with the Jesuit order, which creates a reasonable doubt, in the minds of those who exercise the right to reason, as to the doctrine of infallibility — no chain is stronger than its weakest link — and the correctness of ANY papal decree, and the claim to a monop- oly of Christianity. If this is not a reasonable treatment of question 21, please set me right. No. 22: If baptism is essential to salvation and membership in your church, and if its validity depends upon whether or not the officiating priest had the right "intention" at the time of baptizing a subject of the church, how can any one know he is a member of your church — from the pope on down; do you require a certificate from the priest wherein he declares he had the right "intention" at the time of performing the ceremony? The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 49 Answer : Baptism is not essential to salvation. It is not essen- tial to membership in the Catholic church. Its validity does not depend upon whether the officiating priest had the right "inten- tion" or not; its validity does not depend upon whether or not a priest officiates. Any person, Catholic, non-Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Infidel, can administer valid baptism. CRITICISM To this question you render a concatenation of self-evident contradictions: you assert that baptism is not essential to mem- bership in the Catholic church, nor essential to salvation; if this be true — and we presume that it is the object of your association, to give true information relative to the faith and practices and rights of Catholics — then the doctrine of baptism is a negligible quality in your church, having no value; but you say "any person" can administer it: that which is of no if it be true that it is not essential to salvation and church membership, it is of no value; but in direct contradiction of this, your church seems to attach so much importance to it, that you say "any person can administer it:" that which is of no value can have no standing in equity or in theory, therefore under no circumstances can it obtain validity, or value; and if your answer is the truth — and that is what I want — you have established beyond question that "intention" has nothing to do with baptism. Upon investigation, however, from other sources, I find there is a value attached to baptism that you Catholic laymen evi- dently are not aware of: the Jesuit order is the most powerful and influential in the Catholic church — it is either the true ex- ponent of Catholicism, or Catholicism is the true exponent of Jesuitism: about the beginning of the seventeenth century, Jesuit missionaries went into India; to get an opportunity to baptize, they assumed all the oaths, forms, ceremonies and re- galia of a Hindoo Sanissi, while others, like Nobili, became both Brahmins and pariahs. So cautious and secret were they, and so intent upon their purpose of saving souls by administering baptism, that one of them is quoted as saying, "Our whole at- tention is given to concealing from the people that we really are what they call Feringees (Europeans)." Xavier began this system and practice of "winning souls" in India — he is said to have baptized 10,000 in this way in one month. These priests would go into homes as physicians, draw a wet towel over the head and forehead of the unsuspecting sick, muttering to them- sevles the baptismal service; children at the point of death were baptized without the permission of parents; catechists and pri- vate Christians administered baptism under the pretext of giv- ing medicine; one woman is said to have baptized 10,000 chil- dren who were sick, not more than two escaping death; during 50 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged the famine in 1737, 12,000 were reported as baptized and "that it was rare, . . where there were neophytes, for a single heathen child to die unbaptized." For about one hundred years, the Jesuits in China and India adopted the pagan religions of those countries, in defiance of every law of their church, at that time, and of God, which gave rise to a controversy between them and the popes, continuing up to the time they were abolished, which was one of the reasons of "internal church policy" causing abolishment of the order; doing all this to baptize, to make converts, "to the greater glory of God" — doing that which, you say, is not essential to salva- tion nor to membership in your church; in our own country in this seventeenth year of this twentieth century, we find them up to their old tricks, as witness the Cody incident — evidencing there has been no change in the principles of the order since it was founded by Loyola "for the greater glory of God," and during all these centuries have not discovered they were doing that which the church, as pronounced by the Cath- olic Laymen's Association of Georgia, says is not essential to salvation ! This is all circumstantial or inferential evidence, attaching a paramount quality and essence to baptism in contradiction of your statement; alone, it is sufficient to establish the fact that baptism is essential, at least, to salvation in your church, according to the faith and practices of the Jesuit fathers; but we are not restricted to inference; that baptism is essential to both salvation and membership in the Catholic church is proved by authentic documentary evidence, viz. : In the "Manual of Prayers," heading, "Brief Statement of Catholic Doctrine," sub-caption, "Lay Baptism," we learn: "Provided an INFANT is in danger of dying before a priest can be procured, any other person, whether man, woman or child, may baptize it in the following manner : While pouring common water on the head or face of the infant, pronounce the words, 'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'." For this to be VALID, evidently, the ANY OTHER PERSON must be a "lay" member of the Cath- olic church, and the person receiving it MUST be an INFANT. As Jews and Infidels do not believe in the Trinity, they could no more administer baptism than ice could form in boiling water. (The above is from a book bearing the imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons.) In a Catechism of Catholic doctrine, endorsed by Cardinals Wiseman and McClosky, prepared by a Jesuit priest, the fol- lowing is taught as the faith of Catholics : "1. Which is the first and most necessarv Sacrament? "The first and most necessary Sacrament is Baptism. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 51 "2. Why is Baptism the first Sacrament? "Because before Baptism no other Sacrament can be VALID- LY received. "3. Why is Baptism the most necessary Sacrament? "Because WITHOUT Baptism NO ONE can be saved. "4. What is Baptism? "Baptism is a Sacrament in which, by water and the word of God, we are cleansed from all sin, and regenerated and sanctified in Christ to life everlasting." Deharbe, p. 248. The following question was sent to Bishop Ben. J. Keiley, Savannah, Ga., Editor of "Our Sunday Visitor," Huntington, Ind., and J. Card. Gibbons, Baltimore: "Is baptism essential to salvation and membership in the Cath- olic church?" Bishop Keiley replied: "The form of baptism, that is to say, by immersion or pouring, as practiced in different religious bodies, is not essential; but the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Obviously the second ques- tion is answered in the reply to the first." The Editor of the Sunday Visitor answered, "Yes," assign- ing reasons. Cardinal Gibbons authorized his secretary to say " Yes," and that the subject would be found treated at length in his book, " Faith of Our Fathers." It is apparent that you and your bishop are somewhat at cross-purposes: he says one must "receive" the sacrament of Baptism, i. e., knowingly, with the consent of the mind and under- standing, in which case "Baptism is essential to salvation" and membership in your church, completely refuting your denial, and denies your contention that baptism is valid regardless of who administers it. It is very evident that your association, in not being able to answer correctly a simple, primary question like this, which is found in every Catechism, is hardly in possession of informa- tion sufficient to warrant organizing a bureau of informa- tion to impart a knowledge of the "faith and practices" of the Roman Catholic church; for in this instance there is a disagree- ment between the head of the church in Georgia and the lay members, and a disagreement between you laymen and three cardinals. I believe that I have proved to your satisfaction that you are in error as above, baptism being the first sacrament upon which the validity of all the others depend; now I will take up the doctrine of "Intention," the real basis of question 22: "Intention" is defined as being "A stretching or bending of the mind toward an object; hence, uncommon exertion of the intellectual faculties; closeness of application; fixedness of application; earnestness." To illustrate the operation of this 52 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged principle among Catholics, Pope Pius recommended that Cath- olics all over the world, in the Battle Against Freemasonry, make it the general "INTENTION" of their prayers for the month of October, 1913; many small boys have escaped a deserved paddling, and many men a hangman's noose, by pleading lack of "intention;" the Jesuits in India and China pleaded "intention" in adopting all those pagan rites and cere- monies — their "intention" was, "the greater glory of God!" According to the Manual of Prayers, a candidate for admis- sion into the church must declare a belief in "everything . . that has been declared by the sacred Canons and by the Gen- eral Councils, and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent." Now, then: all Catholics are bound by the decrees of that Coun- cil as strongly as by any from the present pope, and it was at this Council that the doctrine of "Intention" was adopted, as follows : "If one shall say that in ministers, while they make (or com- plete) and confer the Sacraments, there is not required the in- tention of doing at least what the church does, let him be ac- cursed." Can. XI, Sess. VII. If this doctrine of an infallible Council has not been set aside by an infallible pope, as in the matter of abolishing and re-establishing the Jesuit order, it is as necessary for the priest to have the right "intention" in administering baptism as Car- dinal Gibbons says it is for laymen to have the correct "inten- tion" in participtaing in the mass; as essential as going to mass or confession; and if it has been set aside, please cite your authority; if it has not been annulled, then I ask, how may any one in the world know he is sure enough a member of the Catholic church and on his way to glory? (It also seems that a certificate should be required from the priest when he officiates at any other sacrament — marriage, for instance; for if he has not the right "intention" at that time, the marriage is invalid! If the priest who baptized your priest did not have the right "intention" your priest can perform no valid cere- mony in the church ! Even your pope cannot know he is a real Catholic, according to the laws of his own church!) A comprehensive consideration of this "supernatural" or unnatural doctrine among the "faith and practices" of your church inevitably leads to the conclusion that the Roman church can guarantee nothing relative to the hereafter, and that very few Catholics know what are the doctrines they profess to be- lieve, but must take everything for granted that a religious superior may say, because of his authority, such authority being vested in him by a man who derives his authority from the traditions of men — the Index is a wonderful institution! The beauty and simplicity of the Gospel message seems to have been The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 53 lost among the traditions of the " Fathers," and instead of being saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, you must trust your salvation to the "INTENTION" of a man! Intrusting an eternal soul to a man, and he not made to give bond for its safe delivery! Laynez, the successor of Loyola as General of the Jesuits, was the pope's representative at the Council of Trent; he was there to plead for the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was adopted — 300 years later. Although two church councils, Con- stance and Basil, denied papal infallibility, the Jesuits suc- ceeded in getting the decree through at the Vatican Council in 1870; therefore, both those doctrines are Jesuitical: "inten- tion," making the people completely and absolutely dependent upon the priest, and making all priests dependent upon and subject to the pope, who can no longer be forced to resign from that office, as numbers had to do before the adoption of the decree of infallibility — bringing all under the government of the General of the Jesuits. For mutual favors these two forces — pope and Jesuits — have united with but one objective, namely: the pope, operating through his priests and laymen, controls the very right of Catholics to think; the General, working through his subordinates, the sworn enemies of all popular government, has been, and is now, meddling with the political affairs of the world, endeavoring to suppress every known means by which a man may learn that he was created by and in the image of God, whom He endowed in a degree with some of His attributes — the power to reason and think, in the exercise of which he would CHOOSE the right course in all things: this gigantic combination has as its int&ntion the subjugation of the earth to ONE MAN, and he made of the same clay as every other man, with no greater amount of gray matter in his head than is to be found in the heads of other men. If this were a case in court, your answer to question 22 would cause you to be impeached, and all testimony thrown out. Submit authority for this answer. No. 24: As your church forbids its members to discuss or study, independently of priest-censorship, any subject relative to religion, morality, ecclesiastical (church) history, etc., on what intelligent basis do YOU expect to see peace and harmony estab- lished between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics? Answer: Your presumption is all wrong, for our church does not forbid her children to discuss or study independently of priest-censorship any subject relating to religion, morality, eccle- siastical (church) history, etc. You evidently have been badly misinformed on this matter. CRITICISM Your answer to this question is amazing. Leo XIII, in his "General Decree Concerning the Censorship of Books," (See 54 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged "Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII," Benziger Bros., New York, 1906.) page 412, Decree 2, forbids Catholics to read "The books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and all writers what- soever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way attacking the foundations of religion." Writing further on the subject, regarding the Rules of the Index, he says: "All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary eccle- siastical (priest) censorship at least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, sacred theology, ecclesiastical (i. e., church) history, canon law, natural theology, ethics and other religious or moral subjects of this character; and in general, all writings specially concerned with religion and morality." P. 419, Decree 41. Further : "We decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be QUESTIONED for any FAULT of SUBREPTION, or OBREPTION, or Our INTENTION, or for any other defect whatsoever; . . no man, therefore, may in- fringe or temerariously venture to contravene this document of Our Constitution, ordination, limitation, and derogation, and will. If anyone shall so presume, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." p. 421.* You must agree that I am not misinformed nor presuming as touching this matter, and that question 24 is yet to be answered. In connection with the above citations from the Index as stated by Leo XIII, permit the following observations: If, in issuing a decree ex cathedra relative to faith and morals by which Catholics are to be governed, the pope is at that time the infallible agent or Vice-Gerent of an Infallible God, why is it necessary for him to legislate against one taking advantage of FAULTS, of SUBREPTION, or OBREPTION, and forbid ques- tioning his "INTENTION"? Your attention is especially called to the fact that Leo recog- nizes the validity of the doctrine of "intention" in a certain case cited on page 396, as well as emphasizing the fact that no one is to question his "intention" relative to his decrees con- cerning the Index; Cardinal Gibbons also recognizes this doc- trine and the validity of the decree of the Council of Trent; on page 325, Manual of Prayers, under caption " Directions for Holy Communion," he says: "DIRECTION OF THE INTEN- TION. I intend to assist at the Holy Sacrament of the Mass . . . according to the rite of the Holy Roman church." The priest and communicant must both have the right "intention" * Note — This Constitution of the Index of Leo XIII just cited was decreed by the pope exercising his supreme legislative power, which every person swears to defend when he joins the Roman church, while others are born sub- ject to it. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 55 in this ; if, in consecrating the wafers, he does not designate in his mind how many he is to use, and indicate which, and one is not consecrated, all remain simple wafers (i. e., none are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ), therefore it readily appears that no Catholic even knows that he is eating his Lord according to the requirements of the faith and practices of the Catholic church! No. 25 : Is there any appreciable number of Catholics of Geor- gia in any manner affiliated with the American Federated Cath- olic Societies? Answer : Yes. No. 26: To what extent do YOU think the organizing of this society has been instrumental in arousing an anti-Catholic spirit? Answer : I would say to no extent worth mentioning. No. 27: Does your church teach, directly or impliedly, that members must not accuse their priests or bishops even though it be know to them that prelates have committed grave sins? If so, how can a man protect his home? Answer : No, the church does not teach this, either directly or indirectly, explicitly or impliedly. A Catholic may protect his home in the same way a non-Catholic may protect his. No. 28 : Would your association prosecute a priest, if he were to wrong a member, by appealing to the laws of the land? Answer: If it were necessary to secure redress, we would. CRITICISM Your answer to this question is very positive, but it can not be made to harmonize even remotely with the Traditions of the Fathers, nor with the popes, showing conclusively that the In- dex is a very important feature in the Roman Catholic system of religion: The President of the Council of Trent, Hossius, says: "Pig- hius is blamed, who wrote that a priest, who through infirmity of the flesh hath fallen into whoredom, sins less than if he marry. This doctrine with some is vile, but with Catholics it is most honest." Hos., Confes., c. 56. Says Costerus: "Should a priest indulge in uncleanliness, nay, keep a concubine in his own house, although he is thereby guilty of a great sacrilege, yet he sins more heinously if he marry." Cos. de Co., eb. Sacredot. Card. Campeggio, another holy father, whose doctrine is to be given the same veneration by Catholics as the Bible, de- clared: "That for priests to become husbands, is by far a most grievous sin than if they should keep prostitutes in their houses." Card. Cam., op. Sleid., com. I, 4. Mathias Aquinas: "That a man who, after vowing continency doth marry, offends more than he who, through human frailty, 56 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged goes astray with an hundred different women." Math. Aquin., Ap. These citations from the "holy" fathers of the Church of Rome are merely to reveal the attitude of the church toward the priesthood, and what, by inference, they may teach. We will let the pope speak ex cathedra, and see if there is not a unity of minds: On the "Chief Duties of Christians (Romanists) As Citi- zens," Leo XIII, pp. 203-4, Encyclical Letters, says: "Among the prelates, indeed, one or other there may be affording scope to criticism either in regard to personal conduct or in reference to opinions by him entertained about points of doctrine; but NO private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge which Christ our Lord has bestowed on that one alone above whom He placed in charge of His lambs and His sheep. Let every one bear in mind that most wise teaching of Gregory the Great: 'Subjects should be admonished not rashly to judge their prelates, even if they chanc& to see them acting in a blameworthy manner, lest reproving that what is wrong, they be lead by pride into greater wrong. They are to be warned against the danger of setting themselves up in audacious opposition to the SUPE- RIORS whose shortcomings they may notice. Should, therefore, the SUPERIORS really have committed GRIEVOUS SINS, their inferiors, penetrated with the fear of God, OUGHT NOT to refuse them respectful SUBMISSION. The ACTIONS of SUPERIORS should not be smitten with the sword of the word, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE RIGHTLY JUDGED TO HAVE DESERVED CENSURE.'" In many of your answers, you display a fine sense and under- standing of Jesuitical "juggling" of words in endeavoring, as it appears, to conceal rather than reveal, the faith and prac- tices of your church — an art very conspicuous on the part of the teaching church in its dealings with the hearing hurch, and which is very satisfactory to those who are forbidden to ques- tion, or make a mental effort to analyze phraseology: you surely ought to know that used in your answer to No. 28, the word "necessary" is open to several peculiar constructions, neither one of which would be complimentary to the layman nor priest. No. 29: A soldier, being under the command of superiors, must say and do only as he is ordered, regardless of his personal opinion or wishes: does this principle obtain in your church? If so, what can your association of LAYMEN hope to accomplish? Answer: The principle of action between a soldier and his superior officers does not obtain between the church and her chil- dren. The principle of action in the church is rather that pre- vailing in a well-regulated, God-fearing, devoted, affectionate family. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 57 criticism As elsewhere shown, a member of the Jesuit order must, in mind, soul and body, be as soft wax in the hands of his superior; as obedient as a corpse in the hands of an undertaker, and this attitude of mind toward the pope is a fixed principle of the Church of Rome to which every layman must be obedient. Leo XIII, p. 139, says : "Whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind," and (133) "ALL shall be of one mind," that (183) "the man who has embraced the Christian (Catholic) faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a SUBJECT OF THE CHURCH . . . and . . . which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to RULE WITH SUPREME POWER . . . (191) neither can any one of its members choose . . (194) Union of minds . . . requires . . SUBMISSION AND OBEDIENCE OF WILL TO THE CHURCH AND TO THE ROMAN PON- TIFF, AS TO GOD HIMSELF . . . this likewise must be reck- oned among the duties of Christians (papists) that they allow themselves to be RULED and DIRECTED by . . AUTHOR- ITY ... of the Apostolic See." Also, "what we are bound to believe, and what we are obliged to do . . . are laid down . . . by the Supreme Pontiff . . . also . . . what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing." That "obedience to the Roman Pon- tiff is the proof of the true faith," 380, and that "freedom of thinking and making known one's thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens." 126. As a symbol of the power he has, the pope wears a triple crown, signifying that he is god over heaven, earth and hell, from whose decision there is no appeal, and he has the right as pope to RULE and DIRECT Catholics in all matters per- taining to "faith and morals," and under the head of morals is where he directs their political or civic activities. Politics is the science of government — the pope demands that governments be made to conform to his law: that they must receive their right to exist from the Church of Rome; hence it follows that the Roman church, cannot separate politics and religion, neither can a Catholic say he will obey the pope in matters of "religion," and yet refuse in political or civic affairs; and if language con- veys any thought at all to the mind, the above citations, denning the "rule of action" by which all true "children" of the church MUST be directed, are as inflexible as the code of Prussian Mili- tarism, which makes machines out of human beings. When we consider the fact that the Jesuit order was founded by a Spanish soldier, we will readily see that its actuating principle must be typical of the absolutism that obtains in an army, where the commander alone exercises the right to say 58 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged "what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing;" and when we consider further that the popes for several hundred years have been subject to the Jesuit influence, we can realize that no other "rule of action" except absolutism is possible; the Encycli- cals of Leo XIII show he was a master of Jesuit principles, and from the very nature of its "faith and practices" the Catholic church cannot permit the minutest degree of Liberalism or Freedom in the "rule of action" obtaining between it and its "children." A deserter from an army, if apprehended, is shot: if a priest or nun leaves the church, all its powers are hurled against them; while they remain in the church, they are veritable "saints" — the instant they leave its communion, they are por- trayed to the world as bats of hell, and I defy you to name one priest who has ever left the church when it did not apply this "rule of action."* Here is an excerpt from the bishop's oath — can you conceive of a German officer assuming an oath of obedience more drastic, in supporting Kaiserism?: "I shall observe, with all my strength and shall cause to be observed by others, the rules of the holy fathers. . . Heretics, schismatics and rebels . I will . wage war with," and one of the greatest of the "holy" fathers was the "Angelic Doctor," "Saint" Thomas Aquinas, who taught: "Re- specting heretics . . they deserve not only to be excluded from the church by excommunication, but from the earth by death." (When and where this doctrine is to be enforced, like many others of your church, must be determined by "expediency.") The canon law of your church teaches: "To kill one who has been excommunicated is no crime in a legal sense," so we see that if one of the "children" of the church "deserts" her he is subject to dire penalties according to the "intention" of the church — and that is what the church is to be judged by: not what it does, but what it claims as a "right" and would do if she could. There is but one remote analogy in the "principle of action" between the Roman church and her "children" and that which obtains in a well-regulated family, and that is, the church considers its members as "children," to be ruled and governed and directed, but has no age-limit when they are sup- posed to be full-grown; the nearest approach to a "corpse" under Jesuitism, is a "child" under Romanism: absolutely help- less. The Bible declares, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he" . . "from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh" — if you keep a man from thinking, he can not speak — this * Rome used to burn them, when she had control of the State. That she would do so in America to-day, if predominant numerically or politically, will be shown before we finish this book. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 59 gives a perfect "fighting machine" but not that type of citizen that makes for the best interests of a country; that principle will degrade any nation that submits to it. "In a well-regulated family" there are few, if any, books in the library that are not accessible to the ''children" — the Cath- olic church hands its "children" the Catechism, and threatens to consign them to everlasting perdition if they read any other books pertaining to their welfare, which is supposed to be laid down therein! No. 30 : Why is it a venial sin, that must be confessed, for a Catholic to attend a Protestant church service, but it is not made a sin by your church for its members to engage in the sale of intoxicating liquors? Answer: It is not necessarily a sin to attend a Protestant church service; it depends on many circumstances. It is more than likely a sin for Catholics to engage in the indiscriminate sale of intoxicating liquors, although, that too, depends upon circumstances. You should know also, that what is termed a venial sin is not a matter of confession. CRITICISM While it is not obligatory to confess venial sins, yet as a matter of safety first, it is advised; not infrequently the priest is supposed to ascertain from the penitents if they have at- tended "false places of worship." From the nature of your answer, you seem to understand Liguori very well for a lay- man, who says, "we may be allowed to conceal the truth, or to disguise it under ambiguous or equivocal words or signs, for a just cause." L. 2. I know it is not "necessarily" a sin to attend a Protestant church service — Bauney is quoted as saying, "He . . who is a communicant among Protestants without having his heart there, but out of pure derision . . and to accomplish his de- signs," etc., Sum. cap. 6, p. 73. On this theory, that "the end justifies the means," to accomplish their designs, to baptize, the Jesuits did not believe it was "necessarily" a sin for them to participate in all pagan rites of the Hindoos and Chinese, disguising themselves as pagan priests; there are no doubt many Jesuits filling Protestant pulpits, editing papers for Pro- testant readers — it all depends upon "intention." A non-Catholic marvels to discover to what extent "the true church" is governed by "circumstances" and "expediency" — principles that have no foundation in the teaching of the Christ; and I fail to find any similarity in the teaching of Christ and His "Vice-Gerent," Leo XIII, who said that "the lesser power yields to the greater in human resources." No. 31: If your church is the only true church, and its only aim is the salvation of souls, and Catholics are taught there is 60 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged danger of losing their souls in going to Protestant churches, why does your church not teach and command its members to keep out of the liquor business, if it does not consider entering a Protes- tant church worse than running a barroom? Answer: In the Third Plenary Council the Hierarchy of the church in the United States expressly enjoined upon Catholics to sever their connection with the liquor traffic. CRITICISM You made no effort to answer this question. As to what the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore may have "enjoined" is not relevant. The pope and General Councils called by him alone are recognized, it seems, by Catholics in America, evidenced by the fact that they disregarded that part of the work of the Third Plenary Council relative to the sale of intoxicants, con- sidering such Councils as being merely advisory in their func- tions; the Catechism is supposed to "teach" Catholics that they ought not to engage in the whiskey business — you will note that I asked why the church did not "teach" and "command" its mem- bers, etc.; it "teaches" and "commands" Catholics not not read the History of the Roman church, its laws, etc., and they are obedient; it "teaches" and "commands" Catholics not to think or make known their thoughts outside of such as may be in strict conformity with the Catechism, and Catholics are obedi- ent; and if the Catholic church did not consider attending Prot- estant church services worse than running a bar room, it would keep its members out of that business by the same means it keeps them from Protestant churches; pre-natally, and from the cradle to the grave, the Catholic church makes use of every means that the human mind can devise to prevent any one from leaving its communion, and specifically points out what Cath- olics cannot do in the exercise of the reasoning faculties and pur- suit of certain studies, completely subjugating the human will, then virtually saying to such: "You ought not to engage in the whiskey business, but we can not force you out of it — you must be governed in this by your own judgment; we will not try to force you to live a clean life against your will," which is equiv- alent to pulling the fire out of an engine but still expect her to "fly." Where the mind of man is made subject to the will of another, whether this be accomplished by a peculiar system of religious training, or by hypnotism, the result is the same : a perversion of that natural order intended, evidenced by each being endowed with a mind and will. From what I have been able to learn relative to the faith and practices of the Catholic church, it teaches, by inference, that all one has to do to be right in this and the world to come is, join that church; it seems to matter very little, according to The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 61 its dogmas what sort of life one may live, which destroys the free moral agency of man as regards salvation, changing "Who- soever believeth" to "Whoever is Catholic" shall be saved; if occasionally only I saw a man with a head, and all the others were like an earthworm, then there would be some natural foundation for the Catholic theory that one man has the right to control the minds of men; where such system prevails, man- kind being, as it were, under an hypnotic spell, the mental and moral status of society is not on a very high intellectual plane, neither indeed can be. It is a matter of common knowledge that whiskey is respon- sible for about 75 percent of all crime, disease, degradation, vice, shame, disgrace, misery and ignorance of our country; with this in mind, read the following circular, from The Catholic Protective Association Baltimore, Maryland H. S. Murphey, Executive Director October 8, 1915. Dear Sir: As you know, the Catholic church, itself, and the American Federation of Catholic Societies never take an interest in politics, hence our Association seeks to unite all the organi- zations and friends of the church for political action. On account of our heavy financial interests, certain un-Amer- can papers and secret societies are carrying on a campaign to destroy the liquor business, which is as legitimate to all sane people as any other business. Our people own practilally 85 out of every 100 saloons and they give good employment to many thousands of OUR CHURCH people. These business men and their friends and employees have al- ways CONTRIBUTED LIBERALLY to the CHURCH'S needs. They have ALWAYS been a TOWER OF POLITICAL STRENGTH for our friends and interests. Let us not, as church members, but as individuals, show our gratitude and save this legitimate investment for our friends by voting every time against prohibition. YOUR state votes November 2d. This is the most effective way of protesting against this vicious anti-Catholic movement. Please speak confidentially about this to your friends. Respectfully, H. S. Murphey. P. S. Don't forget to subscribe, or get up a club of subscribers, to the Sunday Visitor. It is a strong national paper, and merits your support. About this time, a Knight of Columbus was heard to remark, referring to an election in Macon on the previous day, "I voted yesterday against everything that even looked like prohibition." Leo XIII, chap. V, Decree 47, p. 420, of Encyclical Letters, 62 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged teaches and commands that Catholics must not read "the books of apostates and heretics defendig heresy; or books by any author which are by name prohibited" by the Index under pain of incurring "ipso facto excommunication." Any book that in any way criticizes the pope or the church or any dogma, is forbidden to Catholics — "governing the minds" of Catholics, but letting them act morally as their "judgment" may dictate! While my study of your church has not been extensive, so far the circular and injunction of Leo seem to epitomize Catholi- cism throughout the ages: the "teaching church" (popes and councils) pronouncing anathema against any one who dares to use his own mind and will and God-given brains to reason and think, while the "hearing church" (the members) can do that which may damn the race of mankind; god the pope damns a soul to hell forever for reading the history and laws of the church, yet this god's children "own practically 85" per cent of the barrooms that produce 75 per cent of all human ills — verily, if a tree is to be judged by its fruit, what sort of a "tree" is this that you are pleased to say is the "only" true church established by Jesus Christ? If a Catholic incurs excommunication for reading or even keeping a book that is heretical, it naturally follows that one who goes to hear a heretic in a Protestant church discourse on heretical themes, without a "dispensation" to go there, incurs the same penalty. It is a good legal principle that a man is responsible for the conduct of his children until they themselves become amenable to the law: nowhere in the economy of your church do I find a recognition of the principle of personal responsibility in re- gard to the "faithful" its "children;" and by that very fact the Roman church the pope is rightly held responsible for the ex- istence of the liquor traffic and all its attendant evils. The theory of the dogma of your church, the "Works of Su- pererogation," seems to be illustrated and involved in this ques- tion of liquor: one division of the church, the "sisters," trying to do good in various ways, while their "brethren," in the liquor business, etc., assure them of steady employment! A sort of family affair? The connection of Catholics with the liquor business seems to illustrate another vital, "supernatural" dogma of your church: "Our people own practically 85 out of every 100 saloons," the other 15 are owned by infidels and unbelievers; the "children" of the true church and the "children of the devil" meeting on a common level, existing on the same plane, with one objective, and that, to coin money out of human misery, exerting the same influence in the world and on society; both Catholic and infidel stretching cords across the pathway to trip man and wreck lives : The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 63 in like manner, when the pope speaks ex cathedra, to Catholics it is as the voice of an Infallible God, while the pope as a man, may be as vile a creature in his personal life and conduct as ever a man could be. What the Catholic religion DOES in the world speaks so loud to those not deafened by the Index that they cannot hear what it SAYS — because ACTIONS speak louder than words. The WORDS of Christ were in the language of a God— His ACTIONS proved He was God: "By their fruits ye shall know them." A careful survey of the above will reveal, in part, not only why Protestants, but a very large percentage of non-religion- its, oppose Catholics for political place or preferment, and object to them in connection with the public school system; non- Catholics, as a rule, will not interfere with Catholics in their business relations, but do object to placing them where they can, in the course of time, probably dominate, and force their religion upon others — a line of action demanded by the popes. In these United States there is now one Catholic to every six non-Catholics; if the Catholic element is as busy in the inter- est of the pope as he requires — and if they are not, they should get out of that church — and the other people are indifferent, it requires no mathematician to figure the answer: the Great World War now raging was started by trying to force the Roman Catholic religion on the Protestant non-Catholic Greeks — less than ten thousand Roman Catholics in that State, be- cause in political control, signing a concordat with the pope to make Catholicism the religion of State, disregarding the rights and wishes of two and one-half million Greeks, the Ser- vians; and we find that the pope and kaiser operate on the same principle; and right here may be noted a recent event of inter- est: while the pope was shown every consideration by the Ital- ian government except letting him rule civil affairs, his pri- vate secretary, von Gerlach, has been sentenced to a life-term in prison for plotting against Italy in behalf of the Kaiser, and the Imperial German Government has lifted the ban, re- admitting Jesuits.* We find the Catholic bar keeper in America today doing just as his infidel brother-barkeeper: so the Catholic Jesuit priest in India was found doing just as his brother-Hindoo priest — neither layman or priest can read a Protestant book or attend Protestant churches, but in their life and action, doing as the heathen, and attempting, all over America, to prevent Protes- tants from telling each other what they believe to be the real * It was proved that von Gerlach was instrumental in having two Italian battleships blown up, with great loss of life. 64 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged "intention" of popery in the United States, then making a plea for peace, denying everything, and promising nothing, as a basis upon which it is to be established. After deducting the sums paid for grain, labor, salaries, taxes, etc., in the manufacture and sale of intoxicants, the liquor traf- fic is shown to entail a loss of billions of dollars annually in this country for drink and in taking care of the various by- products of the traffic: about 85 per cent of this liquor is sold Roman Catholics, and if every Roman Catholic woman in Amer- ica should work incessantly assisting your "sisters" in trying to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, educate the ignorant, heal the diseased, care for the sick and the orphan and the degraded, and seek the general amelioration of misery, they could not by far begin to offset or repay society at large for the ills inflicted by their brethren of your "true" church, in their saloons. As only 15 percent of the saloons are operated by unbelievers, infidels, etc., out of the total of about 60,000,000 non-church members in America, it seems to indicate that the influence of the Roman Church creates a social evil and an economic waste, and that the country would be better off without the Catholic church. If the pope, by reason of his authority, can keep people from going to "false places of worship," keep them from reading books by heretics, and even prevent them from reading the law, history and theology of their own church, yet cannot keep them out of the liquor traffic, it is reasonable to suppose his motive is not for the good of Catholics, or people in general, in endeav- oring to subject their minds to his will. If you do not believe these conclusions to be natural deduc- tions from the above, indicate the error. No. 32: The Ne Tewiere decree of your church was enforced in America in 1908; non-Catholics believe your church becomes more insistant in its demands and efforts to enforce the decrees of the Vatican in proportion as it grows in numerical and poli- cal strength ; if that is not true, please state why this decree was not ordered enforced in this country at an earlier period — say, for instance at the time of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars? Answer: The reason that the Ne Temere decree was not put into effect throughout the United States until 1908 was because of the absence of a sufficient number of Catholic priests in this country to render the observance of its rules practical on the part of Catholics. The church is always solicitous not to enjoin upon her children a rule of conduct that would be generally a hardship and for this reason the rule requiring all Catholics who marry to come before a priest, was delayed until the number of priests were such as to make one available in most any part of the country at most any time. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 65 criticism Your answer to this question is not only a tacit admission of the point suggested, but also an admission that your church is governed largely by "expediency" in the matter of enforcing its laws relative to "faith and practices," which is entirely in harmony with Leo XIII, who says, p. 132: "First and foremost it is the duty of all Catholics worthy of the name . . to en- deavor to bring back ALL civil society to the PATTERN AND FORM of Christianity We have described. It is barely possible to lay down any fixed method by which such purposes are to be obtained, because the MEANS adopted must suit PLACES and TIMES. . . . Nevertheless, above all things, unity of aim must be preserved, and similarity must be sought after in all plans of action." During the past years, "in the absence of a sufficient number of Catholic priests," Catholics seemed to learn somehow, and retain the knowledge, that it was against the law of the church to read certain books or attend certain churches; but they did not know that the Ne T&mere decree, like many others hidden from them in the canon laws of the church, perhaps was to be enforced as "expediency" may warrant. Hildebrand, in the fourteenth century* passed a decree that forced priests and bishops to put away their wives and chil- dren — although he kept his concubines; the law then, being en- forced, did not show that the church had much regard for her "children" in enforcing such hardships on them; so in the mat- ter of the enforcement of the Ne T enter e decree in 1908; if all those Catholics who lived, married and died in utter ignorance of that old decree of the Council of Trent, gave your church so little concern, acting on the same principle, the church should have made the law operative as to the future, and not retro- active; in making the law retroactive, many happy homes were either broken up, or its peace and harmony forever destroyed. Tried by the rule of logic, reason and common sense, the Roman church in action impresses one of the necessity of searching for the hidden meaning in Jesuit phraseology and the ulterior motive of every act of the church as one would seek the hidden outlines of figures in a picture-puzzle: In arbitra- rily enforcing the marriage law in 1908, the church showed no consideration for its "children" nor any regard for those who were allied with them by marriage according to the law of the land; therefore non-Catholics have a legitimate reason to seek for the ulterior and real motive of the church, and this seems to be the true solution : By letting that decree lie dormant several centuries, especially in non-Catholic States, religious * This was a stenographic error ; should read eleventh century. 66 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged prejudice would eventually die out; Catholic and non-Catholic would become closely associated in business, social, civil and political life, and by this, with inter-tmarriage, Catholicism would be interwoven into the very life of the nation to such an extent that, like fish in a net, at the command of the pope to en- force this decree, America would be pulled into the Roman Cath- olic church, or would give it such power and prestige as to make that church dominant in the political and civil life of the nation — hence, at about this time we find that all the Catholics in America federated, and a slogan thrown to the winds to "Make America Dominantly Catholic." The Catholics and non- Catholics in this country, as in Germany in the fifteenth cen- tury, were living in peace and harmony, "until a sufficient num- ber" of Jesuit priests came upon the scene of action; at that period in Germany there was practically one Catholic only to every nine Protestants — one percent Catholic — but that number, under the direction of a ''sufficient" number of Jesuit priests, was "sufficient" to tear the country asunder with a long war and reign of bloodshed, and put Protestant Germany under the Roman church; in America they have six per cent population, or- ganized and under the direction of that same "Society of Jesus" that devastated Germany (and, as many believe, instigated the present German Kaiser in his madness) and made the pope supreme, yet you say this federation had practically nothing to do with arousing an anti-Catholic spirit in this country : if that doea not prove the efficiency of the Index, it seems to indicate Cath- olics do not believe non-Catholics capable of reasoning from cause to effect. When a contention arises between individuals or nations, simple justice demands that each party thoroughly understand the issues involved — what each desires — in order to establish peace. With this idea in mind, as well as having a desire to know certain things by proof, I endeavored, by submitting a series of questions, to show some of the points of difference, as you had made a "Plea for Peace," indicating what Protestants generally believe to be the "intention" of the Roman church, and to ascertain, by the manner in which you answered, if this be- lief was founded on fact, and if so, to what extent Catholic laymen understood, and would defend such "intention." As witnesses, the testimony of you laymen and your general manner as witnesses, in connection with the fact that in regard to cer- tain faith and practices there is an entire disagreement with established facts, tends to discredit the sincerity of your "Plea for Peace." A plea for peace in the political arena will fall on deaf ears, unless it is supported by an evident desire to remove, at least, The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 67 some of the elements of disagreement— which I fail to find in your answers. The doctrine of ''Intention" as well as the Ne Temere Decree* was adopted at the Council of Trent in the fifteenth century: in 1908, about 336 years later, it was enforced in all the States of this Union — enforced as soon as the Roman church became nu- merically or politically strong enough to do so; this proves that EVERY law of the Roman church, regardless of its nature or age, is essentially and vitally a part of its faith and practice, and that any one or all of them are to be enforced — when, to be determined by conditions, times and places — when "expedient," and the pope is to be the judge; now: non-Catholics know the inveterate hatred of Jesuitism to the free schools of America, and that it is the "intention" of the Roman church to destroy or con- trol them, and bring all education under the control of that church — securing the child as a means of holding the adult — therefore, it is natural that, as Catholics are taught by the pope public schools are "godless" and to keep their children away from them as far as possible, the presence of Catholics in public schools as teachers, and the strenuous efforts of Catholics to get on school boards, oftentimes sending their children to parochial schools after getting on such boards, arouses a suspicion as to the ulterior motive on the part of the church in permitting its members to hold such positions. Leo XIII prefers that Catholics associate with Catholics, to safeguard their faith and morals, and, according to the opinion of the church, Catholics are in danger of having their faith and morals corrupted in the public schools, unless they are there for a purpose, unknown even to Catholics, as in the matter of the Ne Temere decree. Some think the "intention" here is far- reaching: that in the course of time practically all the public schools of America will have Catholic teachers and school boards; about this time, the Roman church will have complete control of the army and navy (the regular army now being 33 percent and the navy 40 per cent Catholic), be in control of the police and fire departments, in all public offices of trust and influence, and control the Supreme Court benches of the States and Nation, after which the pope may order ALL Catholics wherever serv- ing to TEACH THE CATECHISM along with the other studies, and being the gun-bearers of the nation, the church will be in position to enforce this decree, cost what it may in loss of life and property and money. The Catholic church has the same "intention" to-day as it had a thousand years ago— if it seems to forget, or fails to enforce • Should read the "Marriage Law," instead of "Ne Temere decree." 68 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged any one of its decrees, it is merely biding its time:, and it is as much the duty of Catholic teachers to teach the Catholic re- ligion to pupils as for Catholics to be married by a priest of Rome ! This can not be denied by any Catholic who understands the faith and practice of his church. If this is not a correct "guess" as to the "intention" of the church, under the direction of the Jesuits, I would appreciate your explanation of the presence of Catholics in the "godless" schools as teachers; and if this is not a better, analysis of ques- tion 32 than your answer, in presenting what may be the policy or "intention" of your church kindly show me where I am wrong. On a leaflet received from you, relative to marriage of non- Catholics, you quote Cardinal Antonello, Prefect of Rome, as say- ing: "The idea that Catholics are taught to believe that the mar- riage of Protestants are invalid and their children illegitimates is a hate-breeding idea, and it is a social crime to circulate such false and malicious belief." A cardinal, although holding a high position in the pope's household, can not speak for the pope — let him speak for himself, and then say who is spreading this "hate- breeding idea:" Speaking on "The Unity of the Church," on page 358 of the Great Encyclical Letters, Leo XIII says: "The Church of Christ, therefore, is ONE AND THE SAME FOREVER; those who leave it depart from the will and com- mand of Christ the Lord — leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. WHOSOEVER IS SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH IS UNITED TO AN ADULTERESS." Of course, here he is referring to things spiritual, nevertheless just as offensive, in considering all other churches as "prosti- tutes;" no comment is necessary. Now, we will let him speak concerning marriage: "The Evils Affecting Modern Society," page 18, of the Great Encyclical Let- ters, published by Benziger Bros., Printers to the Holy See in America, New York: "But when IMPIOUS LAWS, setting at naught the sanctity of this great sacrament, putting it (marriage) on the same foot- ing with mere civil contracts, the lamentable result followed, that, outraging the dignity of Christian (papal) MARTIMONY, citizens made use of LEGALIZED CONCUBINAGE." From utterances like these, from your church, spring those "hate-breeding ideas," that the church teaches that "the mar- riages of Protestants are invalid and their children illegitimates." These ideas seem to be well-founded — do you not think so? Jesuit sophistry ! Certainly, your cardinal is right, in a certain sense: for it stands to reason, that if this "concubinage" is "legalized," then children are "legitimates" — but your cardinal does not attempt to brush away what the church teaches, viz: The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 69 that though married according to civil law, such marriage is "only a rite or custom," says Leo, "introduced by the civil law." It occurs to me that a "Plea for Peace" would be more effect- ive, instead of devoting so much space to what outsiders say regarding the church, recounting what she has done in the past and how well Catholics have served the country, if such pleas should quote the popes, and explain what they are trying to teach. Thundering down the ages of Time, to reverberate till time is lost in Eternity, "THOU SHALT" and "THOU SHALT NOT," the Immutable Law of God was given to man — applicable and of full force AT ALL TIMES, IN ALL PLACES, AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, with one divisional differ- ence: before Christ came, the LETTER of the law was sufficient; after His advent both the letter and SPIRIT of the law must be obeyed— the OVERT ACT, and the COVERT "INTENTION" being of equal weight; but it seems to me that in its faith and practices, the Roman church endeavors to set aside that great fact, and enforce these mandates as may seem EXPEDIENT at different times and places, which places Catholics in a trying pre- dicament occasionally in an effort to make times and places gibe with "expediency," as witness the following, wherein it appears that Bishop Keiley of Savannah got truth and "error" (?) so mixed that no Protestant knows whether he is telling the truth or otherwise. In a subsequent leaflet from your association, the following was printed as an excerpt from a Pastoral Letter of the Bishop: "They accuse us of the worship of idols . . . and believing and teaching that no Protestant can be saved. We deny both of these false statements." Is the bishop a Jesuit? Certainly, the church does not teach that Protestants cannot be saved — like any other heathen, all they have to do is, join the "only true church." Simple isn't it? When a Catholic is speaking or writing for the purpose of con- cealing what the church teaches, or to prevent its "intention" from being made too manifest, especially to non-Catholics, the Jesuit art of mental reservation, or evasion of mind, is very subtle and useful: in direct contradiction of what the bishop is quoted as saying, I will now quote from Deharbe's "Full Cate- chism of Catholic Religion," censored by Cardinals Wiseman and McClosky, page 145, sub-topic "On Salvation in the True Church of Christ Alone:" Qu. "64. If the Catholic church is to lead all men to salvation, and has, for that purpose, received from Christ her doctrine, her means of grace, and her power, what, for his part is everyone obliged to do? (Emphasis mine.) 70 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Ans. "EVERYONE is OBLIGED, UNDER PAIN OF ETERNAL DAMNATION, to become a MEMBER of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, to BELIEVE her DOCTRINE, to USE her means of grace, and to SUBMIT to HER AUTHORITY." As this doctrine is from a duly approved Catechism of the church, presumably intended for the exclusive use of the "faith- ful," it MUST be correct — at least, two cardinals approved it as true doctrine; therefore, it is evident you laymen misquoted the bishop, or, that the bishop needs to study his Catechism! In your answer to question 22, you laymen have deliberately denied the faith, are at cross-purposes with your own bishop, Cardinal Gibbons, and your Catechism, regarding baptism; you have denied the doctrine of "Intention" which was adopted by the same Council that promulgated the marriage law of the church, which is recognized as valid and binding by Cardinal Gibbons and Pope Leo XIII; Your own bishop, if you quoted him correctly, has made an attempt to mislead the people — THEREFORE: If you attempt to maintain the answers you have rendered, and that I have treated at some length above, it is necessary for you to name the pope or general council as your authority — no lesser authority is competent to establish the truth of any matter; and such citations must be from duly authenticated documents — such as are taught the "faithful" as true Catholicism; any one else is unworthy of belief, as is evi- dent from the foreging answers to questions. In conclusion, I will test the sincerity of your Association in regard to subject-matter of questions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and in general 19, by inviting you to deliver, first-hand, what your church teaches as a matter of faith and practice concerning these ques- tions, in a series of lectures, to large, interested Macon audi- ences — your representative to speak as many nights as desired, but to be alternated by a non-Catholic showing why and what others believe to be the doctrine and teaching of the church rela- tive to them ; I will secure a hall for the purpose and pay all reasonable expenses of your representative while here for that business, raising the money, probably, by charging a nominal admission fee. If you believe in free speech — and you say you do — this is your chance to prove it: to people who believe in the Constitu- tion, any question that can not be discussed from every angle is viewed with distrust and considered unsafe. If, by the exercise of his authority, the pope can estop you from responding to the innate promptings of manhood to accept this challenge to debate the questions, why should not non-Catholics The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 71 believe you would be obedient to your church in all things "that have already been taught, or that may hereafter be taught?" I think you must agree with me, if I say your Association is a very unreliable source from which to secure information, and that it is even unsafe to put too much faith in what Bishop Keiley may say: all this, however, does not appear so strange, considering that the highest authority of your church, a pope, gets tangled while making ex cathedra utterances, viz: Leo XIII says : "A State is nothing but a multitude . . . which is its own master," p. 120, and that "Justice, therefore, forbids, and reason forbids, the State to be godless — namely, to treat the various re- ligions (as they call them) alike, and bestow upon them promis- cuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of ONE religion is necessary in the State, THAT religion must be professed which ALONE is true," p. 260, supporting that "truth" with the further assertion that "the Catholic religion . . is alone the TRUE religion," p. 200, and to prove the truth of his contention, cites from the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, which teach that it is an error to say that "The Church must.be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." From the foregoing it is evident that this is a "godless" nation, because it will not sign an agreement with the pope to banish all others and make Roman Catholicism the religion of State — as a "godless" nation, it has been in existence long enough to be con- sidered a "government," yet Leo contradicts himself, saying: "Whatsoever the form of government, the authority is from God!" A "godless" nation, receiving its authority from "God"! If popes, cardinals, bishops and laymen can not make the faith and practices of the church harmonize, how can they teach others the doctrine of the church? Leo XIII further asserts that "Whosoever is separated from the church is united to an adulteress;" now, according to him — the highest authority in the church — Roman Catholics are taught that, because America has not signed a concordat with the Vat- ican excluding all other religions and sercet orders, and placing all education in the hands of priests and nuns, our American civilization "is nothing but a WORTHLESS IMITATION and a meaningless name," p. 12; it is nothing but a "multitude" and "godless," being "united to an adulteress" — a nation whose wives and mothers are "legalized" concubines — yet, and notwithstand- ing all this, it gets its authority from God! p. 315. He is as self-contradictory as some of his "children" are with each other and with the church, as shown in the foregoing pages; contra- dictions and chaos, from laymen to pope! Well and truly does the pope look upon Catholics as "chil- dren" and the "faithful," for it requires an abounding "faith" 72 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged to accept whatsoever your church proposes, and believe it merely by reason of the authority of religious superiors, who exact it. ADDENDUM Remarks on Marriage and Unity of Teaching According to one's judgment, in matters that pertain to the accomplishing of an object — which in itself is right — he may be governed by "expediency;" to illustrate the point: If I should have an urgent professional call to Atlanta, I would first con- sider when the next train left; if there were no trains in several hours, I would consider the condition of the highway for auto- mobile travel; I would deem it "expedient" to wait for the next train, or go by auto, as the case may be, in answer to the call — but professional ethics would prevent me from deciding the mat- ter of answering the call by resorting to "expediency.'" The Great God has issued a call to Man through His Son, saying: "Come unto me:" how to answer the call, is laid down in His Word; expediency may govern an individual's movements — how best to respond to the call, but it can have no modifying influence upon the call. The papal church claims to be Christian; if it is, the "call" it makes to the outsider must be as the call of Christ, UNIFORM, and unswervingly true to the Word wherever preached or de- clared: now, let us see if we can find the mark of UNIFORM- ITY in the Roman church, and if the "expediency" to which it resorts tends to establish the claim of being the only true church established by Jesus Christ: In America and elsewhere, when non-Catholics are in the ma- jority, they are usually referred to as "our separated brethren," and men like Mr. Farrell send out slips, without an imprimatur, saying that "The idea that Catholics are taught to believe that marriages of Protestants are invalid and their children ille- gitimate is a hate-breeding idea, and it is a social crime to cir- culate such false and malicious belief." In this connection, I will quote from "Dr. Dozier's Reply to Mr. (priest) Coyle": "In the appendix of Ripalda's Catechism, published at Barce- lona, Spain, November 10, 1910, bearing the imprimatur of the Vicar General, Jose Palmorola, the following is set forth for the papist youth to learn: "'Question: What is the matrimony which is called civil? " 'Answer: That which is celebrated by a civil authority with- out any ecclesiastical intervention whatever. "'Question: Is civil matrimony true matrimony? " 'Answer : No, but base concubinage. '"Question: Why? 'Answer: Because true matrimony should be celebrated by u < The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 73 the ecclesiastical authority, fulfilling likewise all which has been ordained by Jesus Christ and our Holy Mother Church!'" That this is true Catholic doctrine as to matrimony will be proved by referring to the Canon Law on the subject cited else- where. The Roman church, through Jesuitical casuistry, like a weather-cock, adjusts itself, apparently, to conditions over which it has no control; but to know what is the truth relative to any phase of Catholicism, go to the law which makes Catholics — read the doctrine it commands them to believe ; a priest or lay- man is permitted to make such answer in any case as will best serve the church, but no one can gainsay the law on the subject. LAYMEN'S REPIES TO CRITICISMS WITH THE AUTHOR'S COMMENTS The Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia acknowledged receipt of my objections to their answers presented in the fore- going pages, as follows: Augusta, Ga., Sept. 20, 1917. Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, American National Bank Bldg., Macon, Ga. Dear Sir: Your letter of September 7th with your objections to my answers to your previous questions, is noted. While most all you say has been argued to us in much the same way by other correspondents, none of them have assembled so many assertions, denials, assumptions, challenges, in one com- munication. You have thus presented the anti-Catholic con- tention in a way that furnishes a rather helpful index to the anti-Catholic mind. On the basis of what you say, our "Plea for Peace" can be renewed, and every answer formerly made can be reaffirmed with confidence and truth. Because, since we now understand you better, there is some hope of our being able to make you understand us, not saying however, that you will agree with us, which is not at all necessary for "peace." You will no doubt consent to my discussing your paper in installments, writing you each day or two as opportunity affords consideration, apart from other matters, of what you have to say. Anticiptaing no dissent from you on this score, allow me to hope that you will not take anything I say amiss, nor set up a barrier to our better understanding of one another, until the conclusion. I shall write again tomorrow. Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT BY AUTHOR Having "furnished a rather helpful index to the anti-Catholic mind," I have a right to expect clear, true, authoritative answers and explanations concerning the questions discussed. That the letters from Mr. Farrell, who acts in an official capacity for the Roman Catholic church, will "furnish a rather helpful index" to the nature and spirit of Catholicism, I firmly believe. Of the Thrity-Two Questions, fully twenty-five vitally concern every American citizen. This official association says that "agreement" is not necessary to "peace." I do not believe peace can be established on any other basis; there are certain questions, like No. 13, for instance, (74) The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 75 which MUST be answered and some sort of agreement reached relative thereto on the part of the Catholic church, and these questions must be understood by Americans. Whether or not the series of letters from the Laymen's Asso- ciation offer such explanations of dogmas and laws sufficiently to permit of that understanding necessary to establish peace between the different forces will be left for the intelligent reader to determine for himself. For brevity and to conserve space, I will omit my name and address in quoting the letters received from the Association, and begin them by using the date lines; I may also use the word "association" or "Farrell" interchangeably in place of the full name of the association. Immaterial errors which crept into the correspondence of all parties will be corrected, if it can be done without interfering with the sense of the text, or where I am reasonably sure of what was intended to be said, as this is a discussion of principles instead of a contest in grammar or rhetoric. Augusta, Ga., Sept. 21, 1917. Dear Sir: Before approaching the matter of your letter in serial order, if you will permit me some general observations it will probably assist in the premises. Our association was not formed for evangelical purposes. We are not trying to convert the non-Catholics of Georgia to our faith. We wish them to understand what we believe, but do not expect them to believe as we do, though, of course, we could not be very earnest in our faith and not be glad when anyone agrees with us ; only, — agreement is not necessary to understanding. I hope you will accept this as a frank and true statement of our aims. I can gain nothing by deceiving you, and you nothing by suspecting me of deceit. Suspicion has no place in our inter- changes; it is a shield for ignorance, a sign of fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is the root of more misunderstandings in the world perhaps than any other one thing. And I abjure it. So you can take my word for it, man to man; we plead not for agreement, much less for surrender or compromise; but only that you understand us. Yours very truly, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT While it may be impossible for non-Catholics and Roman Cath- olics to agree on matters of religious dogma to the extent that one may be willing to embrace the faith of the other, it goes without saying, that the questions submitted to the association were not for the purpose, primarily, of ascertaining what Cath- olics believe, from a theological standpoint, but rather, to what extent that church requires its members to strive to bring about conditions favorable to the Roman church, which would be detri- 76 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged mental to the welfare of those who are not of that faith, and if they are in conscience bound to follow the teaching of the church where its "faith and practices" conflict with the Constitution of the United States. If a Roman Catholic is taught, by the priesthood on the author- ity of the pope, that a glass of wine and a plate of bread can be turned — every separate drop, and crumb — into the Body of the Living Christ, and that he must eat it to be saved, I am sure a non-Catholic would not object to that dogma; but if there is reason to believe, from the history and laws of the church, and the general ^attitude of Catholics to-day, that they are expected to exert themselves, and use such means as their superiors may designate, to force others to accept their faith, then it becomes necessary for Catholics to answer a question on that phase of the subject, and prove that such is not the case; and, for it to be a true answer, it must be founded upon the utterances of the one who had the power and authority to decree laws requiring this attitude on the part of the "faithful," that is, a pope or council of the church. Augusta, Ga., Sept. 24, 1917. Dear Sir: Having put by suspicion, we take up trust, — the practice, the habit, the necessity of trust. Trust is a distinctive mark of higher civilization, as suspicion is a mark of savagery. Its practice extends with intelligence, the habit grows with peace, the necessity presses with the multi- plication of social relations. Trust is the soul of the social body. You may trust one person, I another; you one faith, I another. But we both trust somebody, is the point, and because you do not trust what I trust should not cause one of us to think that the other is either crooked or crazy. And since none can live in so- ciety without trust, and it being contrary to the nature of things to compel TRUST, fellow- citizens must either respect each other or despise each other, and let it go at that. Of course, respect for each other, where it is possible, is much more sensible, comfortable, gentlemanlike, much more civilized, if you please, than the contrary sentiment, and we ought to cul- tivate it as much as we can, with due respect for ourselves. The bearing of these commonplace thoughts, where not obvious now, will appear later; in the meantime do not think I am trying to be pendantic. Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT "Trust" is where one places confidence in the integrity, verac- ity, justice, and friendship of another; so, before you can exer- cise this noble sentiment, it is necessary to learn the past record — history — of the party or institution, the regard shown for veracity, intention, and objective of the one desiring to win "trust" — it must rest on merit. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 77 Do people distrust the Roman Catholic church and its mem- bers? (The Roman church is composed of two factors, (1) the "Teaching Church" or Pope, and (2) the "Hearing Church" or laymen.) The Hearing Church is directed and governed by the Teaching Church, and if distrust attaches to a member thereof, it is because of his relation to the "Teacher" — the "Teacher" being responsible for the distrust, if it cannot be removed; yet the "Hearer" can not be blameless, unless it can be shown that he is not a party to th& intention of the teacher in spirit or in deed. If Roman Catholics are distrusted, is it merely because they are Catholics, or because they are a necessary part of a system whose written LAW, history, and declared objective render them unworthy of trust? Granting that the Roman church is viewed with suspicion — that its seeming friendliness toward the American democratic form of government and the free institutions and customs erected on the rights guaranteed by the supreme law of the land — then, it is logical to expect those supporting that system of religion to show, as far as they can, that such suspicion is not founded on fact and answer a fair question without equivocation, as a primary basis for meriting "trust." A cursory scansion of history's pages shows a black picture drawn years ago when the Roman church was the religion of State in France, "The Massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day," when the Huguenots — French Protestants — -"trusted" the Cath- olics; how was it repaid? Thousands of men, women and chil- dren slain in cold blood — all defenceless, unarmed! John Huss put his "trust" in the guarantee of a Catholic King's safe pass-port to attend the Council of Constance, which council passed a decree to the effect that Catholics were to "Keep no faith with heretics" — which has never been repealed — and Huss was burnt at the stake by the church, to the everlasting shame and disgrace of Emperor Sigsmund, because he, Huss, would not subscribe to all that the "Teaching" church "proposed for belief." The massacre of the Huguenots so pleased the pope of Rome that he had a special medal made in commemoration of the event — the German Kaiser also had a medal struck to perpetuate the glorious (?) deed of his subjects in sinking the Lusitania! Augusta, Ga., Sept. 25, 1917. Dear Sir: Now, a bit of logic. It sins against the law of correct thinking to argue from par- ticular cases to a general principle; to say, for example, that "because Catholics are obedient in a few things, therefore, they must be obedient in everything; or that because the pope is in- fallible in some things, therefore he must be infallible in all things. 78 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged It offends logic also, to judge truth by error. Error is judged by truth. The examination and rejection of many errors may leave one still far from the truth of a question. The examina- tion and acceptance of the truth closes the matter and makes unnecessary the examination of errors in connection. Having accepted the Bible story of Creation as true, for in- stance, that dispenses with the necessity of reading the Book of the East, the Vedas, the Zenda Vesta, and many other mystical or fanciful accounts of the beginning of the world, to learn the truth about creation. Truth is one, exclusive, inexorable. We shall presently have use for these inflexible rules of right reason, Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. O. C. COMMENT By the consideration of "particular cases" we determine whether a general principle is good or bad, or, establish a fact; to illustrate: we argue, from particular cases, that the general principle of the liquor traffic is bad; to Newton, the falling of the apple was a particular case, from which he argued the existence of a fixed principle; observing the particular case of steam issu- ing from the coffee-pot, Watts argued a general principle, which gave us our steam-cars. Were it not for particular cases demon- strating an hitherto unknown fact, we would forever remain ignorant of the "general principle." Mr. Farrell implies that Catholics are not obedient to the pope in all things, and that the pope is not supposed to be infallible in all things; if not obedient, they do not "trust" the pope, and should not object that non-Catholics distrust him in all things; but it can not be proved that Catholics are not required to be as obedient to the pope's fallible directing power — from which they get their law — as they are to his infallible definitive prerogative — from which they derive their faith: in the exercise of either power, he can require Catholics to do that which would cause resistance on the part of others, the invasion of their Constitu- tional rights, for instance — which is arguing from a particular case to a general principle. It is only by the closest examination, oftentimes, that truth may be distinguished from error, both in physical and spiritual things ; otherwise, it would be impossible for the devil to appear as an angel of light and deceive the very elect of God — and this is arguing from a particular case to a general principle. The Biblical injunction is, "try" or "examine" all things, and to "hold fast that which is good;" if error or things false did not exist, all would be correct or true, in which case there would be no necessity for an examination; for instance, an Indian, ignorant of relative values, would part with his wares for a piece of cut- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 79 glass, or a negro relieved of his hard-earned money; and it is the unsophisticated only who would consider it unnecessary to examine a glittering, shimmering stone before investing in it; the thinking, studious, reasoning being knows there are false and true stones, so the "diamond" is put to the "test," and if the natural law does not convince his reason, he will not be duped into purchasing a worthless stone. If we accept the Bible story of Creation, we must necessarily believe that the Creator endowed Adam's race with reason; with- out that, man would be only as an animal in the world, indiffer- ent alike to the fact of creation, and its purpose, and he could in no manner be held responsible for his eternal destiny — no honest minded person will deny this proposition : we acknowl- edge the presence of sin in the world, and know that Truth and Error confront man at every step, which can be distinguished only by the exercise of reason and a knowledge of the Word of God. On the other hand, if one asserts that he is in possession of the Truth, and such assertion is questioned, a refusal to be ex- amined or to examine implies a doubt (1) that he is not sure he has the Truth, or (2) that while he believes God gave him the Truth, he is not certain that he was endowed with sufficient reason and intelligence to distinguish between error and Truth, and prefers to go along with what he has — it matters not if the stone is cut-glass, he is satisfied, so why worry? Moses furnished a logical example illustrative of this point: He was positive his was the only true God, but if he had failed to throw down his rod, which became a snake and swallowed the rods of the Egyp- tian Magicians, he could have argued with Paraoh until this day, and not have impressed him with unproved assertions. "Prove all things" demands the Bible of Reason. This is also arguing from a particular case to establish a general principle, and does not sin against the law of correct thinking — unless we agree with Leo XIII, who taught, by inference, that God did not endow man with the power or right to THINK and REASON. Elijah was sure he possessed the true religion, and did not hesitate to put it to the "test" before reasoning beings — in the examination, the pagan priests and people were overcome by Truth; David believed he had the true religion, and did not hesi- tate to attack Goliath with a sling and a little stone. Darkness can never destroy light, neither can error prevail against Truth; were this not true, Christ would not have come into the world, because the devil would have vanquished Him; but, because the devil was in the world, He came to overcome him and teach man how to do likewise. The pope of Rome says he possesses the Truth — in fact, is hold- ing the place of God Almighty on earth as Christ's Vice-Gerent, 80 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged yet he dares any one of his cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests or laymen to imitate Moses, Elijah, or David, and will not himself imitate the Christ! "The examination," says Mr. Farrell, "and acceptance of the truth closes the matter and makes unnecessary the examination of errors in connection. Having accepted the Bible story of creation, as true, for instance, that dispenses with the necessity of reading the Book of the East, the Vedas, the Zenda Vesta — " To a Catholic, that is good logic; it closes the matter to those who live and act under "authority" of superiors, but it means nothing to me, when I know Roman priests are supposed to be trained to preach Christ, yet spend six years more or less mem- orizing pagan literature: Homer, Socrates, Lycurgus, Alexan- der, Lucretia, Regulus, Virgil, Horace, Cicero, Tacitus, Caesar, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Brutus, Jupiter, Minerva, Mars, Diana and the like, which INDELLIBLY impress paganistic principles on the mind, then devote about six years wrestling with the "writings of the holy fathers," — whom they can not reconcile with each other — and then at ordination swear "I will never in- terpret Holy Scripture except according to the unanimous (!) consent of the holy fathers," * which oath effectually renders the Bible a "closed" book to both priest and people; it is in reality a "closed" book to Catholics, which cannot be opened or exam- ined except as directed by the pope; closed also by having to spend their time with the "fathers" and ancient paganism instead of the Bible. Do they find Christ in that literature, or Roman Catholicism in embryo? Do Protestants read this ancient literature? Certainly; but they also study the Bible: with the cut-glass placed beside the diamond, its scintillating beauty is proved, and its value demon- strated to the discerning mind by the comparison. The story of the Cross can not be learned from ancient pagan- ism, but from the Bible, a book apparently read less than any other in a priest's preparation to tell that "Story." Who makes the "examination" that "closes" a question to Catholics? The pope. If Roman Catholicism did not claim the right and try to enforce this principle relative to non-Catholics, there would be no grounds for friction; but that church teaches its members that they sin against "holy mother church" if they do not resent any discussion of questions pronounced "closed" by their pope, and time was, and the church now teaches in its law, that offenders should be haled before priestly tribunals and tor- tured. They can not now, in America, burn people at the stake * "Item sacram Scripturam juxta eum sensum, quern tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto ; nee etiam umquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrurn accipiam et interpretabor." The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 81 for "opening" a matte? "closed" by the pope, but they show the sam& spirit of their fathers in the faith — not by meeting the is- sues in debate, but by boycott, slander, etc. I know of instances where these methods have been resorted to. Who is responsible for this? Priests of Rome, whose minds are submerged — owl- like in a forest — in the dense blackness of a "faith and practice" foisted on the world when the pope was supreme. Left to them- selves, Catholic laymen would be true friends, loyal citizens, and an asset to a country: America must reckon with the papal church. Augusta, Ga., Set. 26, 1917. Dear Sir : You say in the letter transmitting your paper that you "deem it the duty of every citizen, to investigate all ques- tions that may affect him, his family, or his neighbor, whether social, political, religious or otherwise." This statement means that you consider every citizen bound to examine into all matters, religious or otherwise, that affect his neighbor, which would seem to run counter to what might be termed the American principle of everybody minding his own business. I probably would not have caught this broad meaning, as you probably did not intend to say so much, had not your paper rather emphasized it in many places where you treat matters that touch Catholics only and have not even an indirect bearing on those outside the fold. Of which more later, this being merely to call your attention to the American rule that says, "Don't butt in." Very truly, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. 0. C. COMMENT During the period of the world's darkest days, which, though, was the glorious noontide of the Roman church, it probably meant certain death for any person — from the king who held his throne and subjects by the grace of the pope — to investigate any question quoted from my letter in the first paragraph. Dur- ing the Dark Ages, rulers were little better than vassals of the pope; ruling as by "right divine," the pope considered it his prerogative to take care of all such matters, hence, neither king nor pope ever bothered himself in a broad sense with the ques- tion, "Am I my brother's keeper?" I cannot concur in the association's interpretation of what con- stitutes the "American principle." This being a democracy — where the people shape their own destiny, make their own laws which define where the rights of the one stop and the other's begin — no person is fit for citizenship, nor should it be granted, unless he uses his franchise, and also strives, for the advance- ment of the common interests of the country. This is the dis- 82 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged tinguishing characteristic of freemen; it differentiates the con- dition always obtaining where the absolutism of "divine right" ruling popes and kaisers prevails, and if one is not interested in all those things which affect him and his neighbor, he may fit well into the scheme of paplism, but not into the, plan of Ameri- can democracy. No doubt the able writer for the association, being trained in parochial schools, believes he announced the correct American principle; but in the free schools of the State, pupils are taught that the destiny of the nation will be committed into their keep- ing; that each one is to become an integral part of the future governmental structure and, to be true to the best interests of themselves and the nation, they MUST understand and be inter- ested in every question that would affect society. Those not ap- preciating this doctrine, are as emery dust in the wheels of progress — they are as dumb brutes, to be driven hither and thither according to the will of a master; under such conditions, it becomes a crime to think, or to make known one's thoughts. My paper was addressed to the Catholic Laymen's Associa- tion on its published invitation — an association that was or- ganized, ostensibly, for the purpose of diffusing information, first-hand, as to what Catholics believe, their rights, etc.; no other sect or secret order maintains a bureau of this kind; they do not need it; so why should my paper not have a "broad" mean- ing, and treat of matters relative to Catholics only? No other people claiming to be citizens in America owe allegiance to a foreigner, who demands, as a matter of faith and practice, that they must strive to destroy the Constitution of the United States and supplant it with papal law; I know of no "church" except the Roman that would restrict those Constitutional rights or attempt to exert an influence to force the minds of citizens through the narrow groove carved by the will of a foreigner, who presumes to have the "divine right" to rule and govern the people of the universe; and his followers on this continent need not be surprised that questions are raised that relate to them exclusively as a sect, but which concern all other citizens. The association has defined certain "correct rules" of logic and thinking (see letter Sept. 25) ; it also invited, through the press and mails, questions on what Catholics believe; but it seems that if a question is propounded that is not found in the Catechism — although in the Corpus Juris (the official code of the church) — he violates the "American rule" which is, "Don't butt in." This may illustrate the "broad" papal principle, that you should not ask questions, even if the pope's church seems to in- vite them; evidently it is the duty of Romanists to leave all questions concerning their welfare in the hands of the "holy fathers," who prepare questions and their answers for the faith- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 83 ful. Correct papal "logic" and "thinking" as I understand the proposition. The thirty-two questions asked the Catholic Lawmen's Asso- ciation were for the purpose of learning, if possible, the attitude of the papal church and its members to the principles of Ameri- canism as denned by the Constitution; that the association has utterly failed to answer any important question correctly, ac- cording to evidence secured from other sources, will be apparent from a perusal of the letters. In a way, however, the whole list is inadvertantly answered, by inference, in the second para- graph of Farrell's letter; the church teaches, and Catholics must believe, that it is fundamentally wrong and presumptuous for one to consider any question arising under faith and morals — which cover social, political, economic and religious matters— as they are questions which the pope "examines" for all the world, and then legislates for the purpose of enforcing his findings. I hold it to be self-evident that a person who does not feel and manifest a personal interest in all those questions is tem- peramentally, if not mentally, incapacitated to properly dis- charge the duties devolving upon American citizens, especially if it can be proved that such person is DIRECTED by a FOR- EIGNER who claims temporal or spiritual jurisdiction over him, as there is bound to be a conflict sooner of later between the requirements of the Constitution and the will of the for- eigner. I believe it will be conclusively shown herein that one owing a dual allegiance is incompetent to sit on juries, or in any manner assist in making or administering the laws of a demo- cratic country. This, I know, is a "broad" assertion; but not more so than the above inference demands. If, in the course of time, owing to the indifference of those whose duty it is to defend them, the public schools of this coun- try should be controlled by the papal church, everyone would be trained in the papal idea as to what constitutes "correct" think- ing and "right" rules of logic, which would indeed be an ideal condition for the Church of Rome. Can it be true that the Roman Catholic schools in America are thus training millions of children, who are to have a voice in the affairs of this nation? We shall see, as we progress with these letters. Augusta, Ga., Sept. 29, 1917. Dear Sir: Regarding the Index — You seem to imagine that Catholics read the Index every morn- ing; that they all have pocket editions which they must consult every time they see a newsboy coming. Had you ever thought how much simpler it would be for the church, if her "intention" were what you seem to think, instead 84 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged of pointing out to her children what alone they should NOT read, for her to specify what alone they should read? When one wishes to CONTROL a person, and not leave that person free, one does not say "Don't do this, or this, or this;" but "DO that, or that, or that." When one wishes to direct a person, however, yet leave that person free, one pursues exactly the opposite course, specifying just what is not to be done and leaving all matters not specified open to the choice of the indi- vidual. This latter is the way the Index works. Catholics are free to read anything not specified in its 'rules' and prohibited. Before you can condemn the Index, therefore, as being opposed to knowledge, you must know that the particular matter it speci- fies is necessary to knowledge. If the converse were true; if Catholics were not allowed to read anything unless it be found on the Index, you might con- demn it off-hand, as we condemn Mohammed for burning the Alexandrian library on the theory: "If the books contain the truth, it is in the Koran, and they are useless; if not the truth, they are worse than useless." Now, with these obviously correct principles in mind, will you be good enough to point out a single book on the Index that is necessary to the full knowledge of any useful subject? If you cannot do this, your condemnation of the Index is with- out reason. Very truly. J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT The pope of Rome declares he is the supreme teacher of all that pertains to "FAITH AND MORALS." Everything that is worth while in life pertains to faith and morals; to have and hold a vice-like grip on his subjects, throughout the whole world, and to enable him to DIRECT, CONTROL and DETERMINE their faith and morals, the pope established the Index; from early infancy on through life the principle of the Index is im- pressed upon the mind and conscience of a Catholic by priest and parochial school teacher, which forbids reading any book or periodical treating of any question relative to faith and morals, and, consequently, a newsboy, or a book dealer, will never make a sale to a Catholic if the paper or book discusses any question involving faith and morals ; certainly, a Catholic will not buy it, if therein a non-Catholic discusses the religion of the pope. Not only has the pope specifically indicated what Catholics "should NOT read," but he has also indicated what they may read. The Index Ldbrorum Prohibitorum contains the list of books which Catholics can NOT read, while the Index Expurga- torious is a list of books which may be read in expurgated edi- tions only, that is "trimmed" to suit what the pope conceives to be for the best interest of Catholic faith and morals; the most objectionable feature of the Index, however, is to be found in The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 85 the Canon Law on the subject, which absolutely forbids Cath- olics to have in their possession or read publications of any character that treat on any phase of faith and morals without first submitting such to the censorship demanded by the RULES of the Index; to make sure Catholics have permission to read any given publication, the imprimatur of a designated church authority must be displayed therein, which indicates to Cath- olics that they may read it. If this does not make the church say "DO that, or that, or that," I admit a misunderstanding of the "intention" of the Index; Leo taught: "What we are bound to DO, and what we are NOT to do," are laid down by the pope. The papal church condemned as heretical and unscriptural the Copernican theory of astronomy — after the world had accepted the teaching of scholars for two hundred years, the Roman church withdrew its condemnation, and that theory was then "open" for Catholic investigation ! Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarni and Galileo knew more than the pope, which was unfortunate for them, but it took that church two hundred years to acknowl- edge it. Joan of Arc was burnt as a heretic, but later made a saint by the church that put her to death! The commands of God say, "DO THIS," and "DON'T DO THAT." Having created and endowed man with Reason — giving him a mind to think, and a will to do, which makes him a free moral agent- — God indicates what course a man must follow to please Him; unlike the pope, however, He has never attempted to FORCE or COERCE His creature; man must accept or reject. I can see no essential difference between the Mohammedan reason for burning the Alexandrian library and the papal reason for the Index; and, instead of pointing out "a single book on the Index," I point out the Index itself. At the beginning of the Dark Ages a library of priceless literature was destroyed by the pope, after which Reason was locked in human hearts, and it was death to let the pope know the mind contemplated any- thing save what he desired. God made man in His own image, endowing him with Reason and the five senses to enable him to make a successful pilgrimage on earth and safeguard the destiny of his never-dying soul ; there- fore, man is rightly termed the masterpiece of God's handiwork. The Index presumes either to improve on God's work, or to com- plete what He had improperly left unfinished: an animal is DIRECTED by a blind-bridle, not by Reason; by the bridle, it is turned or driven in any direction to suit the purpose of the driver, the blind being to prevent it from becoming frightened at harm- less objects which it cannot understand, as well as to prevent it from becoming interested in things that do not interest its DRIVER; the INDEX is the BLIND-BRIDLE the pope of 86 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Rome places on the intellect, and his decrees are the lines by which he directs his subjects. The papal Index fetters man's reasoning and intellectual fac- ulties ; it seeks to defeat the very purpose for which Reason was given. To me, it appears as if the pope has attempted to build an impenetrable wall around the Intellect to prevent man from knowing both good and evil, which necessarily destroys indi- vidual, personal responsibility — or free moral agency — which renders man objectively nothing more in the sight of God than a stone or a tree or an animal. God recognized the principle of free moral agency in the Garden of Eden, when He let Adam and Eve decide for themselves whether they would obey Him or the devil; and if God made an error in establishing this particu- lar principle, I am sure an Italian pope cannot reverse it after the lapse of five thousand years. In choosing to obey the devil rather than God, Adam separated the Creature from his Creator; to bridge the chasm was the purpose of the Christ on Golgotha: the Index appears to be a substitute for the Cross and Hill of Skulls. A marked characteristic of paganism is, it seeks to destroy that which is not of it, and those who refuse submission to its code. In the "General Decrees Concerning the Prohibition of Books," the Constitution of Pope Leo XIII, c. 3, dec. 8, I find the following as to reading: "All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics, are prohibited." (39) : "Censors . . . should put away all attachment to their particular country, family, school, or institute . . . they must keep nothing before their eyes but the Dogmas of Holy Church, and the common Catholic doctrine as contained in the decrees of General Councils, the Constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, and the unanimous teaching of the Doctors of the Church." According to this Constitution, defining the"rules"of the Index, that governs every Catholic writer or censor, the pope attempts to close — and may as well burn, so far as Romanists are con- cerned — every book in the world, except those written or cen- sored according to this decree; so vital is this censorship, that even a newspaper will be boycotted if it permits a discussion of faith and morals in its columns — especially if it be from a com- parative viewpoint. At ordination a priest swears to interpret Holy Scripture ac- cording to the "unanimous" consent of the holy fathers — hence to him the Bible is a "closed" book; to the person who depends upon the priest for spiritual direction and forgiveness of sin, the Bible has no meaning; so in truth, as is taught by the "holy" fathers, the Roman church may dispense with the Bible alto- gether yet be Christian by following the "Traditions of Men," The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 87 which have been elevated to the same plane for veneration as the Word of God — the Bible! the one book on the Index "that is necessary to the full knowledge of any useful subject" in life, a knowledge of which Catholics can not have except as it is sifted through papal censorship. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 1, 1917. Dear Sir: If Catholics are satisfied with their belief and prac- tices, you ought to be satisfied without them. Except, of course, insofar as they affect you in your social re- lations and rights, which is not the case in such matters as con- fession, convents, celibacy of priests, and others that you treat. We use the confessional; you are not asked to use it. Our daughters enter the convents, yours are not asked to enter them. The priests minister to our spiritual wants, not yours. If we are not displeased with these things, you ought not to be worried. If you are content without them, pray let us be contnent with them. Where our belief and practices touch matters common to all citizens, all have an interest and a duty, as you say. And we are ready to stand up and be counted. Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT The association does not consider such matters as the confes- sional, convents, priestly celibacy, etc., as questions that affect society in common, which is equivalent to saying that, as long as my family and my neighbor are not in the immediate zone of, or suffering from, some malignant disease, which may become epidemic if not restricted, I should be satisfied. Mr. Farrell has advanced that idea before, as being the American principle which says, "Don't butt in." If the Roman church could, she would force all people in America to make use of those "means of grace" above mentioned, and, with our children in parochial schools, in less than a cen- tury this republic would be a candidate for bottom place against Roman Catholic Austria, Spain, Bulgaria, Mexico, Cuba, Ire- land, and other countries where the pope presumes to DIRECT the minds of men. No person can come out of the confessional as free as before entering it; no one can come out of it, according to priests who quit that church, as pure as when they went in, for the very simple reason, among others, that no form of idolatry can aid in the advancement of faith and morals: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them or serve them" was heard above the thun- ders of Mount Sinai; Rome forces her devotees to bow down and confess to a creature, while in doing penance they are serving that creature, thus vitiating the Atoning Blood of Christ; how- ever, I make no special point on these questions of Catholic faith 88 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged and practices; if Catholics do not object to these things, so far so good; but history and the condition of other peoples to-day show the evil nature of these matters on society as a whole, where they know more about the pope than they do of God, and I and my fellow-citizens are concerned with the fact that the same authority that enjoins these dogmas and decrees also de- clares it has the right to force me and mine to submit to and observe them, under pain of eternal damnation, as well as re- moval from the earth by death. It is a strange fatality that a consumptive resents the sugges- tion that he is suffering with a disintegrating malady, and that he can spread it! Others recognize it by its history and its results, and know it is deadly and contagious. The confessional, convents and celibacy are amony the strong- est links forged in the chain that binds subjects to the papal propaganda for a morld-wide supremacy. Every Roman Cath- olic is committed to this papal ideal and its consummation ; therefore I unhesitatingly state that I believe the Roman church to be a menace to civil and religious freedom in America, which is the foundation of my opposition to those articles of faith and practice, for, if the pope decrees their observance, Catholics must obey; if they believe they are right, they are bound to strive for their propagation; and in this, they become and forever re- main a disturbing element in the political and civil affairs of the nation. "We are ready to stand up and be counted," said Mr. Farrell ; very well, stand up, Mr. Farrell; and, as you seem to be at the head of the class, I will ask you to turn to the "Thirty-Second Edition" of the "Manual of Christian Doctrine" "Comprising Dogma, Moral, and Worship, Authorized English Edition, 'Re- vised in Accordance with the Code of 1918,' " and read aloud so that all Americans can hear you, what your pope requires you to "stand" for, as found on page 132. Hear him,, my fellow- countrymen: ' "Question 120: Has the State the right and the duty to proscribe schism and heresy?" and the answer is: "Yes, it has the right and the duty to do so both for the good of the nation and for that of the faithful themselves; for religious unity is the principal foundation of social unity." ' Very clearly read and stated, Mr. Farrell; while you are up, turn to the word "Proscribe" in the dictionary and give its defi- nition, so that all America can hear you: "To condemn, as to death; to put out of the protection of the law; to outlaw; to denounce and condemn; to interdict; to prohibit." Who is it that is to be put out of the protection of the law — to be outlawed? Any one who refuses to believe in the confessional, convents, priestly celibacy, etc., or any other law or dogma of the church, The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 89 in the interest of all which the association declares "we are ready to stand up and be counted." So Catholics say, so the pope teaches, so I believe. These issues will receive further consideration as we progress. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 3, 1917. Dear Sir : You intimate in your letter of .transmission that Catholics are "barred by the Index from reading the history of your (our) church, its laws, theology, etc." How could you entertain such an idea? It is such an obvious, striking error that I cannot think you could pass it as even an approach to the truth. Books containing what some enemy de- clares to be Catholic theology or Canon Law or Church History, may be prohibited to Catholics; but, my dear sir, that is only barring us from reading what is NOT the history, laws and theology of the church. Or do you imagine that the authorities of the church do not know her history, laws and theology? You do not think they try to conceal them, for how, then, could her enemies secure them? And who could conceal history, or how could laws be law if not published? Not in respect to a handful of ignorant men and for a few years merely, but in regard to hundreds of millions among whom are the most brilliant in the world or in history, and for century after century now for nearly two thousand years? Why, the notion is wild. No, my friend, you haven't got the idea of the Index at all. You are not acquainted with its purpose, its content or its use. And to Catholics who are familiar with all these, the labored argument based on mere suspicion and running like a poisoned stream through your paper, sounds like a child describing a bugaboo. More on this subject to-morrow. Very truly yours, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. 0. C. COMMENT The above letter treats of the Index; I have previously given it some attention, and will do so from time to time; an under- standing of its principle in action will make answers to ques- tions in this letter clear. Here, therefore, I will offer a few sug- gestions only in passing. "Books containing what some enemy declares to be Cath- olic Theology or Canon Law or Church History," says Farrell, but that "is NOT—" then asks "Do you think they (the 'author- ities') try to conceal them, for how then, could her enemies se- cure THEM?" It is enlightening to note that he first says such "IS NOT" Catholic history, etc., and then acknowledges it is by asking "Do you think they try to conceal them, for how, then, could her enemies secure them?" 90 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged When I refer to "Catholics" any one knows I am alluding to the "Hearing Church" — lay members, not the pope and his hier- archy which constitute the "AUTHORITY" of that church; and the crux of the main contention lies right here: that what the church "authorities" know is one thing, what is made known to laymen another; laymen do not know what the church can re- quire of them, as found in her authenticated law substantiated by Catholic historians; like the system of authority that ob- tained in Europe before the Great War among various kaisers, who KNEW what they intended to do, while their SUBJECTS were kept in ignorance. Yet they had to respond to the wills of their "divine right" rulers. Had the peoples been given an op- portunity to express themselves after thoroughly investigating the issues involved, there is little doubt in my mind but that there would have been a few '"divine right" rulers hung and millions of homes made glad because of the peace that that would have assured the world. As typical of "history" writen for Roman Catholics by the church "authorities," I submit the following, from the "Short History of Religion," forming a part of Jesuit Deharbe's "Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion:" "Several heretical and schismatical doctrines had already been broached at different times and in different places; they had, however, soon disappeared. But now, BY GOD'S PERMIS- SION, some new heretics arose, and gained many followers by CUNNING AND FRAUD. They impudently left the church, and formed separate and vast communions or sects, which were mostly named after their founders; as the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, etc. These heretics often succeeded in gaining the favor of princes and emperors. ... In the same way as the Apostles assembled in order to settle . . such differences as had arisen in matters of religion . . the bishops of the church, assembled under the presidency of the pope, or of his legates, consulted about the heretical doctrines, and then condemned them. Such an assembly of bishops is called a General Council; and the decisions of such a council in matters of faith, when confirmed by the pope, are infallible, because they proceed from the Church. . . One of the most famous coun- cils is that of Nice . . . held in 325. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were assembled there. . . . They unanimously con- demned the impious doctrine of Arius. . . Although this sect, called Arians, was at that time very powerful, the Church, by her solemn decision, had set the seal of reprobation on it, and consequently it was gradually to VANISH FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. The SAME sentence of condemnation was passed on all the other heresies that sprung up in subsequent ages; and however hard the conflicts were in which the Church had to engage, she has always come off victorious." The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 91 To Catholics, THAT is Catholic "history;" the "enemies" of the "church" go into detail and explain all the crimes and butcheries of non-Catholics ordered by that church, and show how the various sects, although "powerful" and hence numerous, were caused to VANISH FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, according to the teaching of the "holy fathers"; such is NOT history to Catholics, not being censored by "authority" of the church; the average Romanist learns, from "Catholic" history that by some fortuitous concourse of atoms, heretics disappeared from the earth, and are satisfied; and with the INDEX, the Roman Catholic AUTHORITIES prevent laymen from learn- ing the CRIMINAL record of the Italian Institution covering almost two thousand years. Like subjects of the German Kaiser, it is theirs to do, not to question. I assert, and believe I can prove, that the authorities of the Italian church are guilty of concealing from laymen what they have a natural right to know. We have just read that decrees issued by a council composed of bishops, or the pope, are infalli- ble, binding a Catholic in conscience; now, everything that has ever been decreed or denned by the popes and councils is epito- mized in the BISHOP'S Oath; it contains the warrant for every- thing that the papal church has or will ever require of laymen; this OATH is found in the "Pontificate Romanum" one of the principal Liturgical books of the Italian church, which book is in the hands of EVERYONE in AUTHORITY in the Roman church throughout the world; it explains what the church re- quires of Catholics along certain lines, which "authorities" must know; but because it is kept out of the hands of laymen, being true Catholic teaching though "prohibited" to laymen they will never know what they are expected to do in the name of "relig- ion" until like the Germans the command to act is sounded by their Italian head — and those "bound in conscience" to "divine right" leaders never fail to respond: the German and Austrian subjects, for instance, as also the papal subjects, the Catholic Irish of Ireland. Of course, there have always been traitors to every cause; so, in a conflict with the papal church in America, should the time ever come for the pope to exact the requirements of the bishop's oath, there may be some members of the papal church who would be true to the country instead of the pope; that, however, is mere speculation. I present, in the Appendix, my correspondence with a Roman Catholic of Macon, Ga., relative to the bishop's oath. Not to re- peat too often, I suggest that that correspondence be referred to at this time; it proves the point at issue: that by the operation of the Index in conjunction with the exercise of "authority" by superiors, the Catholic priesthood under the pope DOES CON- 92 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged CEAL from laymen questions vitally connected with the tenets of their faith, and also the fact that if a TRUE Romanist se- cures knowledge that the pope wishes to conceal, it is almost impossible to get him to acknowledge it. I refer to the corres- pondence with Mr. John J. McCreary; in attempting to extricate himself from an "unlawful" situation, his antics were pitiful, indeed. That incident, wherein he was "called" in to render "ex- pert" testimony as a witness, illustrates how faithful a Catholic is to his pope, and if Catholics attempt to conceal facts, as Mr. McCreary evidently did, the presumption is logical that they approve of what the church requires, which presumption remains with them as long as they are subject to the bishop's oath, and they are subject to it as long as they are members of the Pope's church. This "particular case" is sufficient to establish a "gen- eral rule;" but it is not standing alone: the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia furnished another example showing what is meant by being "bound in conscience" to obey the decrees, mandates, etc., of the pope; he decreed excommunication against those taking part in debates, and that Association would not debate, yet never revealed the fact that it COULD NOT, which fact I established from information secured elsewhere, without its assistance. I believe I have made it clear that the pope prevents Catholics from reading on any subject mentioned in Farrell's letter unless such book or treatise has first been censored by the church supe- riors; and who is it that presumes to pass "supreme judgment upon all our concerns? An Italian! Who revises every impor- tant detail of ecclesiastical policy? An Italian! Who is to legis- late for all our social needs? An Italian! Who is to define what we must believe to be saved? An Italian!" Has the effect of Italian popery on the world been such success as warrants all nations to yield pre-eminence to him? How does his supression of free inquiry affect the world? "Listen! Pope Pius granted, on petition of the General of the Dominican order, an indulgence of forty thousand five hundred years, ONCE A YEAR, to such as merely carry the rosary beads in their pockets!" High honors are paid to "twenty different bodies of John the Baptist, eight- een of St. Paul, six heads of Ignatius Martyr, sixty fingers of St. Jerome, forty holy shrouds, and seven hundred thorns from the sacred crown." This catalogue of facts and "sacred relics" could be greatly lengthened, but what's the use? All those things are true to Catholics: they have "true" histories teaching that they are true, because they were written according to the RULES of the Index, and no member of the church will read what an "enemy" writes refuting those truths, because to Catholics it "is NOT" history, having been written contrary to said "rules"! That there have been, and are, many brilliant minds in the The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 93 Catholic church, I admit; but am rather inclined to the opinion that they were so despite the church instead of because of it. Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, legislated as follows: "Let Secular rulers be warned, and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, to take public oath to do all in their power to exterminate from their territory all manner of heretics — (universos haereticos exterminare) — who shall have been so des- ignated by the church. This oath every man shall be obliged to take who enters upon any office of civil power. . . And if a secular ruler, after due warning by the church, neglects to purge his territory from the filth of heresy (ab haeretica foeditate), let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan archbishop of the province. If thereafter he fails to come to a better mind, let this within the space of one year be told to the pope, to the end that the Supreme Pontiff may declare that ruler's subjects absolved from their allegiance, and his territory open to seizure by Catholics, who shall possess it absolutely once they have de- stroyed the heresy there existing. . . Catholics who engage in a crusade for the extermination of heretics shall be granted that indulgence and that holy privilege which are bestowed upon Crusaders to the Holy Land." That decree throws some light on Deharbe's "Short History of Religion," solves the mystery surrounding the admonition of Leo XIII to Cardinal Gibbons, not to adopt any method of reclaiming heretics save that which ANTIQUITY had STAMPED WITH ITS APPROVAL, and endorsed BY THE CHURCH, and makes his meaning clear where he alludes to those who destroy "Papal" truth: that it would be INHUMAN to let them go UNHARMED — -all of which is provided for in the bishop's oath, that I tried to get McCreary to verify. If "suspicion," like a "poisoned stream," is "running through my paper," as Mr. Farrell says, is not that "poisoned stream" flowing from a real source? And can it be termed "suspicion?" A heretic is one who does not believe the pope has a special commission from God to rule and direct the world; a heretic is one who would, in a word, rather look into the matter of so many "true" heads, etc., before venerating one; a heretic is one who does not believe carrying the scapular tied around the neck, or the rosary beads in the pocket, will keep off evil spirits in this life and release a soul from thousands of years of purgatorial fires after death. Is my "notion" so very "wild" in view of the above few facts, which are predicates of the papal Index and its "rules"? Do Catholic laymen know that, as members of the Italian church, they are committed to the oath of the bishop which reads, in part: "Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our Lord the Pope, 94 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged or his aforesaid successors, I will, to the utmost of my power, persecute and make war on?" If they know, they are taught by the church to believe that it is God's will, and that where the church has carried out this oath in the past, it has been in re- talliation for attacks and persecutions of Catholics by non- Catholics or Protestants. That this teaching of the church is false to the core, is proved by the fact that there is not a Christian sect in the world that has ever legislated as has the papal church, neither can any document be produced wherein the inhuman line of action is required as found in the "Pontificate Romanum" containing the bishop's oath. Some who are ignorant of natural forces and laws say that if Protestants were in absolute control, they would also persecute; if the did, they would cease to be Christian; on the other hand, the premise is wrong: a field com- pletely covered with fig trees would never produce thorns — that would be contrary to NATURE and her fixed law; a field lit- erally covered with briars will be filled with thorns; you may devote unlimited time and effort trimming the thorns off — with enough help you could make that a field of thornless briars — but you CAN NOT change the NATURAL law: if you let it alone, the thorns will come back. The powerful influence of Protestantism has "trimmed" the papal institution of some of her NATURAL THORNS, but Protestantism can not change the NATURE of that institution as revealed by its laws, history, dogmas, theology and the bishop's oath. Where plants of different natures are placed in a field, one will have to be removed before the other will fulfill its purpose; the contest between the papal intsitution and Protestanism is just now claiming the attention of an enlightened age — and one must be destroyed, so far as America is concerned. It would be interesting to know how many Roman Catholic fathers, mothers, husbands, wives and sweethearts have a pop- ular edition of the Roman Catholic theology by Ligouri, wherein he admits that his obscene doctrine for the confessional has caused many priests to lose both God and their souls ! How many know that popes Gregory XV and Benedict XIV endeavored to correct the horrible conditions brought about by the confessional? How many Catholic families have histories telling how Bishops Keating, Doyle and others concurred with St. Thomas of Villa- nona, who said the effect of the confessional on many priests was to "send thmselves and sinners down careless into hell?" As to sacred theology, how many Catholics have carefully studied the effect of Liguori's "Glories of Mary" on human conduct? How many laymen have a copy of the "Pontificale Romanum?" If any reader thinks, with the association, that my "notion" The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 95 of the Index is "wild," go to a Catholic laymen and ask to see a copy of the Pontificate. Ask any Roman priest, or superior of a convent, or dean of a Catholic college; try to borrow a copy! In writing off-hand, to Catholic book-dealers for a copy, one in- formed me he was out of them, while another stated he did not have any on hand and, as they were printed in Germany, he would not be able to get a supply until after the war! I can not do more than offer suggestions, that, like straws, point which way the wind blows; to attempt to treat at length every question concerning Catholicism would require many vol- umes, but I think the general "intention" of the papal church will be sufficiently discussed as to warrant the opinion that no American citizen can become allied with such an institution that pledges its votaries to persecute those who will not see things through the pope's eyes. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 4, 1917. Dear Sir: You imagine, for instance, that Catholics do not know that certain popes were immoral men, "very immoral" if you like ; that the confessional and convent life have been abused by wicked men and women; and such things. But we do ; only there is not near so much of that as the pro- fessional bigot claims, if that is is material here. You will find in the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, which is in probably a hundred thousand Catholic homes in this country, and in numerous public libraries, and which is available and free to all, that Alexander VI was a wicked man, and John XIII "a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium." (See Vol. VIII, p! 426, Cath. Ency.) We do not make a specialty of bad popes, however, nor of all the purient details of their lives; but prefer wholesome things, for who handles pitch will become defiled. It is enough for us to know that any pope can sin, any priest can, any nun can, and some have. If we knew of any place in this world where men and women cannot sin, or do not, we would shut up shop and flock there. In the light of human nature and considering human history through the long sweep of time, have you any suggestions on this score? Very truly, JJF/MC. J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. 0. C. COMMENT Perhaps it may be well for me to say right here that I have had no special desire to discuss Roman Catholicism from a theologi- cal standpoint; but, since it is practically impossible to separate the political nature of the papal church from its spiritual claims — its determination to dominate in temporal and civil affairs as well as in spiritual — it behooves one to consider what has been 96 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged the effect of Romanism on those who are committed to it; be- cause, to understand its religious effect should be the determin- ing factor of one's attitude to the system. It is immaterial to me and to the issue, regarding what Cath- olics may know concerning their popes ; but one fact is material : if a priest concludes he can not serve God and his country in that capacity, leaves the church, and attempts to explain why to the people; or, if any other person takes the evidence of such witnesses before the public, Roman Catholics actively oppose it, classing them "bigots" and bad men, scatter falsehoods against them, as was done in Macon when Rev. E. A. Jordan delivered his series of lectures on Catholicism; a defamatory pamphlet was circulated against him — but no layman nor priest was man enough to defy the pope's decree, and meet him in debate, to substantiate the charges against him, and discuss the questions he presented. This is not an isolated case ; the Knights of Colum- bus would not meet Wm. Black on the platform before the people of Marshall, Texas; but they could go to his hotel room and do him to death. Not making a "specialty of purient facts," the Roman church had Black killed so he could not disseminate them. That case illustrates also how the priesthood writes "history" for the "faithful." They kill everything of a damaging nature, and then place the Index between Romanists and the facts. A tree is known by its fruit ; if its source be muddy, the stream will be muddy; if it can be proved that a large percentage of the popes were considered bad men by Catholic historians; if the religion of the Roman Catholic church did not have the desired moral effect upon its head, the pope, so that, like Paul, he could say, "Follow me even as I follow Christ," then the world should not want to be DIRECTED by him — Americans, at least, will object. There were many Catholic historians and priests who loved their church, but were not blind to the defects of those who de- creed its religion or abused it; some of those men tried to reform it from within, and died in the church and were not condemned by it, while others realized that there was no hope to redeem it, and quit; they are now called "enemies" of the church. For my own satisfaction, I have given attention to the lives of the popes ; I find they do not accord with my idea of what one should be who claims to hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty; and I did not get my information from the "enemies" of the church, but from such historians as Cardinal Baronius, de Cormenin, Platina, Belarmine, and others. From these histo- rians was prepared the following condensed summary of the lives of the popes. In this abbreviated history no mention is made of the popes who made no special "record." Beginning after St. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 97 Peter, whom the papal church can not prove was ever in Rome or acted as pope, this is the record: ABRIDGED HISTORY OF THE POPES Pontian, A. D. 233 : Banished, brought back and put to death. Anterus, 238: Put to death under Emperor Maximine. Fabian, 240 : Put to death by Emperor Decius. Cornelius, 254: Put to death by Emperor Decius. Lucius I, 255: Put to death by Emperor Valerinus. Sixtus II, 260: Put to death by Emperor Valerian. Marcellinus, 296 : Abjured the Christian religion. Marcellus I, 304:^ Made to groom horses; died at this work. Eusebius, 309: 'Banished by Maxentius. (Period of the Constantine Forgeries.) Liberius, 352: Exiled by Constans. Liberius and Felix II denied Deity of Christ; are now "saints." In 360 the partisans of Damascus and Ursin each elected a pope; a bloody fight ensued resulting in the death of 137 people; Damascus triumphed, being elevated to the chair of Peter by violence. Innocent I, 402: Granted permission to offer sacrifice to an- cient idols; fled in terror from Rome. Sixtus III, 432: Hypocrite; morally unclean. Leo I (The Great), 440: Persecuted the Manicheans, who originated the "heresy" of "half communion," now practiced as "true" religion by the papal church. Anastasius II, 496: Died suddenly; said to have been poisoned by priests. Symmachus, 498: Lawrence, 498: Two men consecrated pope the same day; King Theodoric decided in favor of Symmachus. John I, 523: Charged with treason; died in prison. Silverius, 536: Banished; starved; strangled to death. Vigilius, 538: Charged with killing a child with a club for resisting his "caresses"; Empress Theodora had him flogged; died from poison; is now a saint. Pelagius I, 555: Accused of poisoning Vigilius to secure for himself the "Chair" of Peter. Gregory I (The Great), 590: He wrote: "I am bold to say that, whoever accepts, or affects the title of universal bishop has the pride and character of anti-Christ . . arrogates to him- self a distinguished superiority, and arises, as it were, upon the ruins of the rest." Sabinianus, 604: Avaricious; cruel to poor; assassinated by band of priests. BONIFACE III, 606: This is the FIRST POPE, or Universal Bishop, as the term is now understood; this title was conferred by the bloody-handed monster and murderer, Emperor Phocas. Adeodatus, 615: Under this pope it is claimed the documents 98 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged known as the "Isidorean Decretals" first appeared; these were spurious decrees said to have originated with Bishop Isidore of Seville, Spain; they were increased from time to time, forging a powerful chain over the priesthood and laity which culminated in establishing the supremacy of the pope in the church. So it appears that the title of pope was conferred by a murderer and retained by forgeries! Honorius I, 625: Decreed adoption of Monotheletic heresy, which was condemned by the Sixth General Council in 680. In this, we see an "infallible" pope being reversed by and "infalli- ble" council. Martin I, 649: Banished; died in exile. Sergius, 687: A very bad man. Zacharias I, 741 : Up to this time a pope's election had to be confirmed by the emperor; now, however, the church began to assert and exert "authority" over kings. Paul I, 757 : Noted as a great hunter of dead bones for "relics." Constantine II: Was driven into monastery; Philip, a monk, chosen pope, but was, on the next day, driven into a convent. Stephen IV, 768: A "holy terror;" assisted in the torture of his enemies and pointed out new victims. Leo III, 795: Priests attempted to kill him; cut out part of his tongue and greatly damaged his eyes. Paschal I, 817 : Instigated murder. Gregory IV, 827: Caused a rebellion against a king; a very bad man. Sergius II, 844: It is said that his name was "Os Porco," meaning "Hog Snout," which he changed after being made God's substitute on earth; some say this gave rise to the custom of changing the name when elected pope. Joan, Popess, 855: The Roman church now denies that a woman served as pope one year in disguise; however, Platina, a Catholic historian of the fifteenth century, being Librarian of the Vatican, had access to all its records; he wrote the history of the popess, calling her John VIII. Benedict III, 855: Was ousted by Priest Anastasius with troops; being successful, he declared himself pope. He was in turn dethroned by Benedict. It may be of incidental interest to state that this was about the second century of the Dark Ages. Nicholas I (The Great), 858: The Bishop of Cologne wrote him: "Rome is the residence of demons, and thou, pope, art its satan." Adrian II, 867: Married; had a beautiful daughter; the son of Bishop Arsenes ran away with her. Being persecuted, he killed the pope's wife and the girl. John VIII, 872: Political intriguer; seated and unseated tem- poral rulers; a Roman lady had him killed. Marinus I, 882 : Died from effects of nameless disease. Adrian III, 884: At this period, any crime would be com- mitted to serve, or secure, the "chair ' of Peter, or to control temporal affairs. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 99 Formosus I, 891: During his five-year reign as pope, used his guards to kill out half of the people of Rome. Stephen VII, 897: Abrogated the decrees of Formosus I; had his body exhumed and ordered two fingers cut from his right hand; buried him as a layman. Stephen is said to have been strangled to death. Romanus, 898: Disavowed and abrogated all acts and decrees of Stephen. Theodorus II, 898: Rescinded and abrogated acts and decrees of his predecessors. John IX, 898: He "damns all Stephen did, and restored de- crees of Formosus," causing riots; had to flee the city. Between 896 and 898 there were no less than five different popes — Peter's chair was not very healthy! Leo V, 903: Was cast in prison by Christophorus, his rival, where he died. At this period, history says: "We see in Rome nothing but debauchery, dissolution, drunkenness, and impurity; the houses of the priests have become the shameful retreats of prostitutes, jugglers and sodomites; they gamble by night and day in the residence of the pope." Christophorus, 903: Was himself deposed and shut up in a monastery. Sergius III, 904: Had Christophorus removed from monastery and put in prison; rescinded all the decrees of Formosus; died from excessive licentiousness. All historians say that this pope had children by his con- cubine, Marozia, who became popes; that they continued incest with her for three generations. John X, 914: The son of a nun and priest; Theodora, the mother of Marozia, one of the mistresses of Pope Sergius, became the mistress of Pope John X, who secured his "elevation" to Peter's "chair" through her influence; Marozia left her husband in favor of this pope; she became jealous of his intercourse with her mother and sister; had her husband force entrance into the Lateran palace, murder the pope's brother, put the pope in prison and strangled him to death between mattresses. (This pope "held the place of God (?) Almighty on earth" sixteen years.) John XI, 936: The infamous Marozia now ruled things, civil and ecclesiastical, in Rome; she caused her son, begotten by Pope Sergius, to be made Pope John XI; she poisoned her husband, Guy, ruler of Rome, and became the mistress of her own son, Pope John XI! She married Hugh, half brother of Guy, and made him governor of Rome; her illegitimate son, Alberec, wrested the city from his stepfather Hugh, became his own mother's paramour, imprisoned his pope brother, John XI, where he died. Forget not, dear reader, that all and singular decrees issued by these fellows are, and must ever be, obeyed by the "faithful," which bind them in conscience to the end of time; that he who exposes these things is a bigot, while those who refuse to submit 100 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged to their teaching are heretics — and the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth by death ! Stephen IX, 939 : In a riot taking place shortly after his elec- tion, Stephen's face was so badly disfigured that he remained in seclusion. John XII, 956: This Vice-Gerent of Christ (?) was a son of Marozia, AND HIS OWN BROTHER, ALBEREC, WAS HIS FATHER! Marozia had him made pope while he was between 12 and 18 years old. Under his reign, the Lateran palace became a brothel; he caused wives, widows and virgins to be carried off from the steps of the altar. (A Roman priest in Massachusetts, along in 1912, did this also, which case is on records of the court.) This pope reigned eight years as the supreme legislator, judge and executive for all the "faithful," and deposed. Leo VIII, 964: Because of the wrangle between Benedict V and Leo VIII, King Otho decided he would thereafter appoint the popes, deciding here in favor of Leo; this pope was im- prisoned, but released. Benedict VI, 972: Bad man; strangled by citizens. Boniface VII: A notorious character; seized the papal chair; was driven from Rome; stole the consecrated vessels. Benedict VII, 975: Gave an entertainment at the Vatican palace; had sixty of the invited guests lead out and pitilessly massacred by soldiers; said to have been assassinated. John XIV, 984: Was seized and put in prison by ex-Pope Boniface and starved to death. Boniface VII was the murderer of John; was driven from Rome; died in a debauch. John XV. 985: Son of a priest, Leo; hated by the people; driven from Rome; appealed to the king, people withdrew oppo- sition. Gregory V, 996 : Deposed by the civil power. John XVI, 996: The deposed pope, Gregory V, came into power, had John's eyes put out, his nose and ears cut off, from the effects of which he died. Sylvester II, 999 : Platina, a Catholic historian, says that this pope made a deliberate sale of himself to the devil, and had fre- quent conversations with him. Sergius IV, 1009: The son of a priest. Benedict VIII, 1012: Was unseated by one faction; rallied his forces and regained the chair ; accused Jews of being responsible for earthquake and had many of them put to death. John XIX, 1024 : Was hated by the people, who tried to assas- sinate him; was driven from Rome, taking refuge in Germany; reinstated by Emperor of Germany. Benedict IX, 1033: Made pope at age of 12 years; bad in every respect; deposed at age of 18; reinstated by Emperor Conrad; again deposed by the people at age of 23, because of gross immorality and cruelty. Sylvester III, 1044: Served forty-nine days and driven from city; Benedict returned, occupied the chair a short time, sold it The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 101 to John for 15,000 pounds, duly "consecrating" him Christ's Vice-Gerent ! John XX, 1044: After spending the money received from the sale of the office to John, Benedict returned and took Peter's chair away from him. At this time there were three popes, each one claiming to be the "Infallible" head of the "only" true church established by Christ — one at St. Peter's, one at Lateran, and one at St. Major a, and — Rome was filled with adultery and murder ! Gregory VI, 1044: He purchased the throne from the three anti-popes, which gave this true church FOUR living heads; he had many wealthy citizens put to death and confiscated their property; was deposed by an army under Emperor Henry. Clement II, 1046: The Emperor called a church council to select a pope ; not a priest could be found fit to hold the chair, so he appointed Sudiger. Platina says he was subsequently poisoned by Benedict, who had been deposed three times. Damascus II, 1048: Following Clement, for the fourth time Benedict reseated himself in the papal chair, to be again driven out by the people, after which Damascus was made pope; Bene- dict poisoned Damascus and for the fifth time reigned as pope, to be again driven out by the people. Benedict X was declared illegally elected by Archdeacon Hilde- brand (later known as Gregory VII), and deposed. Alexander II, 1061: Made pope by Hildebrand; King Henry of Germany called a church council and made the Bishop of Parma pope; becoming frightened, Alexander fled from Rome. Gregory VII, 1073 : We are now to consider a man who is said by many to have been the greatest, and perhaps the most infa- mous, of all the popes — Hildebrand, as Gregory VII ; he declared that "marriage attaches the clergy to the State, and estranges them from the church" (i. e., from the pope) ; excommunicated King Henry of Germany; was charged with having poisoned seven popes, and attempted the lives of several temporal rulers ; in the Council of Worms he was declared to be "an apostate monk, who adulterates the Bible, suits the books of the fathers to the wants of his execrable ambition, pollutes justice by becoming at once accuser, witness and judge. . . . Endeavors to oblige kings and bishops to pay the papal court for their diadems and mitres." He was deposed by this council. (An infallible pope being deposed by an infallible council; the church of Rome teaches that the doctrine of infallibility applies to every pope and to every council ! ) Hildebrand cursed and excommunicated King Henry and ab- solved all his subjects from their allegiance to him; the bishops and intelligent element supported the king for a while, but even- tually went over to the pope. Henry's mother, Empress Agnes, his aunt, the Duchess Be- atrice, and counsin, Matilda, daughter of Beatrice, were at that time living at the palace with the pope. Beatrice owned large estates in Italy, while Matilda, as the wife of Godfrey the 102 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Hunchback, was more powerful. These two women renounced Henry in favor of Hildebrand, Matilda being publicly recognized as the pope's mistress at this time; being a friend of the king, her husband was feared, and Matilda was instrumental in having him killed on the night of February 20, 1076. As a mark of gratitude rendered by Matilda, and not to be bothered by this woman's mother, he enticed Beatrice to spend the night with him, having her murdered in the morning. Matilda now established herself in the Lateran palace as the inseparable companion of Gregory, meeting in consultations with cardinals, and sharing the rooms of the pope. Being as cunning as satan, by threats and otherwise, Hilde- brand caused King Henry to be deserted by the nobility, ecclesias- tics and common people, which forced the king to yield to every demand of the pope, and go to Rome to see him. Taking alarm at the demeanor of Henry's friends, however, Hildebrand, accom- panied by Matilda, fled to Augsburg, and shut himself up in the Castle Canossa, which belonged to Matilda. When King Henry arrived at the pope's retreat, he had to divest himself of all ensigns of royalty and clothe himself in sackcloth as an acknowl- edgement of his unworthiness to reign, in order to gain an audi- ence ; in this predicament, scantily clad, he was exposed for three days and nights to the severe cold of a European winter. Having compassion on him, his cousin, Matilda, arranged an audience for him with "his holiness." At the Provincial Synod held in Lombardy, the bishops again excommunicated Hildebrand and, because of the debasing cow- ardice of Henry, selected Rudolph for king; Henry raised an army to fight Gregory, and was excommunicated; the pope also declared Rudolph king, the decree ending with these words: "We declare Rudolph lawful king of the Teutonic States, and We grant to all who shall betray Henry absolution from all their sins and the blessings of Christ in this world and the next." Defeating Rudolph, Henry was again proclaimed Emperor of Germany; he called a council at Brixen, had Hildebrand de- posed, and the Bishop of Ravenna made pope, known as Clement III. After three years' siege of Rome, Henry entered the city and seated Clement in Peter's "chair," who, in turn, crowned Henry "Emperor of the West." Learning that Henry performed his devotions at a certain church, Hildebrand won over the cardinal-priest in charge, who attempted to kill the king at the altar; the plans miscarried, however, and the priest was cut into pieces by Henry's guards, dragged through the streets and thrown into sewers. Henry had to return to Germany to defend his interests against Matilda; in the meantime, Guiscard captured Rome, restored Hildebrand, who again excommunicated Henry as well as Clem- ent III, after which he retired to a distant retreat and died from fever brought on by the victorious return of Henry— died curs- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 103 ing his brother "divine right" ruler the king, and his brother- god, Clement III ! This so-called "Christ- veiled-in-the-flesh;" this "Vice-Gerent of Christ;" this holder of "the place of God Almighty" on earth, whose decree so binds priests in conscience that they believe it is better for them to go wrong with a hundred different women than to marry one, is now on the Roman Calendar as a "Saint" to be invoked by all the "faithful" for all time ! Victor III, 1086: Was chosen pope by the dying Hildebrand; he reigned a few months and — died ! Urban II, 1088: He succeeded Victor III, and pronounced anew Hildebrand's excommunication against King Henry. Matilda married Duke Guelph of Bavaria; with connivance of the pope, she was intriguing against Henry, who invaded her territory, enforced peace, went to Rome and unseated Urban and put Clement in as pope. Urban induced Henry's son, Conrad, to instigate a rebellion against his father, which was successful, and Urban was again placed in the papal chair. Paschal II, 1099: Successor to Urban; made war on King Henry; the anti-pope Clement was poisoned, while the others — Albert, Theodoric and Maguinuiph — were imprisoned or exiled. Paschal also excommunicated Henry. In memory of her paramour, Hildebrand, Matilda cut off all her natural relatives, and bequeathed her vast wealth to the papacy. Paschal and Matilda continued plotting against Henry, and caused his son Henry to take up arms against him ; the king was captured, imprisoned and cruelly treated; he escaped and fled to Belgium. Enraged at his escape, Paschal ordered the lords, princes and bishops of France, Germany, Bavaria, Suabia and Saxony and the clergy at Liege to "Pursue everywhere .... Henry . . . exterminate that infamous king! . . . We order you and your vassals to put him to death in the most cruel tortures, and if you faithfully execute Our will, We grant to you remis- sion of your sins, and an arrival after death at the heavenly Jerusalem." Some of the ecclesiastics were disgusted with this order to commit murder, even if it did come from the one who held "the place of God Almighty" on the earth. (They were safe, though, because they remained in the "true" fold!) King Henry was poisoned, dying in exile; his son carried out, as far as he could, the pope's infamous decree : cut the body into pieces and over his tomb inscribed: "Here Lies the Enemy of Rome," which remained five centuries a monument to the pope's honor ! Gelasius II, 1118: This pope was not without troubles; he was knocked down and trampled upon in the church where "con- secrated," dragged out by his hair; although rescued from his "children," he learned that Henry V of Germany was coming to dethrone him — he fled and refused to return. Honorius II, 1124: He was one of two contemporaneous 104 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged popes; one faction elected Thebald, another Lambert; the first yielded in favor of the latter. Honorius kept up continual war- fare with Roger of Sicily. Innocent II, 1130: One faction selected Innocent, another an anti-pope, Anaclet, grandson of a converted Jew. Innocent went to war against Roger of Sicily, was defeated and imprisoned with three cardinals; after his release, returned to Rome, and was driven out of the country by the anti-pope. Thousands were killed in the two years' war between the two popes. Anaclet was poisoned in 1138. Lucius II, 1144: This pope is said to have personally partici- pated in war, was hit on the head with a rock and died instantly. Eugenius III, 1145: The first pope to experience real trouble arising from a Protestant Reformer: Arnold of Brescia attacked the terrible, gross immorality of the clergy; the people arose against their despoilers, which caused the pope to take refuge in France, where he remained four years. Adrian IV, 1154: This Vice-Gerent of Christ ordered Fred- erick I of Germany to surrender Arnold of Brescia; commanded him to be burnt, and his ashes thrown into the Tiber. The Emperor of Germany severed connection with the papacy. Adrian was the pope who sold Ireland to England, King Henry agreeing to pay the pope one penny a year for each household in Ireland. Henry was himself a rank Romanist. The so-called "Irish question" always has been, and will con- tinue to be, a papal question; all the suffering endured by those of the Emerald Isle was and is due to the papacy, yet Irish Catholics the world over will lick the hand that sold and betrayed them in the first place — they never resent that power which sold them, but never cease to berate the other, which bought them. Mark this: the pope will never permit the Irish question to be settled on any other basis than the one which will accord the Roman church all the rights that it enjoys in Austria and Spain; and that means literal extermination of the large number of Protestant Irish of Ulster. The first Protestant to die for heresy was under the reign of King Henry, directed by papal ecclesi- astics. If the pope of Rome cannot find better means, he will, through his priests, use the Irish question to bring on war between Eng- land and America; nothing since the Massacre of St. Bartholo- mew's Day would cause more rejoicing in the Vatican and papal circles than for the two great Protestant nations — England and America — to become involved in war. According to the prediction of Cardinal Newman, the pope ex- pected the Great War to restore the papacy's ancient power. The failure of the Central Powers did not stop the intrigue of the Roman church, and it will bring on wars between the great powers of the world until the pope again becomes supreme or his power in the earth completely destroyed. The "courtly intrigue" of Jesuitism can be relied upon to de- vise a plausible cause; and at present, the Irish question gives The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 105 promise. While it should be a penitentiary offense for a so-called citizen of this country to do anything that would tend to disrupt the friendly relations of this government with another, the papal Irish are given the right, it seems, to perfect organizations throughout the land, ostensibly in the interest of Ireland; but as all such societies are directly under the auspices of ROMAN CATHOLICS, that would indicate it as being a CHURCH move- ment to try and create sentiment in favor of having our Govern- ment aid in securing "Irish Freedom," even to the extent of war. Much is said about "Irish Freedom" by loud-mouthed hyphenates, but not a word is uttered in behalf of the one-third Irish who prefer to remain under the laws of England; they fought for England and democracy in the Great War, while the Catholic Irsh were sworn to resist, the oath being administered by the bishops, therefore, it would appear from these circumstances that the minority of Protestant Irish should have the protection they demand, and not be forced to submit to papal rule under "Home Rule" or "Irish Freedom." Suppose the United States and other nations should persuade England to declare Ireland a free republic? It would be an insult for any nation to assume this attitude, while on the other hand, "Irish Freedom" would mean civil war between the Catholic and Protestant Irish — a religious war that could easily involve the whole world in a war that would far surpass that which has just devastated the nations, for it would array Catholic and Protest- ant against each other within their own borders, and the world would be wrecked indeed. This is a suggestion only; that it can materialize, the existence of Jesuitism and the World War prove. Americans must frown down any effort seeking to interfere with the internal affairs of another nation; those who cannot abide by this principle should be deported; they are unworthy citizens of a free nation. All officers of the local Sinn Fein association are Roman Catholics. Alexander III, 1159: Victor IV, 1159: Two factions in the church chose each a pope — Octavian and Roland ; in a fight, Octavian drew blood from Roland by striking him on the nose; the dispute was settled by referring the matter to Frederick I; he selected Octavian, who was subjected to the "pierced chair" test, to safeguard against another popess. A war ensued between the pope and Barbarossa, Emperor of Germany; the Kings of England and France recognized Alexan- der ; Germany, Victor. Upon the death of Victor, Alexander be- came pope; under him began the bloody persecutions of the non- Catholics known as Waldenses. A cardinal lead the troops against these Protestants; thousands of old men, women and children were hung, drawn and quartered, broken on the wheel, or burnt alive, their property being confiscated for the benefit of the pope. Lucius III, 1181: This pope was driven from Rome by the 106 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged people because of his avarice; he issued a bull against heretics, declaring: "Any cleric favoring heretics, to be deprived of his office and pay, and be turned over to secular justice. If laymen, We order that they suffer the most horrid tortures, be proved by fire and sword, torn by stripes and burnt alive." Those who hesitate to inform on another "shall be immediately put to tor- ture." Under the direction of bishops all "counts, barons, rectors and consuls of cities and other places" were to "engage by oath to persecute heretics ... to excite with all their power" all that the pope commands "in regard to the crimes of heresy" under pain of being deprived of all rights as citizens, and excommuni- cated. "The cities which shall neglect to pursue heretics shall be excluded from commerce — (the boycott is of papal origin) — with other cities . . . and citizens shall be excommunicated, and . . . declared unfit to fill any public or ecclesiastical function. All the faithful shall have the right to kill them, seize their goods and reduce them to slavery." Note the perfect accord of the bishop's oath to-day with that decree! Italian popery boasts that it never changes; its spirit is always the same, biding its time, and no one but fool non-Catholics say otherwise. Urban III, 1185: Quarreled with Barbarossa; fearing the em- peror, fled to Venice. Clement III, 1187: He was consecrated pope at Pisa; the peo- ple of Rome did not want the seat of the papal government there again, but a subsequent treaty finally admitted its return. Celestine III, 1190: Henry of Germany was crowned by this pope; while in a kneeling posture, the crown was placed on his head and kicked off by the pope, signifying that he had the right to make and unmake rulers. Innocent III, 1198: Matthews Paris, a monk, has the follow- ing to say relative to conditions at this time under popery : "The little faith . . . under the last popes . . . was extinguished; . . religion is dead . . . the holy city has become an infamous pros- titute" while the people were despoiled by the monks brandishing papal bulls. Under the reign of Innocent III popery produced one of the most blood-thirsty "saints" to be found on the Roman Calendar, St. Dominic ; he, with Count de Montf ort, lead an army against the City of Beziers (France) where thousands of non- Catholics (the Albigenses) were assembled; the city was be- seiged; Count de Beziers pleaded with Dominic to spare, at least, the Romanists who were in the majority in the city; Dominic replied that he had orders from the pope to destroy the city and put all the people to the sword — that after the butchery God would know His friends, and sixty thousand men, women and children perished by will of the pope of Rome. Honorius III, 1216: The persecution of "heretics" was con- tinued under this "Vice-Gerent" (?) of Christ. King Louis VIII, under orders from the pope, took up where "Saint" Dominic left off; the Albigenses left France, going to Lombardy — that is, those who could escape the death-embrace of the minions of the only "true" religion ! The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 107 Gregory IX, 1227: The quarrel between the papacy and Em- peror Frederick of Germany continued; upon being excommuni- cated by the pope, Frederick wrote him : ". . . the Roman church not only swallows up, in its orgies, the wealth which it snatches from the . . . faithful, but even despoils sovereigns . . . every one knows the popes are insatiate blood-suckers. . . . The priests affirm that the church is our mother, our nurse; it is ... an infamous step-mother, which devours those whom its hypocritical voice calls children. ... In its hands the morality of Christ has become a terrible arm, which permits it to murder men in order to ravish them of their treasures." Celestine IV, 1241 : Reigned eighteen days — died from poison. Innocent IV, 1243: Learning that Emperor Frederick was marching toward Rome, fled to Genoa ; from there he sent letters to France, England and Spain, asking permission to set up papal thrones; each country absolutely refused permission; he then took up his residence in Lyons. Innocent attempted to poison Frederick, employing the king's physician, counselor and confi- dant. Alexander IV, 1254: Succeeded Innocent IV; lived in Rome a short while — the people ran him out. At this time appeared the fanatical Romanists known as "Flagellantes" — men, women and children who marched through the streets entirely naked, beating themselves as they marched. Urban IV, 1261: Spent three years quarreling with secular rulers. Gregory X, 1271: Compelled to live away from Rome, resid- ing at Orvietto, Florence and Piacenza, respectively; was driven out of Florence — in leaving he pronounced a curse against the people: "I devote thee to eternal damnation." Innocent V, 1276 : He served six months only. It would seem that the saying, "The good die young," must have originated with the way the popes held Peter's chair; those who appear to have been good men did not live long after "consecration." Innocent was poisoned. Adrian V, 1276 : Said to have been poisoned. John XXI, 1276: At the council called to convene at Viterba to elect a pope, the College of Cardinals could not come to an agreement as to who should hold the place of God on earth; the citizenry captured the "sacred college" and put the cardinals in prison; after the threat to murder the whole lot unless they selected a pope, they elected John XXI. Nicholas III, 1277: He originated the fiendish massacre known as "The Sicilian Vespers;" the scheme was to put the whole of Italy under papal domination by murdering the French in Sicily; this pope died, but his plot survived. Martin IV, 1281 : Carried out the plot of Nicholas III : "On Easter Day, March 20, 1282, at the hour of Vespers, the Sicilians fell upon the French, killing them on the streets, in their homes, and even at the foot of the altars." Eight thousand were mur- dered by DIRECTION of this "Christ-veiled-in-the-flesh" in less than two hours ! 108 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Honorius IV, 1285: Pope Martin had excommunicated the Spanish King, Peter of Aragon; Honorius induced France to invade Spain and punish Peter; in this crusade, the soldiers com- mitted every crime known to depraved soldiery against unpre- pared, helpless victims — the pope sending one family of the "faithful" to destroy his "children" elsewhere! Nicholas IV, 1288: Instituted the first Tribunals of the "Holy" Inquisition in Venice and Avignon — that terrible machinery for the extermination of heretics, which was placed in charge of his Dominican priests; he authorized them to pursue heretics with fire and sword, confiscate their roperty and destroy all the houses used by them. By a bull, Nicholas ordered the civil rulers and authorities to aid his murderous crew with force. Celestine V, 1294 : Seems to have been an honest-minded man ; he said: "I believe it impossible to shun eternal damnation if I remain pope, so I resign." Boniface VIII, 1294: Threatened all the kings of Europe — caused ruptures among them, inciting to wars; to replenish his coffers, instituted "Jubilees," now called "Pilgrimages to Rome" — where the simple-minded went for the purpose of buying indi- gencies and — empty their purses. This pope issued a bull, de- claring himself absolute sovereign of France, whereupon King Philip called a Council to depose him; among other things charged against him at this Council was that he preached being infallible, he could commit incest, robbery and murder without being criminal — that it would be heresy to say the pope sinned; that the sums of money which the fables of Christ produced to the priests was incalculable; that it was no greater sin to aban- don one's self to pleasure with a young girl than to rub one's hands together. Benedict II, 1303 : Poisoned by a priest. Clement V, 1305: In a fight with his cardinals at a banquet given by him, his brother was killed; he and King Philip of France began a war of extermination against heretics and Knights Templars; by trickery he induced DeMolay, Grand Mas- ter of the Knights Templars, to leave Palestine and bring all the treasures of the order with him; unsuspectingly, DeMolay and many other members of the order obeyed the request — they were murdered and the loot divided between pope and king. He ranks as one among many bad popes. John XXII, 1316: As a consequence of a faction existing between the cardinals, God had no substitute on earth for two years. Peter's chair was vacant; not being able to agree on a supreme ruler of the universe, they asked Cardinal d'Ossa to choose the worthiest among them — he immediately placed the tiara upon his own head. In this manner the papal church secured a Vice-Gerent of Christ, known as John XXII! This pope was not satisfied with the great stream of wealth flowing in through the channels of the. "Holy Inquisition," so the monster prepared a "fee-list," selling absolution for the crimes of parri- cide, murder, robbery, incest, sodomy, beastiality; it included every crime a depraved mind could crave, and the "tax" was The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 109 small: the heaviest penalty being for striking a priest. He added the third crown ("third story") to the papal tiara, which it is said signified that he was ruler over heaven, earth and hell. All classes had to pay tribute to him in some manner — kings, priests, and really poor monks; he had many of the "faithful" of his own fold murdered when they refused to pay tribute, making use of the "Holy Inquisition" for that purpose. The following is one item on the fee-list: "Priests who shall wish to obtain authority to live in concubinage with their rela- tives shall pay sixteen francs, one sou." Two Franciscan monks appealed to King Louis of Bavaria against the pope alleging that "The throne of the church has been occupied by wretches who arrogate to themselves the name of Christ, the right to commit every crime with impunity, of despoiling kings and peoples of their wealth, and of putting to death . . . men who reject their audacious pretensions to IN- FALLIBILITY. We entreat you ... to overthrow from the Pontifical chair this disgrace to humanity. ... No longer suffer these thieves, sodomites, assassins to enchain the nation." King Louis called a great Council in Rome and had Pope John XXII deposed because of his crimes ; as the pope was residing in France, the death penalty could not be inflicted; a monk, Peter Rainillucci, was made pope — Nicholas V; now God has TWO substitutes in the world — both equally infallible — one in France, the other in Italy. At his death, John was in possession of 18,000,000 florins and jewelry valued at 7,000,000. Nicholas V, 1328 : An anti-pope — that is, one of two or more men who were duly elected and consecrated to sit in Peter's chair; was dethroned by John XXII, imprisoned three years and strangled; said to have been a good man. Benedict XII, 1333: Quarreled continuously with kings and princes; a corrupt man. Clement VI, 1342 : Gloried in his shameful conduct as a car- dinal — as pope, no better. At this time the people of Rome were sorely oppressed by the nobility; Rienzi declared Rome a re- public, but papal gold and intrigue forced him to flee for his life. The day before the death of Clement, he is said to have re- ceived the following letter from the Bishop of Milan: "Beelze- bub, Prince of Darkness, to Pope Clement, his vicar: Your mother, Pride, salutes you; your sisters, Knavery, Avarice and Shamelessness; and your brothers, Incest, Robbery and Murder, thank you for having caused them to prosper. Given from the center of hell, amid acclamations of a troupe of demons; and in the presence of two hundred damned popes, who wait your pres- ence with impatience." Innocent VI, 1352: Endeavored to co-operate with Rienzi, who had returned to Rome; Innocent assassinated by a monk. Charles IV of Germany desired to be crowned by the pope; journeyed to Rome as a barefooted pilgrim, debasing himself before the pope. Petrarch, a poet of Italy, to indicate to Charles what kind of creature he had submitted to, addressed him : "... 110 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged in a word, the salvation of the human family lies in gold; it is gold alone that can appease the monster, chain him, make him smile; with gold you may deflower your sister, murder your father; with gold you can open heaven, buy the saints, the angels, the virgins, the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and the Eternal Father Himself — the pope will sell you everything for gold except his tiara." Rather scathing indictment of the supreme ruler of the universe. Innocent VI, however, appears to have been a better man than many of the popes. Gregory XI, 1370: The papal treasury was about exhausted; in order to replenish it, Gregory ordered Charles V to extirpate the heretics in his realm, to excite the courage of the Inquisitors. The papal court was at Avignon, where it was established twenty years previously; a delegation was sent from Rome to the pope, informing him that, as he claimed dominion over the city, he would either have to surrender title, or remove the court to Rome — so he established himself in Rome. The British Isles were Catholic, but opposition to papal domi- nation was becoming pronounced; Wycliffe sought to free the country of papal power; Gregory ordered the Bishop of London to arrest Wycliffe, put him to the torture, and forward to him any confession the victim may make. Urban VI, 1378, at Rome; Clement VII, 1378, at Avignon: Again the papal church is a two-headed institution, which split Europe into factions, each claiming its man to be God's superintendent of this mundane sphere. As each and every pope was "infallible," the fact of two popes existing at the same time was a problem for that church, concerning which, the Jesuit historian, Maimburg, declared: "An universal Council, which had the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit, could not decide this grave question." This divided Europe into two hostile camps: Germany, England, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, Denmark, Sweden, Prussia, Norway, Holland, Tuscany, Lombardy and Milan favored Urban; Charles of France, Savoy, Lorraine, Navarre, Scotland, Aragon and Cas- tile were for Clement. Anathemas, interdicts, depositions and maledictions were hurled from one pope to the other, culminat- ing in a bloody war among the nations: "Everywhere hamlets and villages exhibited only ruins; dead bodies of thousands of men and women lay unburied on the fields ; flocks wandered with- out resting places." No pen can describe the horrors of those times — nor any war brought on by the "divine right" parasites of Europe — when every means of torture and slow death were employed. Urban died in 1389; Clement, 1398. Boniface IX, at Rome: Benedict XIII, at Avignon: Boniface succeeded Urban, while Clement was still living at Avignon : two more popes at one time. England separated herself from the papacy; France, being tired of "two popes to fatten," endeavored to end the schism. Bene- dict died. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 111 Innocent VII, 1404: At Rome; spent the greater part of his four years trying to overcome the plots of his brother man-god, Boniface, at Avignon. Gregory XII, 1406: At Rome; succeeded Innocent VII; he continues at Avignon. Theodoric of Neim describes the times, saying that "the Christian world is abandoned to frightful calamities; ... all the virtues have been banished among men, great and small, from king to serf. . . . There is nothing sound or whole in the universal church; all its body is cursed with impure leprosy, from the sole of the feet to the crown of the head." Gregory was making preparations to torture his "sacred col- lege" of cardinals; becoming frightened, they fled — and now we have the spectacle of a pope and a college of cardinals anathe- matizing each other; and both are "infallible!" Benedict was driven from France; a joint college of cardinals was called, which ordered both popes to appear before that tribunal; they ignored the summons, whereupon the Patriarch of Alexander proceeded to pronounce sentence upon those "two infamous men" from the pulpit. This council deposed both popes, and selected Alexander V. Alexander V, 1409: At Rome; the only "true" church is still triple-headed. Alexander died very suddenly. John XXIII, 1410: At Rome; still tri-headed. As a bishop, John was bad enough; worse as pope. He licensed wickedness, and executed all who opposed him ; eventually driven from Rome ; was deposed by the Council of Constance and imprisoned; he signed his own resignation. At this Council was declared the truth-destroying decree, "Keep no faith with heretics." The first victim to be condemned under this legislation was John Huss, who was cited to appear before that council to be tried for heresy (was a heretic for disagreeing with what the popes decreed), although the Emperor, Sigsmund, had granted him safe-conduct; Huss was found guilty of heresy and burnt at the stake; Jerome of Prague, his disciple, suffered the same fate. Martin V, 1417: Martin was chosen, although Benedict claimed title — his career was soon ended by a monk administer- ing a dose of poison, for which he was hanged and cut into pieces. The King of Aragon convened a council of the church and elected another pope, Clement VIII, which left that institu- tion with only two heads. Pope Martin sent an army against the Bohemians — Huss followers — which received a whipping. He persuaded Clement to resign, leaving him sole head of the church and occupant of the chair of "Peter." For a period of approxi- mately FIFTY YEARS this "only" true church of Christ (?) had two or more heads, each one being duly "consecrated!" Eugenius IV, 1431 : He is said to have been the son of Gregory XII and a nun — a result of Hildebrand's legislation. Quarreled with everybody; deposed at council of Basil. Felix V, 1439: Successor of Eugenius; although claiming to be God's substitute, he abdicated. 112 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Nicholas V, 1471: Is alleged to have been one of the "best bad popes." Paul II, 1464 : A cruel man. Sixtus IV, 1471 : Cormenin, the historian, styles him "the vilest of men;" the father of several illegitimate children; decreed that nephews and children of popes should be Roman princes; was party to the plot to murder Julius and Lawrence Medici, arranging for assassinations to take place at a signal, which was to be the elevation of the Mass. Julius was killed; Lawrence, though wounded, called for help; for this, two priests and two deacons were hanged. The bishop saved his life by turning State's witness against the pope, whose order he was attempting to obey. Rod- erick Borgia was, at this time, legate from the papal court to Spain, where he was displaying great power; attempted to de- throne King Henry and put Isabella, the king's sister, on the throne with her husband Ferdinand; was successful after death of Henry. We now consider a character that will never be forgotten as long as history is truthfully written — Thomas of Torquemada, head of the Dominican priesthood. To him, Christ's (?) Vice- Gerent committed the work of exterminating all heretics and Jews of Spain; he succeeded in filling the prisons of the "holy" office of the Inquisition eleven times in nine months; the sight of wasting bodies, emaciated cheeks, quivering limbs torn from living trunks, broken bones, and the writhing of victims under- going every torture that the brains of man, assisted by the devil, could devise only served to render those human tigers more ferocious. A decree was issued by the Roman Catholic king, pledging safety to such heretics as would voluntarily return as prisoners to the "holy" Inquisition, promising not only freedom, but also the restoration of confiscated property; large numbers put their "trust" in the word of a Catholic king, and — they were burnt alive ! Was the decree of the Council of Constance, "Keep no faith with heretics," valid? So reads the record. Having exhausted the visible supply of heretics, the Catholic Inquisition resorted to what was known as "Informers." Be it observed, that in countries predominantly non-Catholic, the canon law of the pope's church says this law need not be enforced! Like all other laws of that institution, it is to be enforced only as the pope may deem it safe to try it — and he will try it then, even though it should depopulate the earth of all those "Baptized" but not acknowledging the pope as THEIR BISHOP. An "informer" had to report the name of every person suspected of heresy, or favoring heretics. This netted the "holy" fathers nineteen thou- sand additional victims in less than six months ! It was the duty of a Roman Catholic to "inform" on his own father, mother, sister, brother, friend — Pope Leo XIII wrote Cardinal Gibbons not to "neglect what antiquity," and the "Apostolic" teaching required in "reclaiming" heretics ! Those horrors staged against man by Italian popery chill the blood — those death-requiring de- crees of that institution are as much a part of the laws of that The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 113 institution to-day as they were then ; nevertheless, Farrell speaks of "suspicion" and "trust!" Sixtus IV granted bulls establishing the Inquisition by Torque- mada; Ferinand was a tool of Borgia's, Borgia being a tool of Sixtus, and he a tool of hell. Roderick Borgia was only qualify- ing to later become "Christ-vailed-in-the-flesh" under the name of Alexander VI. Innocent VIII, 1484: Another bloody-handed monster claim- ing to be the Vice-Gerent of Christ; he sent Archdeacon Albert into France to exterminate the Vaudois — French Proestants — who secured permission from the Catholic French king to carry out the will of the pope. Proceeding with a band of fierce papal soldiers, to execute the command of the pope, they found that the poor people had fled with their children to the mountains; when discovered hiding in a cave, the soldiers closed the entrance with wood and straw and applied the torch ; where tinder was not available for the purpose, caves were sealed up with stones. Upon re-opening some of those hiding places, more than eight hundred young children were found dead either in the arms of their mothers or in cradles. The greater number, who did not fall into the clutches of "holy mother church," committed suicide rather than be at the mercy of those whose "main pre-occupation" was serving the "interests" of "Catholicism" as required and de- fined by the "Holy Father, His Holiness," Pope Innocent VIII. Of six thousand Vaudois, about six hundred only escaped that "loving" embrace of "holy mother church." Alexander VI, 1491 : This is Roderick Borgia, formerly legate of Sixtus IV to Spain. An interesting era of the world's history now begins; a year after Alexander's election, America was discovered; the Protes- tant Reformation began to rift the dark cloud of papalism that had enveloped the civilized nations like smoke from the infernal regions. As a cardinal in Spain, Alexander lived with a Spanish woman — another result of Hildebrand's legislation — and became the father of five children, including Caesar and Lucretia, characters not unknown to historians. The city of Rome was now at the zenith of papal glory — a seething cauldron, as it were, of crime; assassins ruled; fifty thousand prostitutes walked her streets! Portugal and Spain were discovering new worlds — and quar- reling over ownership. Being chosen abitrator, the pope drew a line from pole to pole, through the Azores, giving all west of that, including America, to Spain, all east to Portugal. Alexander was so bad that the emperor of Germany, kings of England, France, Castile and Portugal demanded his reform, under pain of being deposed. This Vice-Gerent came to his end by drinking a cup he had prepared for one of his cardinals — by mistake, of course! Savonarola, the monk, was, by order of Alexander, burnt at the stake, on May 23, 1489, for delivering sermons in which he in- dicted the corrupt papal court. 114 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Pius III, 1503: Said to have been a good man; served only twenty-six days — poisoned. Julius II, 1503: Known as the "Warrior Pope." His entire pontificate was spent in making war in every direction. Leo X, 1513: This pope sent Dominican monks throughout Europe, peddling indulgencies — indulgencies for remission of temporal punishment for breaking any of the Ten Command- ments of God; the infamous Tetzel was on this mission in Ger- many, which aroused the monk, Martin Luther, to action, from which sprang the great Protestant Reformation — and the Church of Rome was forced also to call a great council and attempt to reform itself; Spain was subjugating the New World with fire and sword, while the people of some of the Latin countries, tried beyond endurance, were putting Catholic priests to death. Martin Luther: A MAN! It took little less than a GOD to STAND ALONE and defy papalism: if one will observe the cowardly, spineless excuses for men in many so-called Protestant pulpits and elsewhere, who will not mention the word "Catholic" except in a cringing, apologetic manner, they will understand what sort of man Luther was. Rome is just as active to-day against peoples and governments and the principles of the Refor- mation as in Luther's day, but she is attempting to accomplish her objective now mostly through political intrigue and channels of education; she adopts means "to suit places and times" — expediency. Clement VII, 1523: The British Empire, under the reign of King Henry VIII, severed all connection with the papal court. Paul III, 1534: The Spanish Ambassador to Rome, himself a Roman Catholic, says this of Paul: "He was shod backwards, so that one might imagine he was going on, while he was turning back." Paul's efforts to crush the Reformation were futile; issued a bull against Henry VIII of England, declaring all his subjects absolved from their allegiance, proclaiming the throne forfeited in favor of the first enemy to occupy it, prohibited other nations having intercourse with England; pronounced all Henry's chil- dren bastards, permitting the "faithful" of the church to fall upon him and his. Calvin, Servetus and Melanchthon now appear upon the scene; they differed somewhat in their tenets, but were all agreed con- cerning papalism, attacking it as a corrupt institution. At this age was formed that notorious order known as the "Society of Jesus" — Jesuits, by Ignatius Loyola, a broken-down Spanish soldier, who was made a "saint." Julius III, 1549 : He was as vile and degenerate as was the city over which he ruled; made a cardinal of a 16-year-old boy, who was a keeper of monkeys. Queen Mary being on the throne, the Jesuits were admitted again in England, while Protestants were being persecuted. Protestantism made the religion of State in Germany. Marcellus II, 1555 : Highly esteemed — died within twenty-one days. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 115 Paul IV, 1555 : To enrich his relatives, had the Caraff a family killed and property confiscated. Spain the only nation murdering non-Catholics. Pius V, 1556 : Endeavored to destroy Queen Elizabeth of Eng- land; issued a bull against her, declaring her to be a heretic and favorer of heretics, depriving her of her "pretended title" of queen, absolving all subjects from their allegiance to her, demand- ing that they refuse to obey her commands or laws. Before being elected to "hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty," Pius V was an Inquisitor; as pope, he used those instruments for human torture he had become so familiar with: it is charged a young woman was accused of being a follower of Calvin ; although she gave birth to a child on the day of her arrest, the pope had her tortured on the rack, with fire and pincers, and water pumped down her throat — she died ; the charge was after- ward proved untrue. Ordered King Philip of Spain to invade the Netherlands and "make these wretches swim in a sea of blood; fire and sword must transform these plains and cities into deserts." Tens of thousands of Hollanders were massacred by Spanish soldiers. Pius V was perfecting a plot to exterminate all the Protestants of Europe when he died; was one of the most blood-thirsty mon- sters on record. Gregory XIII, 1572: Under the reign of this pope, and with his sanction, Catherine de Medici and her son, Charles IX of France, staged the most cruel and colossal crime and betrayal of "trust" that stains the pages of profane history. The French Protestant Huguenots were lulled into a false sense of security by the Siren song of "peace"; with honeyed words and petty favors the Catholic king and his mother tricked the Huguenots into going to Paris unarmed, to celebrate a "Peace Pact" in the form of a marriage. Catharine proposed that Queen Jane of Navarre — Protestant — marry her son Prince Henry to Margaret of Valois — Catholic — daughter of Catherine, sister of Charles IX. Having laid down "suspicion" with their arms, the Protestants flocked into Paris, and, when the signal was given, on St. Bar- tholomew's Day, at 1 o'clock, thirty thousand men, women, chil- dren and babies were murdered on that and the following day, while seventy to ninety thousand were slain, it is said, within three months in other parts of the country. This was part of the scheme of Pius V. To perpetuate the memory of this ferocious butchery, Pope Gregory XIII ordered medals struck depicting the event, and had artists paint the bloody scenes in the Vatican halls. Sixtus V, 1585: Appointed a commission to investigate nun- neries of Europe; Aldebranden reported: "Without exception, houses of prostitution." He appointed another commission to revise the Bible, declaring that the edition then in use contained five thousand errors, he himself making many changes in the original text ; his edition was, at a later date, suppressed — known as the "Sistine." While pretending to be the friend of Elizabeth, 116 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged was secretly intriguing with the Spanish king for her assassina- tion, the purpose being to enthrone Bloody Mary, Queen of Scots. He used the Jesuits where he could, but was their enemy; they are said to have poisoned him August 27, 1590. Urban VII: Evidently a good man, as he lived twelve days after "elevation" to Peter's chair ! Gregory XIV, 1590: Reigned one year. Innocent IX: Served eleven months; Cormenin says that Sixtus V, Urban VII, Gregory XIV, and Innocent IX were poisoned by the Jesuits. Clement VIII, 1592: Tried to dethrone Henry of Navarre; Jesuits endeavored to kill Henry; on evidence the order was ex- pelled from France. Clement also, it is allged, was poisoned by Jesuits. Leo XI, 1605 : Lived only twenty-six days thereafter ! Paul V, 1605: The plot to blow up the English Parliament, known as the "Guy Fawkes" or "Gunpowder Plot," was hatched under the reign of this pope; thirty barrels of gunpowder were used for the purpose; was foiled by discovery; this occasioned King James I to require all his subjects to swear allegiance to him as supreme in the realm against any foreign pope or poten- tate. Gregory XV, 1621: Bitter persecutions of Protestants indulged in; the Jesuits overrun the Americas, China, Japan and India. Urban VIII, 1623: Horrible wars going on; the pope playing both ends against the middle ; Galileo, the astronomer, persecuted for teaching that the earth revolved while the sun remained stationary — declared false and heretical by the papal church. (Centuries after the world had accepted the teaching of Galileo, the Roman church did so ! ) Innocent X, 1644: A shameless debauch. Thirty Years' War at an end and Protestantism firmly established in Europe. Clement XI, 1700: To destroy Protestantism and prevent en- lightenment of the "faithful," Clement issued his famous (?) bull, "Unigenitus," condemning for all time reading of the Bible by laymen. (A special permit must be secured, especially in Cath- olic countries, to read the Bible to-day. Why should they read it? Does not the pope interpret it for them?) Clement XII, 1730: The most brilliant intellects of France were fulminating against popes and priests. A powerful secret influence was militating against the pope in France and, as Clem- ent could not discover who his enemies were, hurled anathema against the Freemasons, forbidding any person, under pain of death, joining the order. This attack offered a suggestion to other nations — a great light shone in papal darkness — lodges sprang up all over Europe. Clement canonized the bloody Vincent de Paul, who had rendered signal service to the church in helping to kill those who would not bend the knee and will to the Papal Tiger —many churches and papal societies are named in honor of this "saint" to-day! The Italians say this pope was really elected through the instrumentality of bedbugs: when Benedict XIII The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 117 went to purgatory, the cardinals prepared, as usual, to elect his successor; many aspirants caused delay; suddenly the cells where the cardinals were became infested with millions of bedbugs, and they hastened to choose a "Vice-Gerent" of Christ! Benedict XIV, 1740: He was an enigma — forbade the Jesuits to continue practice of conforming to religious laws and customs of heathen lands. Because of fraudulent business transactions, the constitution of the Jesuits was unearthed before the Catholic Parliament of France, in what is known as the Lavalette Case; the dangerous doctrines of the order as there revealed caused it to be expelled from France — doctrines reversing the natural code as to simony, blasphemy, magic, withcraft, astrology, irreligion, idoltary, im- purity, false witness, adultery, incest, sodomy, robbery, suicide, murder, parricide, regicide, etc. At this time they were expelled from Catholic Spain, having already been expelled from Catholic Portugal and Pagan China. The pope, in attempting to protect the Jesuits, aroused the enmity of all Catholic countries; expediency caused him to turn against them; prepared a bull to suppress the order; poisoned before it was published. Clement XIV, 1769 : Is said to have been the best pope for a thousand years; ordered suppression of the Jesuit order — and was poisoned; as he signed the decree of abolishment, he stated: "I am signing my death-warrant." Pius VI, 1774 : Has a record of twenty-five years of crime and wickedness. Napoleon appears upon the scene; ordered the man- god in Peter's chair to "retract, disavow and annul all decrees, bulls, sentences, censures, edicts, mandamuses, and generally all writings emanating from the papal court since commencement of the Revolution; that he should abolish the Inquisition in all Roman Catholic countries, and suppress the barbarous practice of castration on children (boys) destined to chant in churches." Pius died in a French prison. Pius VII, 1779: Many clashes between the pope and Napoleon; Pius re-established Jesuit order, which added great impetus to papalism throughout Europe. Leo XII, 1823: Issued decree against Bible societies, saying that they were "In opposition to the celebrated decree of the Council of Trent, which prohibits the Scriptures from being made common, it (the Bible society) publishes translations of them in all the languages of the world." Gregory XVI, 1831: Issued a bull condemning free conscience, free press, free opinion; he also issued a bull against the New York Bible Society. Pius IX, 1846 : This pope added the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility to the creed — questions which had been raised and denied many, many years. Historians say that at the time the decree of the first dogma was proclaimed, a cardinal approached the pope's throne and asked if it could be taught, and that the pope replied he did not know; this was re- 118 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged peated three times, the pope each time making the answer that had been made for ages, "I do not know," when, lo, the third time, he answered, "Yes!" While the church dignitaries were struggling with the problem of Mary's immaculate conception — creating a new "dogma" for the "faithful," the moral condition of the "Holy (?) City" was, as stated by W. J. Steelman, United States Consul at Rome, quoted in the New York Tribune, January 9, 1871: "It is a proverb among the Romans that 'if one would go to a house of ill-fame he must go by day ; at night the priests had all the places,' and another: 'All married women were seduced by the priests'." Leo XIII, 1878-1903 : How well this pope understood the sys- tem, and its laws, over which he was the head will be shown by many quotations from his Encyclical Letters in the pages to fol- low; every utterance of this pope was based upon some law or decree of the church issued by a pope or council. Pius X, 1903-1914: It seems strange that, as the Great War began, according to the prophecy of Cardinal Newman, Pope Pius X died — and the Black Pope, the General of the Jesuits, is said to have died within the same hour. Was that a coincidence, or Jesuitism in action, to put politicians at the head of the church? Romanism always makes and uses war to divert the human mind from other things, hoping thereby to advance the interests of the papacy — and it has always been successful in a large measure — and always will be; wars will never cease among men until the papacy has been reduced to the natural status in human society as that occupied by other sects. The German emperor nominated the present Jesuit General — and he admitted that order into Ger- many, abolishing the decree of banishment soon after the war began. Benedict XV, 1914 (present incumbent of Peter's chair) : Pro- German, Austrian and Turk to the core during the Great War; his private secretary, von Gerlach, was in the plot which de- stroyed two Italian battleships, killing a number of marines; he fled to Switzerland to escape the penalty pronounced by the Italian government against him; Benedict disclaims all knowl- edge of the deed, of course. Shortly after this "elevation," Benedict, in addressing his col- lege of cardinals, alluded to Protestant preachers of Italy as "emissaries of satan," that ought to be "destroyed." Of course, he spoke from the heart; that sentiment has characterized the papacy from the sixth century — it is in the oath of the bishops to-day; to "persecute" and make "war" is the distinguishing characteristic of papalism, and will continue to find expression as long as men are swayed by the will of an autocrat — the greatest of whom sits in the Vatican in Italy. There were 273 "claimants" for Peter's "chair"; now, referring to the third paragraph of the letter preceding this abbreviated history of the popes: If he "who handles pitch will become de- filed," what shall we say of a SYSTEM OF RELIGION claiming The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 119 to be the only "true" religion of Jesus Christ, that gave the world the Ages Dark as Pitch, and leaders or heads as the above record depicts? What kind of stream can flow from that fountain? Un- checked, it would defile the world! In view of human nature and history of nearly two thousand years, the association wants to know if I have any suggestions to offer — Yes : I suggest turning to Christ, who died to set the cap- tives free and to overcome the works of the devil, thereby getting just as far away from the influence of Italian papalism as possible. Comparisons are said to be odious; but I most respectfully ask that the popes of Rome be compared with the Protestant or non- Catholic men who have been President of the United States, and also compare them with the men who have been Grand Masters of the Masonic Lodges in America; I believe these men, taken man for man, will compare favorably with those who claimed to be God's substitute on earth — and the average Protestant and Mason will compare favorably with the average member of the Catholic church ! "A tree is known by its fruit." What sort of "tree" is it that gave the world the popes? Augusta, Ga., Oct. 8, 1917. Dear Sir: Have you any children? A little, soft-eyed girl, per- haps? a manly, clean little boy? I hope you have, they are the joy and crown of life. (1.) (2) But would you invite them to read immoral books, scur- rilous books, books that attack your character, that condemn your views of right and wrong, that undermine your authority, your place in your own family? Would you? No, of course not; but — (3) No "but" about it, sir: when you say No, as an honorable man must, you endorse the principle of the Index. The father that feels no responsibility toward his children and no self- respect, will likely condemn many salutary principles, including that of the Index, which a true father holds, but most people would hardly consider such a man a safe guide to follow. (4) Of course, you may not agree that the church has any re- sponsibility toward her children; but you need not agree to it; that her children agree to it is quite sufficient. You can under- stand the matter, however, and I feel sure that you must under- stand now that the Index, in principle at least, is a just, a wise, a considerate thing. (5) Governments have an Index, too, if you will think a min- ute ; it is practically a universal institution in the civilized world, which would not be long civilized without it. Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. O. C. 120 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged COMMENT In the above letter, as in those to follow, figures have been used at the beginning of paragraphs, and occasionally elsewhere; they refer to the paragraph which comments upon that particular part of letter. (1) Who robs priests and nuns of the legal right to enjoy this "joy and crown of life," God, or the pope through his Index? (2) No man would care to have his children read attacks made upon him, whether true or false; that point argues nothing; on the other hand, an honest man would invite his children to investi- gate if they did not honor him with their confidence — certainly he would not be considered a worthy father if he should mutilate, maim, deform and murder his children, as did the Roman church, to prevent them from exercising their own minds ; he would not employ fire and sword against them when they reached an age of maturity and attempted to exercise their own reason and judg- ment. The trouble with the Catholic church is, that it takes the wrong view of everything; a principle may be good if judiciously applied, but carried to the extreme, becomes wrong; for instance, Christ spoke of other sheep, which must be brought into the fold : the papal institution interprets that as meaning that God has given an Italian pope the right to force the "other" sheep into the papal fold, or destroy them. Rome misinterprets and mis- applies every principle of reason, justice and Christianity. The papal church makes no provision for the exercise of reason and private judgment; the Index has been in conflict with these natural rights of man since its adoption, which has kept the world in strife ever since — and will so continue — for, to be in conflict with nature's law means a penalty must be paid. The papal Index is but a modification of the hatred of the priesthood against free inquiry and research and "innovation" that began with the earliest Egyptian civilization — which has destroyed almost every ancient civilization, and will do that for any tolerating it. As long as the devil is in the world, spiritual dangers will sur- round the human soul, from the cradle to the grave; as long as finite man inhabits the earth he will be beset with physical dan- gers from his first to last breath — there is no place without danger, save in the grave, and if the Index places a person out of "danger," it has sealed him up in an intellectual tomb. In paragraphs 2, 3, 4, Mr. Farrell tries to defend the Index; he says that "her children agree to it" — no, they don't ! They get every phase of their religion as they get their name — it was ready-made for them when they were born; they had nothing to do with making it, cannot change it without considerable trouble, so they "agree" to it! The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 121 The Blood of Christ bridges the chasm made between man and his God; the papal Index is an effort to span that chasm, as it were, by making it physically and mentally impossible for man to go astray by attempting to prevent a knowledge of good and evil. According to this, it is a pity there wasn't a pope dealing with Adam and Eve, instead of the Great I am — the pope would have destroyed the tree and removed it from their sight! The Index considers everything evil that does not come from the pope — be- cause it is itself a child of the pope's brain — and the history of the popes is sufficient to show what it leads to. (5) As to government Index: Where the principle is applied, the command emanates from the 'people, who vary it to suit emer- gencies, and remove it at will; the papal Index, like the Roman church, is an instrument or principle in the hands of ONE MAN — and he the worst type of autocracy — from whose decrees his "children" have no appeal, being themselves created by the same authority that issues regulations which keep them subject to his will. There is not a Catholic layman in the wide world who can be heard in regard to the enactment of any law by which he is to live. To stifle research is to destroy ambition, which offers a fer- tile field for mental and moral decay. By the way ! Catholic lay- men are not allowed to possess the Roman Pontificale, etc. WHY? As a preventive of crime, if the record of papists in America and other countries be taken as a criterion, the Index has been a failure; though it has been a wonderful safeguard of papal in- terests. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 9, 1917. Dear Sir: You have much to say in regard to the "Intention" of the church, the gist of which seems to be that she is a gigantic conspiracy kept secret by means of the Index while operating in virtue of the claim to infallibility. (1) (2) You adduce a few isolated circumstances and couple them with a few detached utterances of popes or bishops and consider your case is made, notwithstanding the conclusion must extend over many centuries and apply to many millions of persons in order to be even passibly true. Thus you offend logic in using particular cases to establish a general rule, although you do your- self the justice of saying your conclusion is a "guess." (3) You break another well recognized rule in the process; the rule that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient for convic- tion unless it excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Any lawyer will tell you this is a fundamental rule of prac- tice in the administration of justice. (4) There is no objection, of course, to your offering circum- stantial evience to show that the church is a conspiracy; but it must be subject to this rule, as on reflection you will surely agree. You will also, no doubt, agree, particularly as you yourself designate it as a "guess," that your conclusion does not rest on 122 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged such evidence as excludes every other reasonable hypothesis. Therefore, it is merely a suspicion, and as such simply a shield. Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. 0. C. COMMENT We ought to be impressed with the amount of space the associa- tion has devoted to denning correct rules of logic, etc. ; its general platitudes, obscuring the issues involved is also very marked. (1) Either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism is a gigantic conspiracy — the anti-Christ; judge these two trees by their fruits; that rule was given by the Master. That the popes were true fruit of the papal system, one will hardly deny — and such fruit! (2) Farrell says I "offend logic in using particular cases to establish a general rule;" let us see: Every case tried in the courts of the several States of the Union involving the questions of life, liberty and property, is determined largely by "using particular cases" to "establish a general rule" of law, termed "precedent," which is invoked by every competent attorney in his argument, and also used by the judge in formulating his rulings and charge to the jury; thousands of years ago, God handed down His Law through Moses — the Ten Commandments (which the popes have mutilated in part beyond recognition) ; the spirit and letter of those Commandments will confront every son of Adam's race before the Great Throne — yet they are somewhat "isolated." The Christ condensed the sense of the whole Law into one sentence, when He said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." To a Romanist, it may be against the correct rules of logic to use this "particular case to establish a general rule": that all mankind must be born again before they can see God; but it makes no difference how many centuries pass, nor how many teeming mil- lions of people come and go with them, the "general rule" estab- lished by this "particular case" can never be "isolated." (Roman- ism substitutes baptism for the new birth; salvation is sought through good works and purgatorial fire : if the atoning Blood of Christ does not cleanse from all sin, a soul may burn in the fires of purgatory until God abdicates His throne in favor of the devil and that soul will continue to burn.) Mr. Farrell says I "break another recognized rule in the process"; it will be seen throughout these pages that I do not rely on "circumstantial" evidence; but where I do, it will be apparent to the "jury," who are at liberty to give it such weight in arriving at the truth in the case as they deem wise. Guilt can be established by direct, indirect and circumstantial evidence — direct being the most conclusive. Now, I indict the Roman Catholic church, called the papacy, with high crime The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 123 against the human race in that it conspires, secretly and other- wise, to separate man from his Creator, from temporal rulers not Catholic, and subjugating man to the papal religion which is in reality a gigantic political conspiracy against the peace and hap- piness of the world, consigning to purgatory for disobedience — all of which is contrary to the laws of God, common sense, and reason. Just a word in passing as to "guessing": when a fact can not be established by positive, direct evidence, it is then legitimate to "guess" or surmise as to the facts in the case, which may be developed by "circumstantial evidence;" for instance, for approxi- mately fifty years, beginning in 1378, there were two or more popes all the time — each duly "elevated" — and the "holy fathers," who make tradition, were not able to "guess" nor prove, even with the aid (?) of the Holy Spirit, which one was the real head of the Italian church; again, I read in the Manual of Christian Doctrine that laymen cannot have a copy of the Pontificale Romanum, Breviary, Ritual, etc., and in correspondence with an officer of a Catholic society, Mr. John J. McCreary, lawyer, I discovered that he is either without one of those books, or if having access thereto, attempts to conceal the "gigantic" conspiracy of the papal church as shown by the direct evidence contained in the bishop's oath; these circumstances are sufficient to convict, although the con- clusion is a "guess" based upon such circumstances. The truth of a proposition may be established to the satisfac- tion of a reasoning mind by Confession, Documentary Evidence, Direct Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence. Documentary Evi- dence may be a written statement by one in possession of the facts ; Direct Evidence, when facts are revealed by one who was a party to, or present at, the commission of a crime; Circumstan- tial, where all the circumstances surrounding a case, based upon human experience, proves the existence of a fact to a reasonable certainty; also, there is State's Evidence — where one was a party to a crime, but turned State's Evidence, incriminating himself along with others implicated. Confession: Where a person acknowledges before proper offi- cials that he did the deed; this determines, judicially, the issue to which it relates. Admission of guilt obviates the necessity of proof. Documentary Evidence: Written or printed statements con- cerning a crime, either by one who did the deed or saw it com- mitted. Direct Evidence : Where one or more people saw a crime com- mitted; this establishes the fact to be proved. Circumstantial Evidence : Where a person was known to have been at the place at the time a crime was committed; tends to prove a fact. 124 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged "Suspicion" is that element which attaches to a person arsing- from his personal appearance, manner and general reputation (i. e.y his "history"). Suspicion, alone, is not sufficient to convict; but it may lead to the apprehension of the criminal, or cause his withdrawal from a community, which may be preventive of crime. Keep these rules of evidence in mind ; they will apply in some manner to every charge made against the papacy; the "jury" will please disregard any charge in the indictment that is not sup- ported by said rules of evidence. To appreciate the weight and importance to be attached to evidence, it is necessary to know what opportunity the witness had to learn the facts, as well as his relation to the parties being tried. In the investigation of my charges against the SYSTEM, it is necessary to use every sort of evidence that is admissible in a court of justice, and know the relation each witness sustains to that institution, his means of knowing what is the truth of a question, and his interest in concealing the truth and facts in the case. The Roman church is divided into two branches : the "Teaching Church," which is the pope, and the "Hearing Church," consisting of laymen; the "Hearing Church" could fall away, yet the Cath- olic church would remain; but if the "Teaching Church," the pope, should fall away, there would be no Catholic church. The pope appoints the cardinals, they elect the pope ; all priests are directly under authority of bishops who are consecrated by the pope or his legate, while laymen are under the authority of the bishop through the priest — they are as newborn babes in a home, who are power- less to resist, and consequently must take anything given them without protest; they have no voice in creating new dogmas or laws ; they are as children, who are taught that the pope can com- mand nothing wrong; they are indifferent to the secret teaching of the pope in those books which they cannot possess or read, though authenticated by papal authority; if the pope commands the execution of all the requirements contained in the oath of their bishop, as "faithful" children they must obey. THIS constitutes, in part, the charge that the papal church is a secret, gigantic con- spiracy: it always has perfectly arranged machinery by which it can hurl men at each other's throats, if the pope should see fit to "press the button." The pope of Rome, being the sole head and authority, calls him- self Christ's Vice-Gerent, having himself declared Infallible at the Vatican Council; Catholic writers have very little to say about this decree ; it is said that, when it was up for action, 150 of the 692 members present withdrew, being opposed to the adop- tion of the decree that the Jesuit order had struggled to get The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 125 enacted century after century — a dogma that had been rejected by other infallible councils. This decree acknowledges that all popes and councils were equally infallible. Bishop Strosmayer denounced it on the Vatican floor, saying that history proved there were frequent conflicts between popes and councils and between popes and popes; the bishops and cardinals at this council knew history and Catholic dogma, consequently about one-fourth of them dissented ; they knew it was an imposition, and that it con- tained the germ of death to the papacy. Realizing its danger, all Catholics try to restrict the applica- tion and scope of the decree of Infallibility; that it is recognized as applying strictly to things spiritual. The mission of Christ upon the earth was to perfect the plan of redemption, destroy the works of satan, and teach man the way home; although He was to return to His Father, He promised not to leave His people alone, but would send the Comforter, who would "teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you," John 14:26. The pope says he is holding the place of God on earth, and that through him God makes known His will — which is visualizing the manifesta- tion of God in spiritual things; this demands a like means of teaching or reminding, equivalent to the work of the Spirit, there- fore the pope uses the pen and issues Encyclical Letters, Bulls, Decrees, Allocutions, Constitutions, etc., visualized means of bringing to the remembrance of Catholics whatsoever he as god commands. To deny this is a denial of papal infallibility : if God is infallible, then the pope, if he is holding the place of God, must be infallible; and if the Holy Spirit is infallible in His office, so likewise must the means used by the pope, as a substitute for the Holy Spirit, be infallible — i. e., his letters, bulls, decrees, etc., by which he "impresses" upon the hearts of his children his will. God is Infallible, Immutable — so also the Holy Spirit, in all things; hence, if the pope does not possess these characteristics in all things, he is an imposter. Farrell acknowledged that the pope is not infallible in everything! (4) I am willing for the average American citizen to consider the evidence herein, and I will be satisfied with the verdict! Mr. Farrell has a penchant for declaring "correct rules," and the effect of "circumstantial evidence;" he should also indicate on what point I violated said rules, or used circumstantial evi- dence not applicable; for instance, he should have challenged my criticism of his answer to Question 13, or 29 ; these are the "posts" he should have "hitched" to — but he wouldn't, because he couldn't; he did the best he could, though — let them severely alone! 126 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Augusta, Ga., Oct. 10, 1917. Dear Sir: Regarding the "Intention" of the Index: Refer to Leo XIII, Encyclical of January 25, 1897, relating to prohibited books, in the opening sentence of which the aim sought is stated — "that the integrity of Christian faith and morals may suffer no diminution." This, of course, is a worthy purpose, only you suspect it is not Leo's real purpose. (1). (2) But mark further on: "The early days of the church were witnesses of the zeal of St. Paul in this respect ('the converted heathens brought him their books to be burned,' Acts xix:19); and every subsequent age has witnessed the vigilance of the Fathers, the commands of bishops and the decrees of councils in this direction." So you must connect the "Intention" you impute to Leo with a like "Intention" in his predecessors and other bishops, going link by link, back to the Apostles. (3) They all did the same thing. Ostensibly, they had the same purpose, a worthy purpose, to safeguard faith and morals. You say their "intention" was criminal, to keep their followers in ignorance, and you foolishly imagine they have succeeded for sixty generations with their followers in every walk of life and numbering hundreds of millions and scattered all over the world. Do you really believe yours is the only REASONABLE hypoth- esis to be drawn from the circumstances? If you don't, you are out of court. If you do, God help you, man. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. 0. C. COMMENT (1) Change the word "Christian" to "Papal," and I will con- cede all the rest. Leo XIII was pope twenty-five years; his predecessor, Pius IX, thirty-one ; if any men ever knew the spirit and genius of popery, they were the men. Catholics must believe what they taught, and be obedient to their decrees; so we must look to the popes and councils for information as to what is the "intention" of papal- ism — not what some obscure, priest-directed laymen may say. It is from considering evidence from the highest source that we arrive at a conclusion — and the popes furnish that evidence. (2) It required just fifteen hundred and one years for popery to discover the need of the Index (although Gregory the Great burnt the priceless library of the Caesars, mutilated statuary, drove out the mathematicians and scholars — which was the begin- ning, and cause, of the Dark Ages). Alexander VI, a man "so damnably vile" that his record could not be printed — the man who bought "Peter's Chair" with gold — established the Index. So abominable was this man, that six temporal rulers demanded his reform, or they would have him deposed; their messengers were insulted and driven from the papal court; in this case, necessity being the mother of invention, Alexander issued an edict for Ger- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 127 many, "to restrain printers from reproducing writings directed against the Catholic faith or calculated to give scandal to Catho- lics" (Pastor's History of the Popes, vol. 6, pp. 154-5), which gave the world that fetter to progress, the Index. Leo X had to contend with Martin Luther and the Reformation, so he enlarged upon the principles of the Index. In the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the popes found it a very present help in their times of trouble, to keep the "faithful" from scanning their records, and to prevent others from learning what the popes did not want to be known. The efficacy of the Index was recognized as the best means of "closing" the records of popes and priests, and to prevent anyone from investigating any question except under papal censorship and supervision; hence, we find Leo XIII saying — and here he is exercising his SUPREMACY— in Decree 48, on p. 421, of Ency- clical Letters, January 25, 1897, setting out the Law of the Index : "Those who, without the approbation of the ordinary (bishop?) print or cause to be printed, books of the Holy Scripture, or notes or commentaries on the same, incur ipso facto excommunication." This is quite an expansion of the Index as at first instituted by Alexander ! According to the Canon Law of the papal church, it is no crime, in a legal sense, to kill one who has been excommunicated. The Rheimish Bible, published for the use of priests in 1815, duly cen- sored according to the Rules of the Index, in notes on John x:l and Heb. v:l, says: "All Protestant clergy are thieves, murderers and ministers of the devil." (So said the present pope in his address to his sacred college of cardinals, 1914.) On Rev. xi:6-20: "Christian people, bishops especially, should have great zeal against heretics, and hate them . . . after the manner of holy Elias that in zeal killed four hundred and fifty false prophets." (See if that is not in accord with the bishop's oath, to-day!) On Acts xix:19: "A Christian should deface and burn all heretical books." In England, in 1543, the papists secured an Act of Par- liament which permitted "Noblemen or Gentlemen to have the Bible read to him in or about the house, but no Woman, Artificer, Apprentice, Journeyman, nor Servingman under the degree of Yeoman; nor any Husbandman or Laborer might read it." Bur- nett, History of Ref., p. 30. With the above facts in mind, we are better prepared to con- sider Mr. Farrell's reference to the Index, and what Leo said Paul did in Acts xix:19: Paul was preaching among the Ephe- sians; under divine direction his ministry was attended with great results; many of the heathen believed his message of the Cruci- fied Christ — here's the account: "19. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burnt them 128 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged before all men." Carefully observe, that they "brought" their books — Paul did not have to threaten them with Excommunication and removal from earth by death, to get them; but when the Christ was made known, they choose Him in the place of what they had, displaying the free moral agency requisite to please God, and the right to exercise private judgment. They witnessed no "vigilance" on the part of Paul in this respect; he issued no "decree" concerning the matter ; so this breaks the link the papacy tried to forge between them and the Apostles fifteen centuries thereafter. Now, as to the "books" the converts voluntarily gave up to the flames : There were no books in those days, as we understand the word. The Ephesians used "curious arts," that is, magic, arts, sorceries, incantations, etc., and their "books" were Ephesian characters, which appear to have been "amulets" inscribed with strange characters, that were carried on the body for the purpose of curing diseases, repelling evil spirits, and for preserving from evils of different kinds — just as the negro wears his rabbit foot, and the Catholic his Scapular — and those "books" merely taught the science, manner of formation, and use of those charms. So, we understand, they voluntarily "brought" and destroyed their "books" treating of "curious arts." I will admit that the Index has been a success in preserving papal faith and morals, but it has not served the Kingdom of Christ among men, nor benefited the morality of nations sub- mitting to it; for on page 383 of the prayer book censored by Cardinal Gibbons we are told that the Scapular or Little Habit of the Blessed Virgin (Mary) was, according to a "most authentic tradition," given by Virgin Mary herself, as a pledge of her love and patronage, to Simon Stock, General of the Carmelites, July 16, 1215. There are now several different kinds of scapulars which the "faithful" throughout the world wear, suspended under their clothing from a string tied around the neck, to prevent sickness, keep off evil spirits, etc., just as the Ephesians did! Not only does the Roman church make and sell scapulars for those pur- poses, but blesses and sells little charms — images, of "St." An- thony, who commanded a mule to bow down before him and wor- ship the "Sacred Host" (pancake-god) which he held in his hands, and also preached Christ to the fishes of the sea ; the magic of this charm is to aid the purchaser in locating lost articles ; then they ihave the image of "St." Joseph — it assists the purchaser to get rich — then there is the "Sacred Heart of Jesus" ( !) which helps in securing a wife or husband, as the case may be, for the pur- chaser; and then there are the purgatorial societies, in which you buy a policy as you would any other fire insurance, which may be valid for the use of your friends, relatives or yourself! (In Eng- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 129 land the law against Superstition prevents bequests for this pur- pose.) This touches upon only one of the interests of the church of Rome served and conserved by the Index: the papacy threatens to excommunicate any of the "faithful" who may read a book exposing these hypocritical, blasphemous things, or the SYSTEM which commands their use. There is not a person in the world who can defend this practice of the Roman institution, either in print or on the platform, before intelligent people, so the pope uses the Index to keep his subjects from reading about them, and forbids attending any meeting where they are discussed and ex- posed. Should a Catholic ask a priest concerning dogmas or decrees of the Italian church which does not square with reason and common sense, the priest will either reply that it does not become him to be asking such questions, or he will cry "Creeda !" — the church says so — and that settles it: it becomes forever a "closed" question to that soul. (3) The origin of the Index has been explained; its "intention" then was to shield the papacy and its priests; it has been enlarged since its beginning in 1501 so that for about thirteen generations (instead of sixty) it has kept the Catholic mind buried and steeped in papal lore of the Middle Ages. Idolatry caused the loss of the Ten Tribes of Israel; it will destroy a soul, or hundreds of million souls, scattered all over the world, through successive ages; if superstitious dread of purga- tory and priestly powers can keep one soul from free inquiry and thus pervert it, the system with its "sufficient number of priests" can just as easily produce the same effect on hundreds of millions in all ages. I do not believe I am "out of court" in this matter, and will not be, until the Roman church can defend wearing scapulars before an audience of intelligent people in debate, or prove the Bible untrue. To me, however, these matters are of no personal con- cern — and would not be considered were it not for the fact that the same power that makes Catholics and shapes their "faith and morals," also requires them to believe they have the right to make me and my fellow-countrymen buy scapulars and bury Reason under the papal Index — which can be done, if the public schools are turned over to the pope's "children" and they are placed in political positions where they can assist in the propaganda to "Make America Dominantly Catholic." Augusta, Ga., Oct. 11, 1917. Dear Sir: Touching the doctrine of Infallibility. Your not knowing the teaching of the church in this matter has caused you to set up the shield of suspicion here, too, and you suspect the purpose of infallibility to be also the shackling of the mind. 130 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Now you do not have to subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility in order to understand what it is and what is its purpose. So far as shackling the mind is concerned, its purpose is not to shackle, but to free, the mind. And that is its effect, too. Let us see, now. The human mind is hampered, hindered, halted, held, chained, enslaved, and all that, by one thing-, and only one, and that is Doubt. Say what you please, "The truth shall make you free." Certainty is the very essence of intellectual liberty; doubt the very bond of intellectual subjection. In every phase of mental activity, touching every subject that engages the human mind, where there is doubt there is no progress ; where doubt is removed the mind goes forward to the end. The doctrine of infallibility has for its single aim and purpose, the removal of doubt in respect to faith and morals; its purpose therefore, is to free the mind. It does actually remove doubt among Catholics ; its effect therefore is to free the mind. You say it doesn't do that. But for Catholics, my friend, it does; so there you are. They, at least, are free. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT I have gazed with wonder and admiration on the great Mogul engine; have never built one, nor been present as each piece of steel and iron and wood and copper was shaped and assembled; but in viewing it as a whole, while IGNORANT as to the relation one part sustained to the others, I had no DOUBT as to the inter- dependence of one part on the other, nor any DOUBT as to what was the "intention" for creating that ponderous piece of perfect- fitting machinery. If I had never seen or heard of a steam engine, in my IGNORANCE I may DOUBT what may be told me con- cerning it; but, after seeing it in operation, I am no longer IGNORANT of it, therefore have no DOUBT of its capacity and speed — hence, we see that it is IGNORANCE which causes DOUBT and unbelief, which can be dissipated only by a personal, individual investigation of the subject — and it is ignorance, not doubt, that chains the mind. Thomas was IGNORANT of Christ and His teaching, therefore he was hampered with doubt; but when he saw Christ — investi- gated the nail-prints himself, ignorance was displaced "by knowl- edge", and doubt vanished. Mr. Farrell uses the word "doubt" as a noun : "a fluctuation of mind respecting truth or propriety, arising from DEFECT OF KNOWLEDGE OR EVIDENCE," and that the doctrine of infal- libility destroys that condition of mind in matters of faith and morals ; he thus shows that the Index and Infallibility are merely interdependent parts of the great papal political machine for world-government. The Index prohibits a personal investigation of a given subject, while the Catholic is required to accept what The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 131 the pope declares to be true: he does not examine the evidence personally and secure a knowledge of the question, as a necessary means of freeing the mind from the chains of ignorance and superstition — he pins his faith to the word of the pope ! Ignorance is a want, absence, or destitution of knowledge. An Indian would accept onion seed for gunpowder, and pay well for it; was his trouble "doubt" or "ignorance"? When some calamity besets a scapular-wearer, what excuse does the priest offer? The Indian, when his gun failed to fire, scalped his deceiver ! If we are content to be as dumb brutes, with bridles upon our intellectual faculties, and be driven in any direction that may please him who holds the lines, we may be "free"; but this cannot be granted as long as man is born with an individuality, a reason- ing faculty and a capacity for acquiring knowledge; Mahommet may burn the Alexandrian library, Gregory that of the Caesars — but they could not thereby convince any one that they were the sole possessors of the truth. The very existence of a controversy precludes establishing the truth without evidence to prove it: have Catholics a personal knowledge that the pope is infallible in anything? What line of investigation have they pursued to secure the knowledge which removes doubt? They say, "The church says so"; granted; but how many times did the church say, "I do not know"? And who is the "church"? The pope! To free the Catholic mind from doubt: "fluctuation of mind respecting truth," the pope makes a declaration, the church says "Creeda!" "Infallible!" the Index says, "Enough — search no further — it's a 'closed' question!" And it is — to Catholics — who are required to make it a closed question to all others. The association seems to have confused "ignorance" with "doubt." Man was practically ignorant of God and His purposes : Christ came to manifest the will of the Father; there can be no doubt where one is ignorant of a fact; a doubt arises in the mind relative to any question of fact, and remains until it is removed by such evidence as conveys a knowledge of it. Mr. Farrell says Infallibility removes doubt from the minds of Catholics and makes them free; in other words, they must believe what the pope teaches through his priests as if it were God speak- ing to them, as He did to Moses on the Mount — that this is a dangerous, undemocratic, progress-destroying doctrine will be amply demonstrated as we progress with these letters. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 13, 1917. Dear Sir: ' You may say that you do not object to the church having dogmas, but to her claim that they are defined by infallible authority, even when, it might be, the pope declaring them is a wicked man. (1) 132 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Which would convince me, if your paper left any doubt about it, though it does not, that you do not understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Again reminding you, in order to disarm your suspicion as far as possible, that you do not need to agree to this doctrine in order to understand it, I shall try to make it clear, citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, as general authority for what follows on this score. (2) First, we must distinguish the Infallibility of the pope from his Supremacy. Your failure to do this has caused you to cite as infallible many utterances of Pope Leo XIII which, though authoritative, are not infallible. To tell you the plain truth, not one citation you make from him is of infallible, as distinguished from supreme, authority. It is doubtful if Leo XIII ever once called into exercise the infallible magisterium of his office; or if any other pope has done so since Pius IX denned the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. (3) As Supreme Head of the Church, the pope in all that per- tains to the church has supreme authority, executive, legislative, judicial, as preacher, doctor, and pastor. As the Infallible Voice of the church he is limited strictly to the DEFINITION of DOGMAS on faith and morals. Mark the emphasis thoroughly; and more on this Monday. Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. O. C. COMMENT I am not interested in the dogmas of the papal church per se, nor their origin; but the effect they have on those who enjoy the rights of citizenship; I am concerned with the demands made by the head of that system for Catholics to exert themselves to make the laws of the land conform to the laws of the Italian church. When I am convinced that God uses the devil to preach redemp- tion to a lost world, I will believe He uses wicked popes for the same purpose; Paul said to the Romans, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness?" Rom. vi:16. Christ said, "No man can serve two masters." For a pope to be like Christ, he must be infallible in all things — to say he is in some, but not in others, makes him, it seems to me, the servant of two masters — riding horses going in opposite direc- tions: what does the history of the popes teach us? (2) As to the distinction between papal infallibility and su- premacy, there may be an impressive difference to Catholics, but to me they are twin doctrines — a sort of double-barrel-gun affair — one shooting a little farther than the other. From the year 606 A. D. the world has been kept in a turmoil by efforts to estab- lish and maintain papal supremacy. It makes no material differ- ence to the world whether the pope speaks as the infallible or supreme head of the church: in either case he demands submis- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 133 sion, or obedience; if this were not true, it would be foolish for a pope to issue bulls, encyclicals, etc., which are based upon the dogmas and laws of the church, the purpose of said laws being to enforce his infallibility in matters of faith. He who has the power to define a dogma must also be clothed with authority to issue a decree requiring its acceptance and observance on the part of all who have been baptized; and with the infallible end of the matter, that is for Catholics to worry over, but as to the latter, his supremacy, his presumed right to enforce his dogmas and de- crees, all free men must be concerned. Infallibility gives the pope the right to define a matter for belief, supremacy gives him the power to enforce it, for he is, as stated by the association in para- graph 2, "supreme ... executive, legislative, judicial." As the infallible Voice of the Church alone he would be perfectly harm- less and unobjectionable; but as chief legislator, judge and execu- tive he constitutes a menace to the human race. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 12, 1917 Dear Sir: You know, we are taught truths of mathematics, and many other "dogmas" of science and of life, long before our minds can grasp the reason for them. (1) (2) If this practice were displaced by scepticism, so that each succeeding generation, denouncing all faith, denying all truth and relying upon unaided reason alone, would demand "proof" and "understanding" before believing anything, the intellectual ad- vancement of the race would not be possible. (3) The heathens, in the absence of religious dogma, continued to sacrifice human beings to their gods long after attaining to a high order of civilization in other respects (i. e., where they had dogma) ; each succeeding generation was born into the same in- tellectual bondage of ignorance and doubt that clouded the infancy of the one before. (4) With a man here yesterday and gone to-morrow, his vision of life is cut off by the horizon of a day, which is too short a time for the most brilliant mind to solve the mysteries of existence, here and hereafter; and this is saying nothing of the minds of the multitude. (5) To deny the value of dogma is to disown for one's self and to deny to posterity, the greatest heritage of the human mind. Very truly yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. M. O. C. COMMENT (1) The word "dogma" means "to think"; as now used by the papal church it means: a settled opinion, principle, maxim or tenet, especially in matters of faith and morals; the pope alone can define a dogma, therefore he alone has the right "to think" and investigate for the rest of the world. While "we are taught truths of mathematics," etc., before we can grasp the reason for 134 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged them, yet as we develop physically and mentally, our minds ex- pand and we acquire an understanding of the reasons for them; take mathematics: a child begins school practically ignorant of quantities, but as the apple is divided by the teacher into two equal parts, and four equal parts, the young mind begins to understand and to reason; as a necessity for the knowledge of mathematics is realized, it may be pursued through the higher branches; (2) as advancement is made in the science, a most im- portant fact is discovered, namely, that every question can be an- swered to "a mathematical certainty" — the science offers 'proof to the und&r standing , demonstrates the truth of the matter proposed to the child for belief. A teacher may inform the pupil that "two plus two equals four" and command the child to profess to believe it, which it may do; but unless it is taught all the rules of the science by which it is enabled to "investigate" and "prove" what it is taught to profess, it does not know that two and two equals four — cannot prove it, therefore its progress in mathematics would be limited indeed. Apply this principle to "faith and morals" and we have the Dark Ages. It was a "dogma" among physicians many years ago to deprive the patient of as much blood as possible — destroy the life-sustain- ing element — as a means of "curing" disease. This criminal prac- tice was abandoned as ignorance gave way to knowledge, which resulted from investigations pursued independently by different men; the "dogmas" of the pope cannot undergo this process. If the pope declares there is a purgatory, the Catholic will say so, too ; the pope does the thinking for the Catholic, and forbids him to question his declaration or to make an independent investiga- tion of the subject. This applies to every question arising under faith and morals — the pope declares that "two and two equals four," which prevents free inquiry and intellectual advancement; it is well that the pope forbids investigation of his dogmas, for if one does, he will become lost in the maze of ancient paganism: holy water, purgatory, vestal virgins, image worship, blessed candles, scapulars, beads, popes, sacred relics, mother of god, etc. ; the Index is the instrument used by the papal institution to pre- vent investigation of any of these things. Mr. Farrell is wrong regarding the heathens; it was a "dogma" among the Brahmins, taught by priests, that when a woman lost her husband she must be burnt alive on the corpse in order to please their gods ; heathens were taught to believe that the birth of a female child signified that their god was displeased, and the only way to placate him was to consign the child to the waters to be devoured by alligators. He is correct, though, concerning the perpetuation of these heathen customs and "dogmas" — "each suc- ceeding generation was born" under a system of ready-made The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 135 faith; and what he says in regard to them, I say respecting papal- ism; the principle of the Index in the hands of the Roman priest- hood chains the intellect so that people otherwise intelligent bow down to a piece of pancake, worship it as God, then eat it, pro- fessing to believe they are actually eating Jesus Christ, and mil- lions of human beings have been sacrificed on the altars of the papal god because they said the priests of Rome could not prove the truth of that dogma defined by the pope and proposed for. their belief; and it is written in the fundamental law of the papal church that the pope has the right to murder dissenters,TO-D AY ; the theology of the Roman church also teaches that "right"; so I ask Mr. Farrell to state what is the material difference between the dogma of the heathen requiring the wife to be burnt with the dead body of the husband, and the "right" of the Catholic church to burn man and intelligence on the funeral pyre kindled by papal dogma and superstition. Right here in Macon, Ga., in this, the twentieth century, papists endeavored to "close" the city hall against lecturers on these dogmas of the pope, who were to address non-Catholics! (4) I admit the truth of this statement; and because it is true, I contend that every fact that has been proved by the best scholars throughout the ages should be accessible to every man to-day : the history of successes and failures should be an open book so that to-day and to-morrow man may profit by them; if they are "closed" by any creed or dogma, the result will be intellectual stagnation and retrogression. (5) The effort to deny man the open Bible and free inquiry is an effort to subjugate the human mind to the "dogma" — "thought" — of one man; to forbid Reason the right to demand "proof" of the pope that he THINKS RIGHT, is to destroy the purpose of man's creation and make him unworthy of Redemp- tion; it clamps the wheels of progress, and steeps people in ignor- ance that results in mental slavery and misery. Scan the pages of history of any country dominated by the pope since the year 606 for proof of the foreging statements! The Great Jehovah has never tried to FORCE man against his WILL; He says "Try Me," "Prove Me," "Come, let us reason together." Christ said "Whosoever WILL"— the pope says "Everybody MUST," and that's why I oppose popery. The dogmas of the pope have not benefited the Latin races, they cannot benefit America ! The Good Book tells us how the devil attempted to overthrow God in His Celestial Abode; failing then, he now declares to all mankind that he "holds the place of God Almighty" on earth — and some people believe him, while others are too cowardly to deny it ! 136 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Augusta, Ga., Oct. 15, 1917. Dear Sir: The pope is not infallible in every teaching he utters; not even in every one he utters concerning faith and morals. He is infallible only when denning dogmas of faith and morals. And in defining a dogma of faith and morals his infallibility is limited strictly to the definition of the dogma; it does not extend to any amplification, exegesis, argument or commentary that may attend the definition. (1.) The church holds that in defining dogma of faith and morals, the pope cannot err. Here is the Vatican Council definition of Papal Infallibility: "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, pos- sessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals, and such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreform- able of their own nature." (Sess. Ill, Cap. IV.) "It is to be noted in the first place that what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration. In the next place the infallibility claimed for the pope is no more than that which the church as a whole possesses. In the third place, infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope. . . . He must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not as theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor as temporal prince, or as mere bishop of the See of Rome . . . "It must be evident that he intends to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and IRREVOCABLE way. ... It must be clear that he intends to demand INTERNAL assent from all the faithful under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 769.) You can readily see, therefore, that the infallibility of the pope is much more narrowly restricted than you imply in your paper. Very trulv yours, JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT While the dogma of infallibility may be restricted to defining dogmas, there is no limit to the co-equal power requiring uncon- ditional submission and obedience to his temporal supremacy and authority, which is the objectionable and dangerous feature of Roman Catholicism. The Vatican Council that passed the above dogma of papal in- fallibility also decreed the supreme power and authority of the pope in matters not pertaining to infallibility, and it is as essen- tial for a Catholic to believe in, and be submissive to, the pope's AUTHORITY as in his INFALLIBILITY. The decree itself for- ever settles that question. It seems strange that Mr. Farrell did The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 137 not quote it along with the first part. The claim set up by the pope that he has supreme authority over all Christians is the bone of contention. In the "Dogmatic Canons and Decrees," imprima- tur of Cardinal Farley, New York, 1912, we read from that Vati- can Decree: "Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever right and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hier- archical subordination and true obedience, to submit, NOT ONLY IN MATTERS WHICH PERTAIN TO FAITH AND MORALS, but also IN THOSE THAT APPERTAIN TO DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT of the church throughout the world. . .. . This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation. "If, then, any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church, NOT ONLY IN THINGS WHICH BELONG TO FAITH AND MORALS, but also in those which relate to the DISCIPLINE and GOVERN- MENT of the church throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the FULLNESS of this SUPREME POWER, both over each and all the churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful — let him be anathema." In the language of Mr. Gladstone, I say the "Third Chapter (of the Vatican Council) on Universal Obedience is a formidable rival to the Fourth Chapter on Infallibility. . . . The Third has an overawing splendor; the Fourth, an iron grip. ... As he (the pope) MUST be obeyed in ALL HIS JUDGMENTS, though NOT ex cathedra, it seems a pity he could not likewise give the com- forting assurance that they are ALL certain to be right" In the above letter Mr. Farrell substantiates the logic of Mr. Gladstone's remarks; he says "the pope is not infallibile in every teaching he utters; not even in every one he utters concerning faith and morals." Notwithstanding this fact, that the pope is liable to err in his JUDGMENTS, the salvation of Catholics de- pends upon submission and obedience to him, right or wrong. (1) At this point Mr. Farrell says "The church holds that in defining dogmas of faith and morals the pope cannot err," but he does not, neither can he, say that Catholics must not be obedient or that it is not commanded. While it may be impossible for the pope to err in defining matters of faith, yet he can err as supreme judge, legislator and executive^ for the whole world, still the Third Chapter binds every Catholic in conscience to obedience to him when he is exercising his fallible "judgment" in matters not per- 138 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged taining to faith and morals, under pain of eternal damnation; therefore, every utterance from Leo XIII cited in this book is valid, in force, and must be observed by Roman Catholics as "expediency" may render possible. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 18, 1917. Dear Sir : Now as to the infallible prerogative in case the pope should be a wicked man. (1) Inasmuch as the pope is not clothed with infallibility for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the Christians of the world, in order that they might be free from doubt in regard to the truths essential to Christian salvation, infallibility would fail of its object if it were made dependent upon the character of the human agent through whom it is exercised. It would be an unbe- lievable hardship on Christian people if before they accepted a truth they were required to probe into the moral character of him who defined it. (2) There is no more reason why a wicked pope should not be infallible than there is for a wicked man not to be inspired. Now Caiaphas the High Priest who condemned Christ was a wicked man, yet God bestowed the gift of prophecy upon him. (See John vi:49-52; xviii:14.) Truly, therefore, there can be no vital objec- tion to the lesser gift of infallibility being likewise bestowed on unworthy agents. However, God has been good to His church in this respect, not trying the faith of Catholics too severely; for it so happens that no doctrine of the church has been defined by such popes as you have in mind. (3) By way of illustration, I might suggest to you that the decision of a court has the same value, in law and in fact, whether the presiding judge be a wicked man or not. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) If the pope is not clothed with infallibility as he sits in supreme judgment and exercises absolute jurisdiction in matters which are not of faith or morals, yet demands obedience and sub- mission, it is very necessary that the personal character of the man be investigated and the world should know by what right he exercises his authority, from whom it is derived, and who are responsible in case he is guilty of malpractice in office; for it is evident if he is liable to err or to commit sin, he should receive that attention which is given to any other man in authority — or more. The spiritual and physical laws run parallel: to illustrate the "freedom" enjoyed by those dependent upon papal infallibility, in matters of faith and morals, let us revert to the slavery of the South prior to the Civil War : negroes were either sold or born into slavery; the master did all the "thinking," provided food and clothing, and had medical attention rendered when sickness over- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 139 took them; slaves had no rights under the law, therefore had no thought or concern except in the matter of obedience to the com- mands of the master, and, to the slave, what the master decreed was LAW, and he recognized no other. Under those conditions, the owner had the right to "legislate, judge and punish," while the slave could not question the character nor authority of his master, neither could he take issue with him relative to any com- mand: these conditions prevailed until slavery was abolished: a Catholic cannot question the character of the pope nor his dog- mas, while his decrees must be faithfully and implicitly obeyed, as superseding any other law. This supreme power of the pope, exacting obedience in all things as it does, has drenched the world in blood century after century, and will continue to do so as long as papalism exists in the world. If Catholics and the world are ever emancipated from papalism, the forces bringing it about will have to be extraneous — it cannot come from within that "church." The presumptive right of the papacy to rule the world in all matters pertaining to life is based upon the blasphemous doctrine that the pope is Christ's Vice-Gerent — that is, God's "substitute" on earth — as Leo asserts, "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Now, if it be true that the pope holds the exalted position as God's superintendent of the world; if it be true that God has placed the management of this mundane sphere in the hands of an Italian in Italy, the world has the right to examine his credentials and expect this "superintendent" to be endowed, not only with infallibility as to faith and morals, but also the infallibility of God in his judgments, legislation and execution; to say the pope is without these attributes of God is to ques- tion, primarily, the pope's "credentials," as God could not place the world in the keeping of an "agent" without endowing him with all those attributes which He himself possessed — to con- tend that He did do so, places the Eternal Father in the impos- sible category of being Wise and Unwise, hence capable of being Good and Evil. The pope desires his credentials to be scrutinized — but they must be prepared by his agents and no questions are to be asked; if they are to be examined by the "faithful," only those documents are to be considered that the priesthood prepares per instructions from the pope. That the pope exercises authority, no one denies — it is either of God or of the devil. (2) The reference to Caiaphas proves nothing; the gift of prophecy was not restricted to the friends of God in every in- stance: we read of Balaam's ass making a statement, while the devils acknowledged the Christ; indeed, God makes the wrath of man to praise Him. The high priest was not the friend of God. 140 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged The Father has been good to His church and people: He gave His Infallible Son to die to redeem man, and is the Captain of man's salvation and the Head of His Church, gave His Word to indicate the way, and His Spirit to illumine the minds of men. Christ said "follow Me." Can the human heart and conscience become so depraved as to believe the Christ would strike a plead- ing, upturned face? Could it be possible for the Great I Am to "persecute" His creatures, or "wage war" with them, for refus- ing to follow Christ? If God did this, it would be using force, destroying the principle of free moral agency and the plan of redemption, and make salvation depend upon the will of God only, rendering the crucifixion of Christ a farcical, senseless murder. What is the history of the popes and their church? If the pope is Christ veiled in the flesh, and the people are required to "follow" him (the pope) where and into what will he lead them? Compare the lives of the popes with the life of Christ and His Apostles: time was when the world ford to "follow" the pope — and he lead it into hell's midnight! As to any particular pope being in mind, that is not material; the decree of infallibility dissolved and eliminated individualities, creating the OFFICE of POPE, therefore it is not necessary to refer to any particular pope, or date of a decree or dogma : when we refer to the "pope" it is in the same sense as when we refer to God — one and the same, always; to deny this destroys the claim to infallibility and severs the papal institution from all kinship with God, while to admit it is to recognize that a "bad" pope "thought" good doctrine for the "faithful," which would be con- trary to the teaching of the Bible, which says that good and evil cannot come from the same source. (3)1 admit that the judge on the bench may be, and many have been, a wicked man; but there is no similarity between a judge on the bench and the pope : the judge does not claim infallibility, the pope does; the judge does not MAKE the LAWS which he administers, the pope does; the tenure of office of the judge de- pends upon his correct interpretation of the laws which the people make, and they decide whether or not his judgments are in accord with their will, while Catholics must accept the pope's laws, his interpretations, and obey his commands relative thereto. The people make their own laws and select the judge; if either proves unsatisfactory, they change them; in case the judge errs in judgment — if it is not in conformity with the law — it is set aside upon review and the judge removed, if it appears that his error was intentional; but since the decree of infallibility the pope cannot be removed from office, neither can he be impeached, nor his laws or judgments questioned or set aside by Catholics. Catholics are taught Infallibility applies to all the popes and The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 141 councils — from the first to the last; yet there have been disagree- ments in matters of faith from the first, and the "defining" powers were at variance at different times. Pope Sixtus V even revised the Bible and it was suppressed at a later period! Augusta, Ga., Oct. 17, 1917. Dear Sir: You not only in your paper fail to distinguish Papal Infallibility from Papal Supremacy, but you seem to confuse In- fallibility, Inspiration and Revelation. These also are distinct. (1) "Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error, but is so guided that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, (so) that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error." (2) "God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance ; the former remains a merely human utter- ance. Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally, of some truth hitherto unknown; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed." (3) "It is well further to explain that infallibility ... is inde- pendent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive doc- trine may be based, and of the possible unworthy human motives that may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is infallible." (Cath. Ency., Vol. VII, p. 790.) (4) The infallible prerogative of the pope is not by any means the fetter on the minds or the tax on the credulity of Catholics that you have imagined, must now be clear to you. Very trulv, JJF /MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) Analyze this paragraph defining Inspiration and Infalli- bility, and we have the same answer for both. "Inspiration," says the association, "preserves" the agent from error in speak- ing or writing, while Infallibility exempts from error, and instead of distinguishing Mr. Farrell has made the terms synonymous; in the first instance the pope is "preserved from liability to error," in the next he is "exempt from liability to error" : in one case he is preserved, in the other, exempt. From this, then, it appears that the pope is both inspired and infallible! (2) In the letter of October 15, the association quotes part of the Vatican Decree, in which it is declared that the pope has Divine assistance in defining doctrine, while the above letter de- clares, speaking of infallibility, that "it remains a merely human utterance . . . concerned with INTERPRETATION and EF- FECTIVE SAFEGUARDING of truth ALREADY revealed," which calls for the exercise of the pope's legislative and executive prerogatives! In the Vatican Council held in 1870, Pius IX 142 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged defined the dogma of Infallibility, having "Divine assistance," but now Mr. Farrell cites the Encyclopedia to the effect that that "remains a merely human utterance" — or may be — yet no Cath- olic has the right to investigate whether or not it was the result of his human nature or the result of Divine assistance! (3) How can "the definitive result itself" be infallible, if it be true that what the pope says "remains a merely human utter- ance"? If it be "a merely human utterance," its origin is neither inspired, revealed or infallible! In the Universal Christian church, the Bible is accepted as the Inspired, Revealed and Infal- lible Word of God, under the protection of the Holy Spirit; to impute these attributes to the pope of that Italian institution is to declare the office of the Holy Spirit vacant and His duties turned over to the pope, yet the best writers of the system seem unable to "distinguish papal infallibility from papal supremacy," as is evident from the above conflict between the Vatican Council and the Catholic Encyclopedia ! (4) No, it is not clear to me; a mind that concurs in the doc- trines of a church depicted by these "clear" letters has reached that stage when nothing will be a tax on it. Christ promised to send the Spirit into the world to comfort His people, whose office would be to bring to their remembrance all He had commanded: outside of the "proof" furnished by the popes there is no evidenc to show that He has changed His mind and turned over to the pope the work of the Spirit; and, unless there has been such change of mind, the pope has no place in the Christian church, but heads a conspiracy against the human race, seeking to bury human intelligence under the decrees of that "church" which gave the world its intellectual bondage, slavery and midnight ! We cannot acknowledge as true the doctrine of papal infalli- bility without recognizing papal supremacy, thereby conceding the right of the pope to "think" for mankind in all matters that pertain to faith and morals without also conceding to the pope the right to legislate, and then inflict punishment for disobeying his decrees concerning things not pertaining to faith and morals ; Mr. Farrell says, though, that this doctrine does not fetter, but frees, the mind! I admit it frees the mind of all personal re- sponsibility, which is contrary to all Divine precepts, and antag- onistic to democratic ideals. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 22, 1917. . Dear Sir: You fall into the same error on No. 13 that was exposed under No. 5, so I refer you to my comment there. (1) (2) You make another mistake in citing the Syllabus of Errors (which, by the way, you misquote) to show what the teaching of the church is. That document is a syllabus of the different propositions condemned as erroneous in the several Encyclicals The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 143 and Allocutions of Pius IX prior to 1864. In so far as it shows anything, therefore, it only shows what the teaching of the church is NOT. The truth cannot be derived from error. (*) (3) Moreover the Syllabus of Errors cannot be intelligently read, much less cited as authority, without having the Encyclical or Allocution referred to in each of the Syllabi. It is little more than an Index; nothing more than a digest, such as lawyers use to find cases in point, but which they would be laughed at for taking into court as authority without the case cited at hand. It was compiled by some obscure cleric at Rome and without even the signature of Pius, though by his secretary, sent out to bishops merely for their convenience in referring to the original docu- ments. (4) Paragraph 24, which you (mis) quote, refers to an allocu- tion treating of the rights of the church in connection with the States of the Church over which the pope has claimed temporal sovereignty since the eighth century, and it has no application to the church elsewhere. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) The long letters Mr. Farrell (?) devotes to "Infallibility" and "Baptism" are very noticeable considering the fact that they are subjects which came up incidentally in my questions and criticisms, while he eases away from No. 13 like one who has suddenly come face to face with a bear while out fishing. Ques- tion 13 reads: "Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach (1) that the church has the right to employ force, (2) that non- Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or in person, (3) that the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth by death?" Both in the press and through the mails the Catholic church in Georgia informed the people that if they desired to have a first- hand knowledge of what Catholics believe, their rights, faith and practices, etc., it could be secured from the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, Mr. J. J. Farrell, Manager, Augusta, Ga. To clause No. 1 of the question, "Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach (1) that the church has the right to employ force"? Mr. Farrell answered "NO" in his origi- nal answer; in the present letter he attempts to divert attention from the question and center it upon another issue not germain to the fact sought to be proved. That his answer to clause No. 1 is untrue is proved by the decree of the Council of Trent, Sess. vii, Can. 14, which reads : "If any one says that the BAPTIZED are not to be compelled to a Christian life by any other penalty save that they be ex- cluded from the participation of the Eucharist and of the other 144 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged sacraments until they repent, let him be anathema." (Let him be ACCURSED.) Every Catholic in the world is bound in conscience to obey the decrees of this Conucil, and Farrell is now under the curse of his church, unless he answered with intent to deceive — which is per- mitted by said church ! The Constitution of Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidel, according to Taunton, "claims the co&rvice power of exterior judgment and of inflicting healthful penalties." He also incorporates in the Canon Law one of the propositions condemned as false by Pius IX, the authenticity of which Mr. Farrell denies ; it reads : "Syllabus n. 24. Pius IX, in the Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864, condemned the doctrine that the church had no right to coerce with penalties the violation of her laws; and he also condemned the proposition that the church had no power of inflicting punish- ment nor any temporal power direct or indirect." These citations are sufficient affirmations to all three questions embodied in No. 13, but I will cite authority to show the teaching of the church relative to each, to expose the deceitfulness of those in authority when dealing with Protestants. "Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach (2) that non-Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or in person?" To this, Mr. Farrell also said "NO." From the Corpus Juris, the official code of papal laws, we read: "If any one presumes to keep heretics in their house or lands, or to carry on business with them, he is to be excommunicated." Decret. Greg. lib. V. Tit. VII. c-8. The Lateran Council legislated, under Pope Innocent III : "Let secular rulers be warned, and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censures, to take a public oath to do all in their power to exterminate from their territory all manner of heretics." In 1252 Pope Innocent IV issued a bull requiring Italy to in- corporate in her Imperial laws the mandate to enforce all penal- ties against heretics; he also issued another in 1254, Ad Extir- panda, which was likewise endorsed and promulgated by many of his successors — Clement IV, Nicholas IV, Alexander IV — to exterminate heretics; in 1265 Pope Urban IV made it UNIVER- SALLY unlawful for any civil authority to impede the work of the "holy" Inquisition against heretics under pain of excommuni- cation, which is, to-day, incorporated in the fundamental law of the papal church. We see what the law was, and how it was applied in the Dark and Middle Ages;- now let us examine the utterances of a pope who died in OUR day — 1903 — and note if there has been any change in the law or spirit of popery since then. Turning to the The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 145 Encyclical of Leo XIII, Libertas Proestatissimum, June 20, 1888, we hear him declaring that "to allow people to go unharmed who violate or destroy it" — that is, truth as taught by popery — "would be most impious, most foolish, and most inhuman." All Protes- tants, Masons and other secret order men come under this con- demnation, and it would be an act of piety on the part of the "faithful" to extirpate them ; in doing so they would display great ' wisdom, and be very humane! Farrell answered "NO" to this question — Leo, for Farrell's church, replied "YES." "Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach (3) that the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth by death?" "NO" was Farrell's answer to this question, so we will have to investigate the subject. Taunton's Canon Law says: "A society which is perfect must possess coercive power for attaining the end for which the society itself exists," which is a "necessary corollary of the public power of lawgiving, judging and of execut- ing the penalties decreed upon transgressors." (All Protestants are "transgressors.") This law is based upon many decrees of the church, all of which are epitomized by St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, 2a, 2dae, qst. XI, art. 3, 4, in which he teaches that the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth by death. Mark you! Mr. Farrell is here answering officially for the Catholic church in Georgia; he replies "NO" to the three ques- tions under No. 13. His blatant denials indicate official Catholi- cism's regard for truth when dealing with heretics, and show that he knows the papal church is a dangerous, murderous society that is waiting, panther-like, for the time when it may spring upon its prey, who may have been lulled to sleep by the Siren voice of papists and pro-papists or secret Romanists in Protes- tant pulpits, some of whom are "D. D.'s." That this official asso- ciation has an ulterior motive in rendering these untruthful an- swers, denying the dogmas of baptism and intention, is apparent, and stamps that institution as being wholly unworthy of the confidence and "trust" of mankind, especially in America; this question, No. 13, and several others that will develop, should be carried to the Congress of these United States, and the papal church be made to show cause why it should not be "proscribed" by freemen to safeguard the peace and safety of the nation. Farrell says I "fall into the same error on No. 13 that was ex- posed under No. 5," and refers me to his comment there. Turn to his letter of November 2, 1917: there he denies that Catholics are taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the voice of God, which has no connection at all with Question 13, except inferen- tially: that "Where 'NO' answers a question, it answers true, unless squarely the opposite, in exact terms of the question, can 146 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged be shown. This rule of right reason can in no case be ignored without a sacrifice of truth." That "NO" does not answer No. 13 true, but that "squarely the opposite, in exact terms of the question," is the truth, has been shown. His interpretation of the "rules of right reason" and his opinion of what is "truth" may coincide with the training re- ceived in parochial schools, but from the American viewpoint he has answered with "a sacrifice of truth" and an intent to deceive; his answer comports well with the teaching that one must believe white to be black, if a superior so defines it, and accords with that "right reason" which requires a denial of physical evidences and the natural senses even when confronted by demonstrable facts. To those so trained, Farrell's "NO" is the truth, and closes the proposition, it is no longer a subject for investigation! It has been demonstrated above that papalism is a menace to society, which seeks to destroy Truth from the face of the earth. Where truth dies, faith among men becomes extinct, and barbar- ism follows ; therefore any agency in the world that in any man- ner destroys truth is a menace to the race. "Keep no faith with heretics" decreed the Council of Constance. The system that inculcates this principle among its adherents toward outsiders will find the "faithful" applying it among themselves, which will reach as far as the system extends among men — and it spreads best where opposition has been destroyed: and opposition has been destroyed wherever any American citizen betrays his country and civilization by remaining silent or indifferent to the question. Is it possible for the Church of Christ to inculcate or practice deceit? Could a merely benevolent society teach deceit, treachery, and evince a desire to use "force," do "harm" or "murder" those who will not subscribe to its "dogmas"? No; a thousand times no ! The Italian institution not only teaches that it is benevolent, but the "only" true Christian church, and uses these means to "convert" the world! The devil, "the father of lies," put murder in the heart of Cain; he instills murder and deceit in the hearts of all over whom he rules, whether man or a system. The citations from Leo XIII under this question were promul- gated in the exercise of his prerogative as Supreme Judge, Legis- lator and Executive, so recognized by Farrell in citing the Vati- can Decree of Infallibility; therefore the association could not discuss the question, so tried to smother it under a maze of irrele- vant verbiage. Leo reigned twenty-five years; from a thorough knowledge of the papacy, he was conversant with all rights of the pope thereto appertaining, and knew what its laws gave him a right to exact from the "faithful." He also had at his command the great Vatican Archives from which he could secure information The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 147 concerning the "rights" of the church with which he may not have been familiar. Every utterance of this pope, therefore, was based upon his conception of his duty to his church, in the "effective safeguarding of truths already revealed" by his predecessors., among which was the Bull Unam Sanctam by the infamous pope, Boniface VIII — the fellow who frightened poor old Celestine V into resigning. Boniface caused a rupture with many of the sovereigns of Europe soon after he became pope, issuing orders and conveying threats to them. Philip the Handsome, King of France, resented the efforts of Boniface to intimidate him through the papal legate, so he dismissed the pope's representa- tive from his court ; this so enraged him that he issued the famous Bull, Unam Sanctam, declaring himself to be absolute soverign of the kingdom of France with the power of dispensing secular as well as ecclesiastical benefices. In this Bull the pope sets out fully the prerogatives of the papacy accruing under the Decree of Papal Supremacy, which had been enjoyed from the seventh to the thirteenth century — which supremacy, by the way, was se- cured by what the Jesuit fathers now acknowledge to have been foregries, known as the "Isidorian False Decretals"; in this de- cree, Boniface said: "Outside of her (the Catholic church) there is no salvation nor remission of sins. . . . That in her and within her power are two swords, namely, the spiritual and the temporal sword. . . . Both are in the power of the church, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword; the latter to be used for the church, the former by the hand of the priest, the latter by the hand of the princes and kings* (the government) , but at the nod and suffer- ance of the priest. The one sword must of necessity be subject to the other, and the temporal authority to the spiritual. . . . For truth being the witness, the spiritual power has the functions of establishing the temporal power and sitting in judgment upon it . . . but if the supreme* power deviate, it can be judged by on mam. , . . "Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff." Schaff, Hist, of the Christian Church, Vol. V, Part II, p. 25. This is a doctrine that seeks to change our Constitution, yet I have not learned of any Catholics resisting it, as Farrell said they would do! (See his answer to Question 9.) In 1864 Pope Pius IX issued his "Syllabus of Errors," the twenty-third proposition of which teaches that it is an error to say that "The Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have * This doctrine is now taught in papal parochial schools : in the thirty- second edition of the "Manual of Christian Doctrine," the volume in hand being that of 1919, the question is asked : "120. Has the church the right and duty to proscribe schism or heresy?" and the answer is : "Yes, it has both the right and the duty to do so." 148 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have ever committed errors in defining matters of faith and morals." (2) Language is employed by honest-minded people as a means of transmitting thought; but it appears Jesuitism has reduced the science to the art of ambiguity — concealing and confusing instead of revealing: this is very marked in the Syllabus of Errors; for example, an honest person, in declaring a fact, would say, "The female is the mother of its species," while the pope would teach, under a general caption of "Popular Errors": "The male is the mother of its species"; of course, in order to understand what he presumes to teach, it is necessary to know something about the subject, and reverse the statement, and thus "(mis) quote" him, by saying he teaches that it is error to say, "The male is the mother of its species," or (mis) quote (?) him by saying he teaches that it is error to say, "The female is the mother of its species." This in answer to Farrell's charge that I misquoted the Syllabus of Errors. In this connection, it would be just as logical for Farrell to say Aquinas did not say the papal church ought to MURDER heretics; of course not: he merely said they should be "removed" from the earth by "death" ! (3) In the Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, he says: "To wish the church to be subject to the civil power in the exercise of her duty is a great folly and a sheer injustice. . . . Pope Pius branded publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground, and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form in order that in this sea of error Catholics might have a light which they might safely follow. It will suffice to indicate a few of them : Prop, xxxix. The State, as the origin and source of all rights enjoys a right that is unlimited. Prop. lv. The Church must be separated from the State and the State from the Church," pp. 124-6. He cites only four of the eighty Propositions by Pius — which is also the doctrine now being taught Catholics from the "Manual of Christian Doctrine." Leo not only approves of this doctrine to be true Catholicism, but he runs Farrell into a "corner," by asserting that Pius IX "ORDERED" them condensed in summary form for CATHOLICS, not "bishops"; Farrell said that they were compiled by some "obscure cleric . . and sent out to bishops" to be used by them as an index to the original docu- ments! ("Keep no faith with heretics" is a wonderful help in times of papal stress!) In this matter, it is evident that Pope Leo XIII deliberately uttered a falsehood, or that Farrell, repre- senting the Catholic church in Georgia, positively prevaricated in an effort to save the truth from being known, and to conceal what the Italian church teaches its "children" is their duty to the pope, camouflaged under "faith and morals"! Of the two — Leo The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 149 and Farrell — which one is more likely to be the prevaricator, he who taught the "faithful," or the man who attempts to teach a "heretic"? I leave the answer to the reader! (4) The Bull, Unam Sanctam, is the foundation of Proposition 24 of the Syllabus of Errors; of coarse, Pius may have delivered an Allocution or written an Encyclical on the subject, but by decree Boniface established the 'principle, making it LAW. The Propositions cannot be restricted in their application to the few Italian States over which the pope ruled as king and god — States that were won in wars, by forgeries, or presented to the papacy against the will and consent of the people therein — they refer to the State, the Civil Governmnt, as a world-wide proposition; for it is evident that, if the pope "holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty," the scope, force and power of his decrees and teaching extend as far among mankind as the will of God — and I do not believe even Farrell would say God is cognizant of, or restricted by, "state" lines as Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Although Taunton's Canon Law is the condensed teaching from several hundred volumes by former canonists treating of every phase of Canon Law, embodying Proposition 24 as a general, universal principle, Farrell says it applies only to the several States of Italy! (*) Here, Farrell says "The truth cannot be derived from error." I ask, in all candor, CAN TRUTH BE FOUNDED UPON ERROR? The False Decretals, establishing Papal Su- premacy, made their appearance in the eighth century ; upon this falsehood the great superstructure of Papal Supremacy and In- fallibility were established. Truth cannot be derived from error, neither can it be founded upon error — and if error be removed from the foundation of the papal church, it would crumble and fade away ! The following demonstrates upon what great ERROR the papal church is founded, cited from the Law of the Church by Taunton, S. J., London, 1906, pp. 340-1: "1. The false decretails are a spurious collection of decretails attributed to the popes and councils of the first three centuries . . . Date (of appearance) from 845-853. . . . "4. The object of the collection seems to be to protect the episcopate from the tyranny of the metropolitans. . . . "6. The collection was universally received; and it was not until the fifteenth century that doubts began to be cast upon the authenticity . . . the Ballerini brothers have established their non-authenticity. "7. One point is abundantly clear: the collection was not origi- nated by the popes, but by a Gallican cleric. ... If the popes made use of the collection they did so for two reasons : "(1) The collection was generally received, and no hint was made that it was not what it claimed to be, 150 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged "(2) It simply asserted what for centuries had been the acknowledged right and constant practice of the Holy See. "It is no argument against the truth of rights to allow that origins for these rights were . . assigned, by an unknown writer, carelessly or uncritically to sources which more perfect knowl- edge shows to be false." This is pure Jesuit casuistry, from which arises the charge against the order and the church it serves that "the end justifies the means." From this we discover the popes claiming and enjoying the fruits of ERROR and FALSEHOOD from the third to twen- tieth centuries — fruits accruing from forged documents which gave them the supremacy "Who opposeth and exalteth him- self above all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God . . . whose coming is after the working of satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and all deceivableness of unrighteousness" 2 Thes. c. 2. Will God use deceit and falsehood to establish or promote His Truth? Yes, provided it is true that the pope is holding the place of God Almighty on earth; otherwise, no. If God hates a lie and liars, surely, surely, He would not permit His substitute on earth to live and practice a lie in His behalf SEVENTEEN HUNDRED YEARS ! It is sublimely ridiculous and absurd to say God makes the pope "infallible" when he is defining some dogma for the "faithful" but participates in and sanctions the fraudulent pre- sumption of the pope in his enjoyment of a supremacy established on a LIE, which calls for two pertinent observations: first, this would be "class" legislation in that one rule of conduct in all things would be made for the "faithful" and another for the "head" of the church; second, creates the impossible, by implying pure water flows from an impure source. To say the Christian religion was even remotely benefited by a principle of the devil — deceitfulness — puts either God or the pope in an unenviable predicament before INTELLIGENCE. The title of pope, or Universal Bishop, was conferred on Boni- face III by murderer Phocas ; the pope's absolute dictatorship in and over the whole church — which includes all Protestant sects — was secured by forgery ; his supremacy in temporal affairs of the governments of the earth was proclaimed in the Bull Unam Sanctam, all forever sealed as "truth" to the church by the Vati- can Decree of Supremacy and Infallibility in 1870, obedience to which Catholics are bound hard and fast, and will so remain as long as they are members of the pope's church. Solomon said that there were seven things God hates, which are an abomination unto Him: 1, a proud look; 2, lying tongue; 3, hands that shed innocent blood; 4, a heart that devises wicked The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 151 imaginations; 5, feet swift in running to mischief; 6, a false wit- ness that speaketh lies; 7, he that soweth discord. Prov. vi: 16-19. I defy anyone called Catholic to say these seven "things" do not apply to the dogmas and decrees of the pope's church — and they would make good texts for some so-called Protestant ministers to prach from! The Syllabus of Errors will receive further consideration as we go along. I believe I have established the fact that Mr. Farrell has made false answers to Question 13, which, being from an association officially answering for the Catholic church, indicates to what extent we may "trust" Catholicism! Augusta, Ga., Oct. 23, 1917. Dear Sir: Regarding the "Intention" of infallibility. You have no doubt concluded before now that if there were any such intention as you imagine hidden in the doctrine of infalli- bility, to limit its exercise so narrowly is rather a contrary way of carrying out its object. You may say it makes no difference whether the pope teaches by virtue of his supreme authority, since Catholics submit to the pope whether infallible or not. But it makes a great difference, just as great as the rational meaning in the terms, intellectual liberty, freedom of the soul, and such like. (1) If Catholics do not fully and unreservedly give, not only external obedience, but internal assent, to doctrines denned by virtue of the pope's infallible prerogative, they cease to be Cath- olics ipso facto, instanter. They are not required on the other hand to give internal assent but only external respect to teach- ings not so defined, and these latter constitute the great bulk of Catholic theology, philosophy, history, tradition, law and prac- tices. To illustrate: A Catholic need not agree that the Syllabus of Errors, the Rules of the Index, the strictures drawn by Leo XIII against Freemasonry and similar matters are unerringly correct. The church does not propose these things to the belief of her chil- dren as absolutely final, conclusive and irrevocable forever. (2) Whatever prohibition or commandment is contained in these and like pronouncements of the popes or of the Sacred Con- gregation are to be respected and observed even though we do not give internal assent to them, so long as they are in force, unless, of course, conscience forbids. For above all things Catholics know that a right ordered con- science is King of the Soul, and between these two, no man, in whatsoever matter, were he ten times supreme, can set a voice of authority. Verv truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT There are but two opposing forces in the world : call them Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, or Christ and the Devil, if you 152 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged will, and they are making war upon each other with the "inten- tion" of subduing the world in the name of their respective Principals, therefore every act and wish of each is exerted to obtain that goal. Christ seeks to win the world by Love and Truth; the devil, by hate and lies. Before it was paganized in 606, the Roman church was doing the will of God, but after the pope was elevated to the throne and God deposed, I cannot believe Christ has any connection with the pope or his system. The Roman church has employed every means that the human intelli- gence and the devil could devise to bring the world to its knees before an Italian man-god. It matters not how erroneous I may consider the Catholic religion from a theological standpoint, I would not deprive Catholics of the right to its enjoyment, if it affords them any satisfaction; but by its very nature the system requires its devotees to exert themselves with the end in view of ultimately forcing all "baptized" persons under papal domi- nation, providing for the employment of fire and sword in the process if it be necessary, and every Catholic must endeavor to inject the virus of Romanism into all the veins of the State — politics and education; and from the consideration of the condi- tions of nations which have had this "sap" of Catholicism in their veins, being interested in the welfare of my country, I most em- phatically protest against any such procedure. There is no middle-ground with popery: you must be either Catholic or heathen; this is proved by the history of the church, which shows that it has always tried to exterminate the Christians, but does not make war on the heathen; consider the fearful oath of the Catholic Bishop — it "is directed against Christians only. In this we see the scheme followed by the devil: he directs his attacks against the Christians; those on the outside give him no uneasi- ness, hence are not the object of his hatred. In the above letter, the association again discusses the "infalli- bility" of the pope, instead of the laws of the church which give that institution the right to apply force, harm, and kill those who reject papal blasphemy. He admits (par. 1) that to be a "good" Catholic they must mentally assent to doctrines, but in other matters they MUST give "external respect to the teachings" not defined as infallible or proposed to belief, and that whatever prohibition or command is contained in this (theology, philoso- phy, history, traditions, laws, decrees, practices) "are to be re- spected and obeyed, so long as they are in force." This is the only material admission he has made as a "witness on the stand"; I have been seeking to get him to state what effect the DIREC- TIVE PREROGATIVE of the pope has on Catholics, as this is the power he possesses that pertains to matters not of faith and morals, but which vitally concern all non-Catholics; it is this The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 153 "external" or physical aspect of popery that constitutes the menace to all countries not Catholic; we care not a straw for their "internal" attitude toward papal "dogmas"— they may be- lieve all that the popes have ever proposed as a matter for belief — but if their "external respect" to the decrees of the pope makes them strive to interfere with the rights of other citizens: makes them go to the polls as Catholics instead of American citizens, makes them labor to destroy the Constitution so that the laws of an Italian monarch, claiming to be God's substitute upon the earth, can be put in force, the church of Rome stands branded as a menace to a free people, biding the time when it can force all the baptized to give "EXTERNAL RESPECT," if not "internal assent," to papal decrees! Regarding the reference to conscience : I fail to see where con- science can find a lodgment in the papal mind, after reading the above letter. Conscience may be defined as that principle within us by which we distinguish between right and wrong: the only time I discover where a Catholic can display conscience is in his decision to adhere to the papal religion without giving any thought what it may require of him ; being born into the system, his conscience was pre-determined ; in after years, he confirms this accident of birth. To illustrate the principle : A person born in Germany of German parents, is by that very fact a subject of the Kaiser ; when he becomes of mature age, and elects to remain in Germany, he thus confirms his citizenship; if a person leaves the land of his nativity and goes to Germany, assuming an oath of allegiance to the Kaiser, he is also a German citizen. We are all more or less familiar with the terrible deeds committed by German soldiers during the Great War: the German by birth or selection may not have given "internal assent" to the fiendish- ness that the Kaiser and Prussian Militarism demanded of him, but as long as he was bound by his allegiance to give "external respect" to any prohibition or command of the Kaiser, he was German, and while the horrible crimes he and his fellow soldiers committed — killing defenseless women and children and non- combatants — may have been repugnant to his mind, yet con- science played no part in the premises; his superiors had deter- mined what he must do, now he must obey; the question of con- science was settled when he decided to remain a citizen of the German Empire: so, when he thrust his bayonet through the wasted body of a little French maid, the emaciated mother, or palsied grandfather, the effect upon the victim was the same — it mattered not in that case whether he gave "internal assent" to the deed or acted out of "external respect" to (German) "philoso- phy, history, tradition, law and practices." History's pages are stained with the records of the many mil- 154 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged lions of non-Catholics slain by the Catholic church— and it makes no difference whether those murders were committed with an "internal assent" of the mind, or out of "external respect" to the will of the pope! When conscience becomes seared as with a hot iron, no beast of the field can be more ferocious. Farrell acknowledged that Catholics are bound to give "exter- nal respect" and obedience to papal regulatory decrees, which is the doctrine of the Vatican Council demanding Obedience — and I consider it quite an achievement in securing it from — a Jesuit? Bishops are creatures of the pope, priests hold under bishops, while the laity are under them all. When a bishop is "conse- crated," he swears to "be faithful and obedient to . . . the Holy Roman Church, and to our Lord the Pope. ... I will help them to defend and keep the Roman Papacy . . . against all men. . ." (This makes no provision for restricting papalism to the Italian States, as Farrell contended in one instance!) "The rights, honors, privileges and authority of the Roman church, of our Lord the pope, I will endeavor to preserve, defend, increase and advance. . . . The rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic de- crees, provisions and mandates, I will observe with all my might and cause them to be observed by others. Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said Lord or his aforesaid successors I will to my utmost power persecute and wage war with." We turn now to the oath required of those who join the papal church, as contained in Gibbon's Manual of Prayers: "I, , . . . believe the holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman to be the only and true church established on earth by Jesus Christ, to which I submit myself with my whole heart. I believe ALL the articles she proposes to my belief, and I reject and con- demn all that she rejects and condemns, and I am READY TO OBSERVE ALL THAT SHE COMMANDS ME. And especially I profess to believe: . . . "The primacy, not only of honor, but also of jurisdiction, of the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Vicar of Jesus Christ; "Veneration of the saints and their images" (The Catholic bible being mutilated by the popes, Catholics do not know this is forbidden; that they violate God's commandment every time they bow down before an image, or a priest) . "The authority of the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and of the Holy Scriptures which we must interpret and under- stand only in the sense which our holy mother the Catholic church has held and does hold": (Fettering intellect and free inquiry; "two and two equals four" — we do not know how, but it's so — the teacher said so!) "And everything else that has been defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and by the General Councils, and particularly by The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 155 the Holy Council of Trent, and delivered, defined and declared by the General Council of the Vatican, especially concerning the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and his infallible teaching au- thority. "With a sincere heart, therefore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest and abjure every error, heresy and SECT opposed to the said Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman church. So help me God, and these Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands." Analyze that oath, Americans ! It is in perfect accord with the oath of the bishop, and all are in harmony with the "intention" of the church of Rome "to govern the minds of men." On page 458 of the Encyclical Letters, Leo XIII says, "We hold the place of Him who came to save that which was lost." Again he says, on page 330, "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty," and on 183, he defined the relation each one sustains to the papacy: "But the man who has embraced the Catholic faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a subject of the church as one of the children born of her . . . which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with SUPREME POWER." What chance is there in the above doctrine for the exercise of conscience? Leo says, and he is confirmed by the layman's oath, that "What we are obliged to do" or must not do, is laid down by the Roman Pontiff, and in swearing to uphold the Vatican and Council of Trent Decrees, papal subjects agree to give "external respect" to all the pope commands, which completely eliminates conscience from the individual. The "intention" of popery is shown in what it has determined to accomplish; Leo says the church is to "control the minds of men . . . a task she is wholly bent upon accomplishing." (The Index is therefore indispensable.) The intelligence of the human race to be subjugated to an Italian foreigner — and all subjects of that system are a party to this "intention": "Him to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are." As long as a man elects to fight under the German flag or fol- low it, he is the enemy of every man enlisted under opposing banners, likewise when a Catholic layman swears to "detest . . . every sect" opposing popery, he need not affirm or deny his belief; because serving under the papal standard fixes his position among free peoples, and it is sufficient to know what his church teaches. Papal law being in conflict with the rights of the people of this country, those who are subject thereto being aliens, should be denied the rights of citizenship. No adherent of or believer in the laws of the Italian church should be permitted to have the training of our youth in their hands — they should have no place in connection with the public school system, neither are such qualified to take part in politics or serve on juries : politics being 156 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged the science of government, Catholics must "play the game" in favor of the papal government, which is destructive of democ- racy, therefore they should receive only the rights accorded sub- jects of any other foreign ruler, because as citizens, it is their duty to carry out the will of their pope, to put his laws in opera- tion in this land, which renders them a discordant factor in the body-politic seeking the destruction of the priceless heritages of freemen, namely, civil liberty, free speech, free press, and liberty of conscience. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 25, 1917. Dear Sir: Your Question 3 is next in order; but it occurs to me that since you say my answer to 22 is cause for "impeach- ment," I ought to set you right on that at once and not stand on the other. It may help us along generally. (2) You take it altogether too seriously that you got different answers from different persons to different questions put, wasn't that what you wished to get? In court, when it is sought to im- peach one witness by another, exactly the same question must be propounded to all. Instead of my being impeached then by the different answers you got, if we were in court, you would be stultified by the different questions you put. Ask any lawyer. (3) When a certain lawyer, long ago, with the intention of confounding Him, stood up in the crowd and asked Jesus Christ what he must do to be saved, he was told to love the Lord God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. When Nicodemus went to Jesus in the night, seeking the words of eternal life, he was told that unless he was born again, of water and of the Spirit, he could not enter Heaven. (4) Your question to me smacked of the intention of the law- yer; the one you sent to Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley and Sunday Visitor seemed to ask light for a troubled soul, as did Nicodemus. I gave you the answer that Christ gave the lawyer; the others gave you the information you appeared to seek, the same that Christ gave to Nicodemus. (5) Your question to me was not about salvation; you were not concerned about that. Your intention was to show that Catholic teaching in regard to Baptism is unreasonable, hard and narrow. Sensing your purpose, I answered in a way that would open a little, for a sincere mind, the flood-gates of that inimitable love for souls that the Church of the Savior of mankind must have in order to be His Bride. We shall see next if I answered true. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) Any person intelligent enough to read Question 22 will recognize that it was one seeking information as to the doctrine of "Intention" that was decreed by the Council of Trent, while the Catholic association replies with a dissertation on baptism! The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 157 (2) Speaking in his official capacity for the Catholic church, Mr. Farrell denied the dogma of baptism as well as that of "Intention," in his original answer. Upon discovering his supe- riors had reversed his answer relative to baptism, he makes an effort to confuse the subjects of intention and baptism, no doubt hoping to escape the main question by injecting other issues, although the wording of No. 22 is an admission, on my part, that I understood the subject of baptism, which precluded legitimate discussion of any other issue except secondarily. Mr. Farrell says that, in court, to impeach one witness by an- other, exactly the same question must be put to all. Not neces- sarily, especially where a witness seems to parry. If, for any reason, a witness will not answer a direct question as to fact, it is legitimate to present hypothetical questions, and the answer to the one would establish the truth of the other. He charges that I put different questions to different parties, consequently got different answers. I asked HIM about INTENTION: to deny that dogma, he had to deny the corelated dogma of baptism; so, to show his unreliability as a witness on the stand, in the matter of baptism, I wrote letters to his superiors — the highest authority in the church of Rome in America, as follows: Macon, Ga., March 25, 1917. Rev. J. Cardinal Gibbons, Baltimore, Md. Dear Cardinal: I am desirous of obtaining the following in- formation, and address you as being the highest authority to whom I could refer, as follows: Is Baptism essential to salvation and membership in the Cath- olic church? Thanking you for your attention, Very truly, C. A. Yarbrough. Cardinal's Residence, 408 N. Charles St. Baltimore. May 28, 1917. Dear Doctor: His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, instructs me to say that Baptism is essential to salvation, according to the teaching of our Savior, hence it is necessary for membership in the Catholic church. He refers you to his book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," which has an article of some length on the subject. Faithfully yours, E. J. Connelly, C. A. Yarbrough, D. D. S., Asst. Chancellor. Macon, Ga. 158 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Macon, Ga., March 25, 1917. Editor Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana. Dear Sir: Will you kindly state whether or not Baptism is essential to salvation and membership in the Catholic church? Thanking you for your attention, Very truly, C. A. Yarbrough. (Note. — A self -addressed envelope, stamped, was enclosed in these letters. The answer to the above came back in the envelope furnished, written on the bottom of the letter sent the Editor) : "Yes. We hold that Heaven is a supernatural reward; that, therefore, the soul must be elevated to a supernatural degree, and that Baptism effects this. John iii:5 is our authority. Baptism is called a re-birth, viz., to the supernatural life, and the word translated here, 'a man,' is DIS in Greek, which means anyone." Macon, Ga., March 25, 1917. Rt. Rev. Benj. J. Keiley, Savannah, Ga. Dear Bishop Keiley : I would thank you to give me the follow- ing information: Is Baptism essential to salvation and membership in the Cath- olic church? Thanking you for your attention and for the information, Very truly, C. A. Yarbrough. Bishop's House, 222 E. Harris St. Savannah, Ga., June 11, 1917. Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, D. D. S., Dear Sir : On my return after an absence of ten days, I found your letter of May 25th. You ask me: Is Baptism necessary to salvation and member- ship in the Catholic church? The Form of Baptism, that is to say, by immersion or pouring, as practiced in different religious bodies, is not essential ; but the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Obviously the second question is answered in the reply to the first. Most sincerely, f Benj. J. Keiley, Bishop of Savannah. Mr. Farrell says I would be "stultified by the different ques- tions" I put; but, did I put different questions? I asked him for information concerning "Intention," which doctrine he denied; having at the same time denied the doctrine of baptism in connec- tion, I laid this question before his superiors, to show by tangible evidence that he was not truthful as a witness, and this fact their answers established. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 159 (3) Without going into the animus of the questions asked by the lawyer and Nicodemus, suffice it to say they both, in effect, asked the same question, and the sense of the answer to each was the same : love of God and man is equivalent to re-birth. And He did not even intimate that He had an "army" sworn to "perse- cute" them if they refused to accept His teaching ! (4) Mr. Farrell had nothing to do with the "smack" of a question; his association was formed to give information con- cerning the faith and practices of Catholics, and all answers should have been confined to that purpose. Perhaps the associa- tion intended to answer such questions only as "smacked" of a desire to become a papist? He did not give me the answer, how- ever, that Christ gave the lawyer: the lawyer received the plain truth — did I get that from Farrell? But what has all this to do with the doctrine of "Intention" about which I was asking him? (5) Oh, certainly not; having formed an association, with per- mission of the bishop, to teach "heretics" what Catholics believe, the faith and practices of their church, surely he did not expect me to apply for information concerning salvation? Suppose one should desire such information, and ask the identical question, would Farrell's answer above "open a little, for a sincere mind, the flood-gates of that inimitable love for souls that the church of the Savior of mankind must have to be His Bride," or would the doctrine of Intention in connection with Farrell's answer cause the interested soul to fear that that dogma of the pope is a Jesuitical trick the teaching church hopes to "put over" on the Judgment Day when lost souls cry to God for vengeance, saying that it was the fault of the priest or penitent who did not have the right intention, and not the fault of those who possessed an infallible power to define what was necessary for salvation? Mysteries of Babylon! Augusta, Ga., Oct. 27, 1917. Dear Sir: You were asking about Baptism, actual Baptism. Your idea of Catholic teaching was, that membership in the church is essential to salvation, that baptism is essential to mem- bership in the church, that the validity of baptism depends on the "intention" of the priest; thus, the priest holds the soul in the hollow of his heart (hand?). Your mistake was in thinking that actual baptism is essential to salvation. It is not. Desire for the grace of baptism is suffi- cient for salvation. Any Catholic half way instructed could have told you that. You will find it stated in Deharbe's Catechism, if you will take another look. There is no Catechism of Christian Doctrine published by Catholic authority in which it is not stated that there are three kinds of baptism — of water, of blood and of desire. "It is the teaching of the Catholic church that when the baptism of water 160 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged is a physical or MORAL impossibility, eternal life may be ob- tained by the baptism of desire." (Cath. Ency. II, p. 266.) "Hower, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins." (Ibid.) "Baptism^of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a per- fect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism." This doctrine is declared by the Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, where in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it declares man cannot obtain original justice "except by the laver of regeneration or its desire (voto)." The same doctrine is taught by Pope Inno- cent III (De Baptismus, cap. IV). The contrary is condemned by Pius V and Gregory XII, in pro- scribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius (author of the system known as Baiasism). Truly, therefore, baptism is not essential to salvation; that is, actual baptism, which is what you were asking me about. Yours truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. Per R. M. C. COMMENT Instead of answering the simple question regarding "inten- tion," Mr. Farrell comes forward with another long letter and presents other matters not at all pertinent to the question. To get the original question again before us, I reproduce it: "22. If baptism is essential to salvation and membership in your church, and if its validity depends upon whether or not the officiating priest had the right 'intention' at the time of baptizing a subject of the church, how can any one know he is a member of your church — from the pope on down ; do you require a certificate from the priest wherein he declares he had the right 'intention' at the time of performing the ceremony?" This question is somewhat in the form of a syllogism: salva- tion, membership, and intention were admitted, while the conclu- sion was to be established by Farrell's answer, but he failed. Is there any suggestion in the question calling for the above letter? Does it even remotely touch upon the question? He con- tinues to treat the subject of baptism, a question I did not raise; having a copy of Deharbe's Catechism, I am familiar with the subject to which he devotes so much space; its questions and answers are ample, and often amplified by foot-notes — all except the doctrine of intention: this it touched upon very lightly and dropped, just as Farrell did; here is Deharbe: Question "16. What intention must he have who baptizes?" Answer: "He must have the intention to baptize indeed — that is, to do what the church does, or what Christ has ordained." The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 161 In his letter Mr. Farrell is soliloquizing upon what he thinks I ought to have thought, which caused him to wander away from the point and delve into baptism of "desire" and of "blood" ! After all that, he does not attempt to explain how one may know, ac- cording to the teaching and law of his church, that he is in reality a member thereof. He says my mistake was in thinking that actual baptism was essential to salvation — even had I made this mistake, the letters from Cardinal Gibbons, The Sunday Visitor, and Bishop Keiley show me to be in "distinguished" company in this respect. The association seems to be laboring under the impression that I should have been inquiring concerning salvation rather than as to what Catholics are taught by their church, as per invitation. Any school boy should know that no law is enacted except there is a possibility and probability of those things being done which it would prevent; if there were no thieves in the world, we would not have a law against stealing; so, if the Council of Trent enacted a decree requiring the priest to have the right "inten- tion" when he officiates in the church, it is self-evident that the church recognized the possibility of a priest not having the right intention, which would cause shipwreck to the penitent, while that doctrine places a soul's eternal destiny in the hands of the priest; therefore, no Catholic, be he pope or layman, knows he is a member of the papal church. This is the post Farrell should have hitched to when he "drove up," but he wouldn't. Why? The Redeemer said that the way of salvation was so plain that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein: the pope says the institution he "thinks" for is the only true church estab- lished by Christ, yet neither he nor any of his priests can explain the way; the lawyer discovered it, so did Nicodemus, and the Eunuch — even the thief on the cross was not at a loss in the matter. Amusing? No, tragic ! robbing the Master of the fruits of His suffering and death, placing salvation in the hands of men who are often viler wretches than any penitent who kneels before them seeking "absolution." The doctrine of "Intention" of the papal church reminds me of the effort satan made to get Christ to fall down and worship him: promising all things, but unable to make delivery! The pope says to all mankind: "Join my church, obey my decrees, let me think for you, and while I may have to let you spend a term in purga- tory, you will be saved at last — providing, however, my priest had the right INTENTION when he baptized you: without that, your 'internal assent' to all my dogmas, and your 'external respect' for all my decrees will avail you nothing — you have not bAen baptized!" Deharbe declares that "Intention" is required on the part of 162 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged the priest, that's all; no foot-note — like Farrell, he let it alone! That is not the only "dogma" of the only true church which the pope and his priests will not discuss: Taunton, in the Canon Law, under the caption of "Preaching," referring to the Decree of the Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, says : "The Council of Trent warns preachers not to enter into curious and subtle points in their sermons on Purgatory." So purgatory is a "closed" ques- tion — let it alone! Does the way seem clear under the pope? On this subject the Manual of Christian Doctrine teaches: "31. What is requisite that the lawful minister of a sacrament confer it validly? "It is necessary and it is sufficient that, while administering the sacrament, he have the intention of doing what the church does. "32. Why is it necessary that the minister have the intention of doing what the church does? "Because without this the action would be profane and not sacred ; for the minister would act in his own name and not as a minister of God." That "church" makes those statements to the "faithful" — and they dare not question, and the priest dare not attempt to answer — and all are afraid to take it up with the pope, because he would be in the same plight before Reason! If one approaches the nest of a partridge, we are told, the old bird will leave it, making considerable noise — -fluttering around, creating the impression that it is crippled and easily captured, but it keeps withdrawing from the nest, keeping just ahead and out of reach of its enemy, until it is assured attention has been diverted from the nest, then — away it flies! Mr. Farrell (?) can "flutter away" all he wants to: he may go as far as he will into the baptism of water, "desire" or "blood," but MY intention is not to let him get away from the "Intention" of this sacred papal dogma as taught by his church ! The Roman church teaches that it is necessary for me and my fellow-countrymen to submit to the authority of the pope to be saved, and if not submissive, it has the right to employ force, even to the extent of resorting to capital punishment; to make it "expedient" for her to enjoy these "rights" her subjects must exert themselves to bring about con- ditions favorable thereto, but even after she should get you, she has nothing tangible to offer: cannot prove to a reasonable cer- tainty that there is a real member of that institution in the world, notwithstanding which, she would commit murder as a means of making "converts" to the only "true" faith! "Truly, therefore," says Farrell, "baptism is not essential to salvation; that is, actual baptism, which is what you were asking about." He omits from this sentence the words "and member- ship in your church," which were incorporated in the original question. This omission is very important, as it would put a The Roman. Catholic Church Challenged 163 different meaning on the question, making his answer correct; but I will not grant the omission. I was asking about "actual" (water) baptism in connection with the question of "Intention," both of which he denied, declaring that "any person, Catholic, non-Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Infidel could administer valid vaptism," which leaves no doubt about his having understood the question thoroughly in the first instance. He became very badly tangled in his own barrage: Baptism of "desire" or of "blood" being mere substitutes for "water" baptism — to be accepted where the baptism of water is not possible — strengthens the fact of the necessity for baptism. That "water" baptism is requisite is proved when he said that ANY ONE could administer it — that the church provides for emergency cases when the duly appointed minister is not available accentuates the necessity of baptism — yet Farrell denies it! These substitutes for actual baptism, where the intention is accepted for the deed, become "actual baptism" to all intents and purposes — they constitute "valid baptism," and to successfully sustain his answer as to "water" baptism would be absolutely voiding BAPTISM, so when Mr. Farrell admits and explains how a Catholic, non-Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Infidel can administer valid baptism of desire or blood I will admit his answers are true, also that he knew what I was thinking about. When a political institution attempts to masquerade as Chris- tian, taking for its rule and guide the "Traditions of of Men" instead of the Bible, being absolutely under the government of an "infallible man" instead of an "Infallible God," it certainly needs an Index to prevent its adherents from investigating such "holy" dogmas as "Intention," "Infallibility," etc., and subject them to an inhuman oath when proposing the like for belief. Augusta, Ga., Oct. 29, 1917. Dear Sir: Of course, the answers you received to the question you submitted to Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley and the Sun- day Visitor were also correct. You asked them a different question. You seemed to be con- cerned about salvation in that question. They, no doubt, took you in good faith, thinking that you wished information for your spiritual comfort, believing that you were in doubt on the im- portant question of your eternal salvation; therefore, they an- swered you just as our Lord answered Nicodemus. Do you object that they treated your question as though asked sincerely? You know, of course, that the Catholic church places more em- phasis upon the value of baptism and its necessity where physi- cally and morally possible, than any other denomination, account- ing the baptism of infants even as necessary, even more neces- sary than for adults, since except by a miracle of grace they can not have the desire or make that pure act of love which is a substitute for baptism; therefore, the church loses no oppor- tunity to teach to all who are in good faith the ineffable graces 164 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged bestowed in this sacrament. And it is because her clergy have no time for indiscriminate controversy that they answer such ques- tions as you propounded without any qualification. They know that if you accepted their answer, as they took your question, in good faith, you will be benefited by it and if you have merely laid a trap to "ensnare" them, like the Pharisees who "watched" the Master and tried by "subtlety" to inveigle Him, you are only bringing confusion upon yourself in the end. Be fair; all big men are fair. What, weren't you fair to me? Oh, yes, you were fair to me. Well, weren't you fair to Cardinal Gibbons and the others? Yes, you were fair to them. Then, what do you mean, "be fair"? You were not fair to yourself. You did not give your mind a chance; that is what I mean. There is some- thing in every man and there is something in you that is bigger, more worthy, more noble than the petty predisposition to play smart at the expense of right and truh. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. Comment on this long letter, wherein Mr. Farrell is continuing to "flutter away" from the doctrine of "Intention" on the broken pinions of "baptism," is barely necessary, as it shows perhaps better than anything I may say how he attempts to becloud the question; but as he continues to press a subject NOT raised by me, but admitted in original question, a few observations will be in order. I do know the value the Roman church attaches to baptism — it being the first sacrament upon the validity of which all the other six depends, which so deeply impressed me with his flat denial. The Bible declares that whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved — baptism being an outward symbol of the inward cleansing which comes with the re-birth, while the pope teaches that "in baptism . . . original sin, and all the sins committed before baptism, are forgiven" while those committed afterward is forgiven by the priest, who may require the peni- tent to do penance, which may consist in paying a sum to the "church" or perform some act of torture to mind or body. Those of a studious, theological turn of mind can ponder over this dogma of that church which imputes to the symbol the power and work of the Holy Spirit and makes the soul depend upon the priest instead of the Father for forgiveness of sin after baptism. Yes, I understand the emphasis Roman Catholicism places upon baptism — an emphasis that found expression in the Jesuit priests going into heathen lands, as stated before, becoming members of heathen priesthoods in order to "baptize" the people, without their knowledge or consent, making a specialty of baptizing chil- dren. In the "Short History of Religion" contained in Deharbe's Catechism, the information is conveyed in the statement that Francis Xavier "himself declares in one of his letters that in one month he administered Holy Baptism to ten thousand heathen." The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 165 Xavier was a Jesuit "missionary, " Deharbe was a Jesuit — and it seems from his letters that the man who writes as "J. J. Farrell" is a Jesuit; they are especially trained in the art of evasion. Centuries ago they were denying their Christ as a means of winning converts to His banner: to-day Farrell is denying the necessity of that dogma; so essential did these Jesuit fathers of Farrell's church deem baptism that they practiced deceit to ad- minister it — their "intention" was, "The Greater Glory of God" — the "end justifying the means," all of which is now denied by him, the official exponent of Catholicism in Georgia! Some people wonder how the papal church has survived the Dark Ages; the solution to the problem is simple: just make it a capital crime to exercise the powers of the mind, interpret Holy Scripture, or read any book on faith or morals not issued accord- ing to the Rules of the Papal Index — make it a crime to hold an opinion contrary to the "thought" of an Italian foreigner clothed with power of enforcing his "thought," and you have a streak of darkness that will reach through Time and Eternity. Had the question of "intention" been presented by a Catholic — which would be impossible — the church would have disposed of it by stating that the pope had so declared, and that to question would be unbecoming the "faithful," while for a heretic to ask such questions, though ostensibly invited, is "butting in," or is questioning their religion, which Mr. A. J. Long said Catholics resent. He could show resentment — but could not answer ques- tions ! The Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia was asked to explain the dogma of "Intention." The octrine was denied, which made it necessary to deny also the dogma of baptism to sustain said denial of the main question. To demonstrate that his testi- mony was not according to established fact, baptism was referred to other witnesses, who promptly confounded his testimony, after which he writes long epistles discussing baptism, explains what he thinks the other witnesses thought I wished to know, seems hurt that I was not seeking information relative to salvation (after admitting the association was not formed for evangelical purposes), but never answered the direct question, how any one may know he is a "sure-enough" member of the pope's church, although the Bible commands the followers of Christ to be always ready to "give a reason for the faith that is within you." Mr. Farrell said I tried to "play smart at the expense of right and truth," but he does not "put his finger on the spot": does the papal church deem it an attempt to "play smart" for Reason to ask for an explanation of a doctrine which it proposes for belief, and claims it has the right to enforce belief, yet is unable to explain? The Christ invited questions — and did not "upbraid" His questioners! 166 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Augusta, Ga., Oct. 30, 1917. Dear Sir: You say you "are NOT satisfied" with my answer to Number 3. Evidently, however, you are convinced it is true, as you did not ask Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley or the Sunday Visitor about it, although you had it before you when you wrote them. Of course, you are not "satisfied" because my answer dissolves into nothingness a link in the chain of your imagined conspiracy that you had so painfully wrought. Your Question 3 was based on the assumption that the seal of confession binds to secrecy the penitent as well as the priest. "If it does," you thrust, "how could you know that priests do not ask immoral questions of your women?" Now that was not half bad, had your assumed premise been sound. To cling to a point after it is blunted, however, shows bad judgment. When you were informed that the seal of confession does not bind the penitent, that every penitent is free to disclose matters of confession, that Catholics frequently talk among themselves about them; your premise broke down flat. You, then, can imagine NOTHING to keep us from knowing that immoral questions are not put to our women in confession. That is, unless you will accuse our women of concealing what nothing but their own complicity could compel them to conceal. You will not accuse them, so that ends the chapter, leaving abso- lutely nothing. The second quotation you impute to Liguori, I abjure. The first and last are not to the point ; you can see that. Your charge that Catholic men are "recreant to womanhood," I pass over; let our women make that. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT If Tabby was caught eating biddies to-day, we know he will do so again to-morrow, if occasion permits: Mr. Farrell had occa- sion, and he "abjured" baptism! It isn't necessary to engage a busy person with more than one question to show an intelligent jury what weight is to be given to the testimony of a witness who has testified contrary to the established facts in a case — therefore he has been impeached by his superiors in the faith. Perhaps I did not refer this question to the gentlemen named, knowing they "have no time for indiscriminate controversy." Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley and the Editor were asked a direct question; they had no knowledge of its import; it may be interesting to know, in this connection, that when some of them have "time for indiscriminate controversy," they may consider TRUTH more elastic than it really is; for instance, in his attempt to sustain the papal contention that Mary had no other children than Jesus, Cardinal Gibbons says, in his book, "Faith of Our Fathers," as to "first-born" not necessarily meaning there were other children: "We find this epithet applied to Machir, for in- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 167 stance, who was the only son of Manasseh," while in Joshua vi:17 the fact is mentioned that "the daughters of Manasseh" had an inheritance "AMONG HIS SONS:' When is a "point blunted"? A point can not be blunted unless it is driven against some resisting substance: certainly Mr. Far- rell will not say he has offered any resistance in his arguments to blunt any "point" of my questions — by evasion he always kept away from the point. It must be blunted, though, because he said so ! But it appears to me as long as a point meets with no resist- ance, penetrating without being forced, it is not blunted. Mr. Farrell (?) says he adjures the citation from Liguori — the papal church gives him that right! — he was very verbose in letters explaining what he knew I was familiar with, so why is he so sparing in regard to the teaching of Liguori? Why did he not cite from him? If he was not trying to conceal this doctrine — the doctrine that the papal church tried to put Mr. Watson in the penitentiary for exposing — it would have been the simple, honest, straightforward, convincing thing for him to have had this theology translated by a non-Catholic Latin scholar in Au- gusta and submitted it (Catholics can send it through the mails, but heretics like Tom Watson can not do so) ; this would have been conclusive. As this subject will be discussed at length in connection with another topic, I will leave the reader to muse over Mr. Farrell's expressive brevity in handling Liguori's (moral) Theology! Mr. Farrell is sure I am evidently convinced his anwer is true, as I did not refer it to Cardinal Gibbons : in referring to "truth" and the cardinal in the same breath, reminds me ! I believe I can prove to the satisfaction of Mr. Farrell even that his cardinal is not altogether above practicing deceit in matters affecting his church, but is in fact deceptive. In the "Manual of Prayers, for the Use of the Laity," a nota- tion on a fly-leaf reads, "having been diligently compiled and ex- amined, it is hereby approved" by James Cardinal Gibbons, bear- ing the imprimatur of Augustinus, Archiep. This imprimatur is an indication that the book was censored and printed in accord with the Rules of the Index, stamping it as true Catholic doctrine which laymen may read. Page 413 of this volume contains the "Profession of Faith" or layman's oath, wherein the promise is made to observe all that the church commands, to believe every- thing defined and declared by the sacred canons, especially all the decrees of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council, all of which are in the Canon Law of the Roman church to which I often refer. This Manual of Prayers, remember, is authorita- tive, being issued for the use of Catholic laymen; now, I pick up another book; it is written by James Cardinal Gibbons — written for Protestant readers and has no "imprimatur." It is a grand 168 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged ex parte presentation of the Roman Catholic religion, and, like Mr. Farrell's answers to my questions, very plausible and satis- fying to those who know nothing of the subjects or who are un- critical; in his book the cardinal reveals one face (the religious) to a groping non-Catholic public, while he keeps the other face (the canon law and decrees) out of sight! In this book written for non-Catholic consumption the cardinal says, on page 220, "that the Catholic church has always been the zealous promoter of religious and civil liberty" and that "her doctrine is, that as man, by his own free will, fell from grace, so of his own free will must he return to grace. Conversion and coercion are two terms that can never be reconciled." We now turn to Canon 14 of the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent, which converts to Roman Catholicism swear to obey and believe, and we read: "If any one says that the baptized are not to be compelled to a Christian life by any other penalty save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments until they repent, let him be anathema" (let him be damned) . Unless Mr. Farrell can reconcile that doctrine with the statements above cited from Gibbon's "Faith of Our Fathers," the cardinal will stand convicted of deceit — can this reconciliation be perfected? I think not! Gibbons was writing for Protestants — the Council of Trent was legislating for the faithful of the pope ; these two citations show the two faces of the papal church; one for the heretic, the other for the faithful, and reveal a deceitfulness not inculcated by Christ. The copy in hand mentioned above is the seventy-seventh edition, one million copies; perhaps it has had its weight in the "conversion" of those 500,000 adults Mr. Farrell boasts of; cer- tainly, if a person reads that book, and nothing else along that line — having no knowledge of the laws and decrees he swears to uphold and defend in becoming a member of that institution — he may embrace the papal faith, even though it may also be true that every argument presented by the cardinal would fade away as mist before the sun if both sides were diligently studied. No doubt this fact accounts for the law of that church which pro- hibits debating with heretics. Musing over Farrell's allusion to the cardinal, in the matter of establishing truth by his testimony, reminded me of other things in "The Faith of Our Fathers," especially where the cardinal refers to liberty and coercion, etc., so I wrote him the following letter, to see if a certain book supported the cardinal's state- ments : „ , ~ j- i oM, Macon, Ga., July 7, 1919. Rev. J. Cardinal Gibbons, ' ' J ' Baltimore, Md. Dear Cardinal: I have recently finished reading your book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," which was very interesting. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 169 I was very much impressed with the statement, among other things, made in the "Introductory," p. xiv, that: "There is no Freemasonry in the Catholic church; she has no secrets to keep back. She has not one set of doctrines for the Bishops and Priests, and another for the laity. She has not one creed for the initiated and another for outsiders. Everything in the Catholic church is open and above board. She has the same doctrines for all — the pope and the peasant." I would thank you to send me a copy of the Roman Ritual: "Pontificale Romanum" (for which will remit), or advise where I may secure a copy of it. Thanking you for your attention, Very truly, C. A. Yarbrough. I secured the book; I will let the reader judge whether or not it proves the cardinal a ( ) or supports his "Faith of Our Fathers" in the matters of civil and religious liberty and free will, which will be cited in pages to follow. In view of the cardinal's assertion that the papal church "has not one creed for the initi- ated and another for outsiders" makes Mr. McCreary's tactics appear very strange, indeed ! Augusta, Ga., Oct. 31, 1917. Dear Sir: You have had a trick turned on you (or have you?) , where you quote from a "priest's hand book" questions that you say priests MUST ask of penitents. (1) First, there is no such book. Second, the questions you quote are from a layman's prayer book. They are questions the penitent asks himself in his secret examination of conscience, which he makes in preparation for confession. There is a list of such questions under each commandment, all framed in a way calculated to help the penitent to recall sins committed. (2) The object of these questions is exactly the contrary of what you say. They are provided so that the priest need NOT ask such questions of the penitent. So your indignant protest about the tearing off the garment of modesty, etc., is all lost. If a woman penitent has not sinned against purity she has nothing to say and the priest must not ask touching the subject. If she has been guilty, of course, she must confess; but who rends the garment of modesty in that case? (3) You object that confession is "unnatural." Well, it is no more unnatural for a woman than for a man, for a layman than for a priest; and you know doubtless that even the pope must make his confession the same way as any poor sinner. Unnatural? Well, it rubs nature rather hard sometime; but so did the suffer- ings of the Master; should we expect Him to do all the hard things, and leave us "primrose paths of dalliance"? (4) You attribute our submission to early training; but how do you account for the submission of thousands of adult converts (over 500,000 in this country alone last year) ? You do not fail to ring in the Index (My! how things must haunt you !) , but what 170 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged could there be for the Index to conceal that people who use the confessional do not know? (5) In conclusion now; if we are satisfied with it, ought you not to be satisfied without it? Very truly, J. J. Farrell. COMMENT Yes, I have a copy of the book referred to. (1) Mr. Farrell says there is no such book — that the quotations are from a "Layman's Prayer Book" — all right, so far; but let us analyze the proposition : For Farrell to be correct in fact, and for a book to be a "layman's" in the true sense of the word, it must be one prepared and issued by laymen for the use of laymen — at least laymen must have a voice in determining its contents; if not, but is prepared and issued solely by Roman priests in accord with Rules of the papal Index FOR the use of laymen, then it's a "Priest's Hand Book" or "Priest's Prayer Book" for laymen. Mr. Farrell knows that no layman in the world can have a voice in such matters; he also knows that what laymen are to believe and what they are to do and what they are to avoid doing are all laid down, as Leo says, by the pope, assisted by the holy fathers (the forces that made the Dark Ages) who attend to all such things for laymen before they are born subject to them. A thorough investigation of this subject reveals the following: Only a nominal percentage of the Roman Catholics of the world can read ; now, as the papal church claims to be the same, always, everywhere, the suggested questions cited from the "prayer" book form an outline which must be followed — the information the priest must obtain in the confessional from men, women and children, and where people can not read, as is the rule where the papal church has control of education, then the priest must probe the most secret chambers of the heart as a doctor probes for an imbedded bullet, orally indicating the nature of the sins to be confessed, and draw them out with questions to the point. No sane person will attempt to deny this conclusion. Of course, it may be true, that in communities where an appreciable number of Catholics can read, the PRIEST puts the book of prepared ques- tions into their hands and gives them to understand that they must study them and make answer; in either case the result and effect are the same. There can be no moral difference between asking direct questions of a woman and placing a list of questions in her hands and demand that she take them up in sequence and answer "guilty" or "not guilty" to every count in the Decalog, specifying all circumstances surrounding each sin. A Georgia publicist was harassed five years in the courts for citing some of the questions prepared by Liguori, Dens, and others, that priests are required to ask women in the confessional, The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 171 although said citations were printed in Latin, therefore, as I do not wish to "tangle" with Uncle Sam, who is becoming quick to obey the Roman church, I will not quote any of the raw language of these papal theological "saints," but will go just far enough to show what they are and what they do for a nation. (2) Two of the leading theologians of the papal church are Alphonsus Liguori and Peter Dens; the theology of one or the other, if not both, is taught in every Catholic seminary in the world where priests are being trained, and they declare, as to the confessional, that priests must have the following versicle in readiness : "Who, Which, Where, With Whom, Why, How, When."— Dens, Vol. VI, p. 125; Liguori, Vol. II, p. 464. (I most respectfully ask Mr. Farrell what becomes of the "garment of modesty" of those who voluntarily go through this or do so at the command of the priest?) In "The Mirror of the Clergy," p. 357, priests are instructed: "It is necessary for the confessor (priest) to know everything on which he is to exercise his judgment. Let him, then, with wisdom and subtlety, interrogate sinners on the sins which they may ignore, or conceal through same." Shame for their sin caused Adam and Eve to make garments of fig leaves, indicating there was some sense of righteousness left in them ; shame for sin except to the utterly depraved is con- cealed from the vulgar gaze of man by the "garment of modesty," and the less sinful, the tighter this garment is entwined. Where a bachelor priest finds this garment tightly drawn, he must be wise and subtle in his questions and tear it asunder! Mr. Farrell says, in par. 2, that "the object of these questions (in the hand book) is exactly the contrary of what you say"; is his statement supported by his saintly theologians, above cited? If not, who are more liable to be the deceiver, he teaching a heretic, or they teaching the pope's priests? Through the theologians the papal church puts this question to priests after they have heard the confessions of daughters, wives, mothers and sweethearts: "While hearing confession, have I not asked questions on sins against the Sixth (Seventh in Protestant Bible) Commandment, with the intention of satisfying my evil passions?" — Mirror of Clergy, p. 582. According to this doctrine of the papal church, the priest is first required to swim through a filthy sewer and after getting out is thrown in again to see if he enjoyed it! The very popular book by Debreyne instructs young priests in the "art" of questioning penitents, in a "Treatise on All the Sins 172 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Against the Sixth Commandment," as well as questions on mar- ried life. Dens, Liguori, Debreyne, Bailey, and other Roman Catholic "holy" theologians warn priests against the determination of girls and married women refusing to confess sins against this commandment. These hell-hounds knew it would require the wis- dom and subtlety of the devil to tear from woman the garment of modesty of the soul and conscience that God provided as a pro- tection against the wiles of satan! In Apostolic days many of the people of the early church de- cided to have all things in common; there was nothing compul- sory about it. Ananias and his wife Sapphira deposited a part of their goods in the common fund and withheld a part. They tried to fool the people with their false piety, but God revealed their sin to Peter, who reminded them that they were not required to do as the others, that their lying deceit had been made known, so they paid the penalty — God punished them, not Peter: when the Jesuitical deceitfulness of the devil was manifested in the Garden of Eden, telling Adam and Eve that if they ate of the forbidden fruit "ye shall not surely die," they ate, contrary to the command of God, whereupon they discovered their nakedness and prepared a covering of fig leaves. Man lost Paradise through the wisdom and subtlety of the devil and was separated from God. To perfect a reconciliation, Christ gave His life to atone for that sin, so that all who call upon God for pardon in His name receive it. The papal church says this is not so; that God gave the pope's priests the right and power to forgive sin and inflict expiatory punishment by doing penance: if this be true, it shows that God is a "respecter of persons" — yet Peter said He was not — in that He did not give the Roman priests the same aid of the Holy Spirit in detecting sin as He did to Peter in the Ananias case, so that they could read or discern the hidden secrets of the hearts and minds of men and women; so, by implication, the pope says that, to overcome this grave oversight on God's part relative to papal priests in the confessional, it is necessary to put penitents through the grilling process of Liguori's Versicle, with wisdom and cunning! In the matter of the confessional, it appears to me that God ought at least to vouchsafe to the priest that "Divine assistance" of infallibility in carrying out the dogmas of the pope that the pope says he has in defining them to make sure that the dogma of the pope is infallible and that it would be without sinful con- sequences in its operation with the priest and penitent in the confessional. This is so logical, even a Hottentot would agree with it if he was permitted to exercise his own judgment in the premises ! The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 173 The instant a woman confesses her sin to a man, that instant she doubtless becomes an instrument in his downfall; no person can act as the sewer through which must flow all the filth of human depravity without becoming defiled. The confessional destroys the Lord's Prayer, wherein is the petition, "Lead us not into temptation." If the pope has given the priest the power to call Jesus Christ from Heaven, cause Him to enter a piece of pancake and be devoured of men, surely the priest should be clothed with power to get His aid in the matter of locating sin in the confessional — be his X-Ray — as a means of keeping his serv- ant the priest out if unnecessary temptation in making subtle searches for the hidden sins of women and girls ! From these facts, it seems to me that the Italian church seeks, through the confessional, to pollute the human race at its very source, even as the devil did in the beginning by ensnaring woman; this conclusion is based on a consideration of what is required in the confessional, and the admission of papal evidence, as follows: Cardinal de Boland wrote a book for the exclusive use of priests; as Archbishop of Lyons, he was one of the pope's princes, and evidently knew what he was talking about when he said that priests are in "continual temptation" in the confessional with female penitents, and that "the soul is gradually enfeebled in such a way that the virtue of chastity is forever lost." Who rends the "garment of modesty" of priest and penitent, Farrell, women, or the damable dogmas of an Italian imposter posing as GOD? If the confessional destroys the chastity of priests, what does it do for women? If it destroys the chastity of one soul, yet is ordained of God, then the prayer to Him, "Lead us not into temptation," is of no avail — in fact, is a travesty on human intelligence ! Because of the large number of complaints lodged against the priests, Pope Pius IV issued a Bull requiring all girls and mar- ried women who had been seduced by their holy fathers in the confessional to denounce them to the "Holy" Inquisition. But before attempting its general enforcement throughout Europe, he made an experiment in Seville, Spain. Thirty Inquisitors were appointed to question the women, being provided with thirty notaries to record the answers. The women came; the Inquisitors found the task greater than could be attended to in the prescribed time, so thirty days more was granted, but because of the long stream of ladies the call was made for thirty additional days, which was also granted. The expectations of the pope were so far exceeded that the investigation was suspended, the ladies released from further testifying and the priests — left in statu quo It is a true saying, that "You can not prevent a bird from 174 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged flying over your head, but can keep it from making a nest in your hair." The bird flies on, and is forgotten; but if a flitting evil thought crosses the mind it must be caged in memory's chambers and held there until convenient to release it in the confessional — the passing bird must be given a nest for a day or a year; if not, then a grave, mortal sin is committed in going to communion without having first turned the "bird" over to the priest, notwith- standing the Bible declares that a man must examine himself to see if he partake of the communion worthily or unworthily. Let us come a little nearer home. In 1901 President McKinley, by Joint Resolution of Congress, appointed a Commission to in- vestigate the lands held by papal priests in the Philippine Islands. In the name of the United States Government this Commission conducted a regular court of inquiry, submitting its findings to the Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, which report is known as Senate Document No. 190. The entire information along cer- tain lines may be condensed in the statement that a Roman priest was lord of all he surveyed ; when he officiated at a marriage, the "first night" was his if he was so inclined; if he fancied any woman he could deport the father, husband, brother or sweetheart if an objection was raised, as he had the power to banish. Ex- President William Howard Taft was Chairman of this Commis- sion, and the document presented to the Senate was sworn testi- mony. Because Uncle Sam has so many of the pope's faithful in high places, that document soon went out of print, and President McKinley was soon "removed from the earth by death." We will look a little closer around us for further evidence; State's evidence. Jeremiah J. Crowley was a Roman priest twenty-one years — from 1886 to 1907. In his remarkable book, "Romanism, a Menace to the Nation," he prints the names of a number of priests who co-operated with him in efforts to purify the Roman church from the inside in Chicago, 111., lodging more than one hundred documents with the pope of Rome and his rep- resentative in Washington, D. C, containing charges against the hierarchy, which received the same treatment as the report from Seville, Spain — nothing was done, except to promote some of the worst priests to better fields, according to Crowley. On pages 62-3 he prints a letter which he says was signed by 1,500 Catholic women of Chicago and sent to Archbishop Quigley demanding that he protect them from drunken, lecherous priests, the last paragraph reading: "We humbly and respectfully look to you for protection and redress." Mr. Crowley states that "Priestly celibacy and auricular con- fession have been, and are now, prolific sources of crime and licen- tiousness (p. 71). This doctrine actually increases crime (p. 73). It was established as a portion of the system before the thirteenth The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 175 century — history attests that it originated in the licentiousness of the Roman clergy in the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, and made a law of the church at the Fourth Council Lateran in 1215, was confirmed by the Council of Trent, Sess. XIV (p. 74) . This wholesale demoralization was one of the principal motives for instituting celibacy and auricular confession. The result ac- complished was just what the Vatican machine wanted. This de- moralization compelled wicked priests, prelates and other mem- bers of the hierarchy of both sexes to stand by each other for the Vatican System — stand by Authority, right or wrong," (p. 77). No papist would meet him in debate, but a so-called "fanatic" ruined his mind, it is said, by breaking a water-pitcher on his head at one of his lectures ! P. A. Seguin tells the same story (and his testimony was an- swered by a broken jaw-bone and a fractured arm) ; the priests and historians with manhood enough to say anything at all in each country and century prove its demoralizing effect. The pope teaches, and Catholics believe, that the Italian is the only "true" church established by Jesus Christ : now, if the papal church is Christian, that is, follower of Christ, it must give un- questionable evidence that it tracks Christ in all things; so, let us make only one test and see if papalism is following Him: When the Samarian woman met Jesus at the well, did He ask her, "Who, Which, Where, With Whom, How, When," according to the papal versicle, or did He simply inform her what she knew was true? Did He quizz the woman taken in sin and brought before Him at the temple — was she "grilled" by any process simi- lar to that invented by Liguori? NO! Are the popes Christlike in the confessional? If the Christ did not probe — which would have been the use of force, destroying free moral agency — what right has a bachelor priest to probe the hearts of females? The devil, with a plausible, Jesuitical lie, got Eve into his power, and it required a God to die to undo the mischief. From that day to this, satan has never relaxed his efforts to strike at God through His creatures for casting him out of Heaven; by dominating the woman, satan knows he can land mankind in hell if there is any chance of doing so at all — so observe how he uses women: Mohammedanism centers around the harem; Morman- ism, polygamy; Romanism, the confessional! Mr. Farrell (?) says, "If she has been guilty, of course she must confess." But, who is it that says she must — God? NO; the Italian pope says so ! Here is a maiden, sweet as the perfumes of many flowers, pure as a lily, artless as a dove : in his going to and fro seeking whom he may devour, the devil causes an evil thought, like the bird, to flash across the mind's vision; she goes to her "father-confessor" 176 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged who by wisdom and cunning makes her refresh her memory, the repetition accentuates the thought — the bird has been caged by the assistance of a papal priest — and the clutches of satan may never be broken ! Charles Chiniquy was a member of the papal church fifty years, twenty-five as a priest; he turned State's evidence: he said that he attended one dying priest in Canada who confessed he had heard about 1,500 confessions of married women and girls, and that he had destroyed or scandalized at least 1,000 of them with depraved questions, while the purity of 95 was destroyed by him through actual sin. (That priest grasped the meaning or sug- gestion of the "fathers" : couldn't marry one but went wrong with almost one hundred.) Chiniquy said a banker would not let a priest go into his vault, handle his gold, pry into his private business affairs, but will let that same priest search out the hidden rooms of his wife's heart ! He was priest long enough to know what he was talking about. (3) It is said that the papal church once debated whether or not a woman had a soul ; anyway, the early fathers of that church abhorred her as a thing unclean, yet some of them always "used" her, even when she belonged to another man. With these facts in mind, it is not hard to understand how Farrell (?) can say it is no more unnatural for a timid, shrinking girl or wife to unrobe, as it were, in the presence of a wine-fed bachelor agent of popery than for a man. Shame on anything that calls itself a man who says that! I have suspected before now that "Farrell" was not doing this writing for the Catholic Laymen's Association; my suspicions are now confirmed. I do not believe a Catholic layman could make that assertion — it "smacks" too much of the priest! "Unnatural," adds this priest or cleric, "well, it rubs nature rather hard sometime; but so did the sufferings of the Master." What blasphemy! Christ's sufferings did not rub nature at all; to break the chains, pay the debt and set the captive free from sin was the task for a God, and when it was "finished" on the cross, all Nature shook in acclaim for the Majesty of its God. The price was paid — the chasm between Man and his God bridged, the throne of grace once more accessible; notwithstand- ing this, and also that the confessional is liable to destroy the priest and penitent, Farrell says it is no more unnatural for a woman than a man. Papal theologians acknowledge that the con- fessional is a constant danger to priests, which is equivalent to saying that in trying to follow Christ there is grave danger of losing your soul. "It rubs nature rather hard," I will admit, for a soul to be Christ-like where it must go through the Italian con- fessional in life, and pagan purgatory after death— and never know even that it was really after all a member of the Italian institution ! The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 177 The "holy" fathers realized that the confessional would "nib nature rather hard sometime"; for it is only after a priest takes the vow of celibacy that he is initiated into the mysteries of the confessional through the study of Rome's Moral Theology — studies which no man can pursue without degradation to mind and body — studies which act upon the natural organs and cause pollution, yet young priests are brazenly told that "There is no sin for ycu in these pollutions." — Dens, Vol. I, p. 315. (If the studies themselves have this effect, what will result from their use in the confessional on priest and penitent?) The popes have certainly made it possible for Roman priests to travel "primrose paths of dalliance" in the confessional, yet Christ said, "Take My yoke upon you, for the yoke is easy and the burden is light." The gulf between the Gospel of Christ and the dogma of the pope is as deep and wide as that between Heaven and Hell. (4) I account for it on several grounds. Some one has said you could sell moonshine — not the kind revenue officers hunt — if it could be bottled and adequately advertised: with the newspapers filling their columns every time the pope or one of his principal agents sneezes or has himself interviewed, or a notice is printed of some papal clan holding a meeting, monopolizing the picture screen to advertise priests, nuns, shrines, crucifixes, relics, and so on, preventing all discussions of papalism in the press, apply- ing the principles of the boycott in attempts to prevent Protestant preachers from making a comparison of papalism with Protes- tantism, closing public halls against this information being dis- seminated, making it a crime to sell papers on the streets that criticze the decrees and dogmas of the pope, attempts to put men in the penitentiary for citing in Latin from papal theologians, intimidating men in all stations of political, business and private life, censoring the school books of the nation, I doubt if there were as many as one hundred among that whole number who knew or know any more about papalism than I did a few years ago— that the very oath they swore when they joined makes them enemies of the very Government that harbors and gives them the protection of its laws! "You do not fail to ring in the Index," said Farrell. "But what could there be for the Index to conceal . . .?" For one thing, it conceals the fact that the confessional is an invention of the Dark Ages, and that it has no warrant for existence in the Gospels of Christianity, and that the "history" of the thing, written by Cath- olics who endeavored to live Christ-like, condemns it as being destructive, rather than an aid to salvation. (5) Priests of Rome know that nearly all women look upon the confessional as did those of Chicago; that they shrink from it naturally as being something unclean, and that "it rubs nature 178 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged rather hard sometime" for them to enter it, so I am not satisfied with it, even if Catholics are ; I am no more satisfied with it than I would be content to know that a desolating disease was preva- lent in some other part of the country, but headed my way (and if the laws of the pope are not "headed" my way, they are headed toward no one!) I look upon Roman Catholics under papalism just as the United States looked upon the poor Cubans under Spanish and papal misrule: brow-beaten, mentally downtrodden, spiritual skeletons who fear to ask but must accept with a smile whatsoever is given them! At times, when I consider what Italian popery has done for the peoples of the world, and what would be the fate of Catholics themselves right here in Georgia were it not for the presence of Protestantism which TIES HER BLOODY HANDS, and then realize how hard Catholic laymen are struggling to advance that system, I feel toward them a little of the resentment I have for the system. For them to bury their heads in the sand (in the Index) and yell "LIAR" when facts are presented does not hide the facts any more than the ostrich is hidden from the hunter because he has stuck his head in the sand ! Farrell says, "If we are satisfied with it, ought not you to be satisfied without it?" The pipe-smoking opium fiend and the drunkard ask the same question, and my reply is the same to Farrell as to them. To return to the Cubans : They would still be plodding in a life- less, degraded, servile, starving, emaciated state, had they not been liberated by America; in this condition they may have gone on until they became extinct without knowing they were more than a species of bipedal animals but for their enforced emanci- pation : for the only freedom the Roman church inculcates is, free- dom from having to think in matters of faith and morals. Cath- olics may be "satisfied with it" (the confessional) — they may re- main as the Cubans were; I do not hope to influence them, be- cause they fear the pope, who has decreed excommunication against those who read such as this for the purpose of honestly weighing the matter; but if my efforts will keep one soul from being ensnared in the toils of the fowler, I will consider my work not in vain as a freeman discharging his duty as he comprehends it; and if Roman Catholic women in America are NOT crucified in the confessional, as demanded by their pope, they owe a debt of gratitude to Protestantism which only eternity can reveal. To those who can read, the questions in the hand-book must be read and answers rendered to the priest; Farrell says they are provided "so that the priest need NOT ask such questions of the penitent." In this matter, the priest is like a highway robber who meets his victim at some secluded spot — it makes no difference whether the highwayman "covers" him with a gun and makes him The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 179 "hand over" his valuables, or probes his pockets himself; it makes no difference to the penitent man or woman whether the priest draws the pope's dogma on them and forces a "voluntary" con- fession, or whether he employs "wisdom" and "subtlety" in prob- ing the heart — the result in each case is the same. When a pope issues a Bull or Decree known as "Motu Proprio," he is "using the fullness of his powers"; and what he commands in such Bull is valid, "even when it would be contrary to laws," or when "contrary to his own decrees." — Taunton's Canon Law, p. 446. The real meaning of such a decree is, "Above the Law." On October 9, 1911, "Pius PP. X" issued a Motu Proprio decree to protect the Roman Catholic hierarchy, both men and women, against scandal, and show contempt for civil law, excommunicat- ing any person who presumes to summon a Roman Catholic eccle- siastic before a lay tribunal, either for a civil or criminal offense, as follows: "In these evil days, when ecclesiastical immunities receive no consideration, and not only priests and clerics, but even bishops and cardinals of the Holy Roman church, are cited before lay tribunals, this condition of things absolutely demands of Us to restrain by severe penalty those who can not be otherwise de- terred from the commission of so heinous a crime against the religious character. Therefore, by this Motu Proprio We deter- mine and ordain that whatever private person, lay or cleric, man or woman, shall, without having obtained permission of ecclesias- tical authorities, cite to a lay tribunal and compel to appear there publicly any ecclesiastical person, either in a criminal or civil case, will incur excommunication 'latae sententiae' specially re- served to the Roman Pontiff. This by these Letters is decided, and We wish it to stand ratified, everything to the contrary not- withstanding." Pius X was voicing the Encyclical of Leo XIII, who said that "no private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge which Christ our Lord has bestowed on that ONE ALONE (the pope) whom He placed in charge of His Lambs and His Sheep. . . . Subjects should be admonished not to rashly judge their prelates even if they chance to see them acting in a blameworthy manner. They are to be warned against the danger of . . . op- position to the superiors whose shortcomings they may notice. Should, therefore, the superiors have committed grievous sins their inferiors ought not to refuse them respectful submission . . . even when they are rightly judged to have deserved censure," p. 203, subject, "Chief Duties of Christians (Catholics) as Citi- zens." Pius X was Leo's successor; these two men lived and died in our day; and it seems that as the Roman Italian church advances in years it digs deeper and wider the chasm to engulf the human 180 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged race; here we see how the pope first forces his subjects into the confessional, then threatens with excommunication those who may see fit to protest against what may take place there with the bachelor priest. Remember, Americans ! Not only does this Law of an Italian monarch trample the laws of the land under his unhallowed feet, but there are millions of women who are driven into the confessional by the pope's laws in America, and there are about 65,000 women in America locked up in papal prisons called convents, where the LAW of the land is forbidden to enter, be- cause such places have become the territory of the pope — but the priests have keys to said asylums; the relic of ancient paganism revived by the pope when papal mental darkness covered the known world. Remember, also, that hundreds of thousands of Americans, in their ignorance of Romanism, are annually becom- ing tangled in the meshes of that foreign institution each year — how do you know that your daughter or sister will escape being caught in it, when you are forcing it across their paths by send- ing them to Catholic schools and permitting Roman Catholic teachers in the public school? The laws of the pope are a blot upon civilization as to the con- fessional, which has been abolished in some Roman Catholic States, and such laws are a challenge thrown in the face of every free man in America, and membership in that institution should, ipso facto, disfranchise any one from exercising the rights of citi- zenship — being alien in spirit and intention, they should be made such in fact as a means of preserving our civilization and our free institutions. One Romanist on a jury would no doubt cause the miscarriage of justice if papalism was involved, regardless of the crime: further, the Roman church boasts of seventeen or eighteen mil- lion members in America, and the Catholic man who bows to the Motu Proprio decree of Pius X has not at heart that welfare of women and mankind in general as fits him to assist in making and administering the laws of a free people; where is the actual difference between this law of an infallible pope and the "rights" the priesthood claimed in the Philippines? The laws of the pope afford 20,000 bachelors the Time, the Place, the Opportunity, and Immunity — and those priests are obliged either to be saints or devils. In this connection I fully concur in what ex-Priest Charles Chiniquy said : "I do not say that all priests and female penitents fall . . . thanks be to God . . . but these are exceptions. . . . The confessional is like the spider's web. How many unsuspecting flies find death when seeking rest on the beautiful frame-work of their deceitful enemy! How few escape! And this only after a most desperate struggle. See how the perfidious spider looks harmless in his retired dark corner . . . how patiently he waits The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 181 for his opportunity! But look how quickly he surrounds his vic- tim with his silky, delicate and imperceptible links; how merci- lessly he sucks its blood and destroys its life!" Priests in the confessional are as worms gnawing on the tap-root of the fairest, most fragrant and healing flower that grows in God's garden on earth — woman. Americans! no use to waste energy on the average Catholic man ! He must believe a thing is not so, even if he is sober and sees it with his own eyes, if the priest says it is not so ; here is the law by which he is governed: Says "Saint" Liguori, "That we may in ALL things attain the truth that we err not in anything, we ought ever to hold, as a fixed principle, that what I see WHITE to be BLACK if the superior authority of the church define it to be so," which doctrine was confirmed by Pope Gregory XVI in an Encyclical, August 15, 1832, saying, "If the church so requires, let us sacrifice our own opinions, our KNOWLEDGE, our IN- TELLIGENCE and the MOST SUBLIME ATTAINMENTS of the human UNDERSTANDING." And now who is it that says this? The CHURCH; who is the church? The POPE ! And who are the "superiors"? Any one who is NOT a LAYMAN! The average Catholic is so steeped in this papal doctrine that he is more ready to kill one who makes these facts known or discusses them than he is to seek the truth, or try to change them — he is as a corpse in the hands of the priests. Take A. J. Long, of this city, for example; he says "a Catholic's religion is so much a part of him that he naturally takes exception to those who ques- tion his belief or practices as such." Let me explain right here why "a Catholic takes exception" to criticism of his religion or his pope; in the Catechism by Deharbe the question is asked, "34. In how many ways may we become accessory to another per- son's sin, and be answerable for it?" Of the nine ways, we quote two of them: "3. By consent." "6. By silence." Now we have it! If a newspaper discusses the faith and practices of Catholics, or a preacher does so, or a lecturer does it, or any individual in any manner, if Catholics do not "take exception" they become accessories to the "crime" and "thus are as guilty before God as if we had committed it ourselves; or, it may be, even more so." (Ans. to qu. No. 35.) This accounts for the activity of Catholics in Congress, in city councils, and as private citizens, to suppress with the boycott or other strenuous methods any criticism of popery, for, to remain silent, is to make them as guilty as he who committed the deed! Weigh that proposition well, Americans! Does it tend to establish democracy and uphold the principles of freedom of our land, or destruction? So, I repeat: there is no use bothering with Catholics; but there is some hope of awaken- ing sleepy-eyed Americans to the presence of this foreign, obnox- 182 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged ious, poisonous weed that will choke the life out of our LIBER- TIES unless we take up Rome's challenge, and in the name of Freedom and in behalf of helpless victims on our shores, pass such laws as will abolish the confessional, the convent, and put all children of school-age in the Free Public Schools, the great Melt- ing Pot, and make Americans of them instead of subjects of a for- eigner whose laws are destructive of every principle which has made this a great nation; make it a felony with an adequate penalty to teach any theory of government that conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. It is alleged by some students that there are twenty-five million Jesuits in the world — secret and otherwise; this order controls the Roman Italian institution; here are a few of the principles of Jesuitism, according to a French Roman Catholic historian, de Cormenin, Vol. II, p. 313: "It is not a great sin for young girls to abandon themselves to love before marriage, nor for women to receive the embraces of other men, and be unfaithful to their husbands, under certain circumstances. . . . Young women without experience think that to be chaste they must call for aid and resist their seducers with all their strength ; it is not so. They are equally pure if they are quiet and do not resist. We sin but by consent and co-operation." It is no exaggeration to say that Jesuit casuistry destroys every command of the Decalog. Augusta, Ga., Nov. 1, 1917. Dear Sir: Your objection to my answer to Question 4 shows a lack of discrimination. (1) (2) There is one Law for Catholics in regard to Masonry, one order, one corwmand, and only one; which is, not to join the order or in any way encourage or assist it as such. Now, unless Masons insist that we agree to join the order or assist the order as such, they can live in peace with us. We are not asking them to agree to join the church or assist the church as such before offering to live at peace with them; do they demand the converse of us? We do not believe it. (3) You say, "If the various Grand Masters . . . were to issue letters ... the Catholic church (in this country) long ago would have been stripped of her faith and practice in action." Strange, now, isn't it? The Grand Masters are not infallible; and I pre- sume they have not got an Index; but they have only "to issue letters" and, despite the guarantees of a free people, the thing, you say, is done. Though they have less than 2,000,000 subjects (you force the term), they could outlaw nearly 20,000,000 free citizens ! And you talk of liberty. (4) Some Catholics have an idea that this is just what was done in France, Portugal, perhaps Mexico and elsewhere. And, now, you say in reference to this country— "Masonry has taken very little notice of the pope and his children, BUT some day"—. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 183 If you speak by the "card" here, can you wonder if we sometimes think that after all the pope may not be so far wrong? (5) Do you speak by the card, my friend? Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) If the Catholic Laymen's Association can convince one rational being that the pope expects Catholics to "extirpate the foul plague" of Masonry merely by refusing to become members or assist it in any manner, then I will admit a "lack of discrimi- nation." But let us look into this. The esprit de corps of Catholics to a large extent is to be found in the Catechism; it teaches that there are "Six sins against the Holy Ghost," the third being, "Resisting the known Christian truth"; among the nine ways one may become accessory to another person's sin is, "9. By defense of the ill done." Now, Freemasonry and all orders as well as Protesantism, and those who belong to no lodge or church, are guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost, according to popery, which is logically then an "ill" being done; and he who sees a wrong being done and is "silent" and does not exert himself to prevent it, becomes guilty himself of the "ill done." (2) In my limited investigation of Romanism, I find that in days gone by, the Roman church burnt Masons at the stake as such, for being such — that it was death to be a Mason ; does Leo's strictures and accusations show the church has the same spirit to-day as when she put those men to death, or do they show that in this instance the church has changed? If she has NOT changed, then she only bides her time — "expediency." The last sentence of this paragraph is true; of the 2,000,000 more or less in America, not a single man has ever been solicited to join; freely ye come, freely ye go. (3) Sure! "The Grand Masters are not infallible," neither are the members of the order ; in fact, they often show signs of being real human — so near human, that they are liable to resent the effort of the pope to "extirpate" them in America. ("Extirpate"; uproot entirely; destroy wholly.) The nagging of the order by priests in their papers, the attempt to bar them from army can- tonments while Rome was admitted as such — such as this may arouse the sleeping lion, and the real contest between the PRIN- CIPLES of POPERY and what Masonry stands for would be fully presented to the American people for an everlasting decision, which would no doubt result in stripping the pope's church of her faith and practices, at least to the extent of making it a felony to use auricular confession, and throw open the convent doors, as has been done in some Roman Catholic sections. (4) This idea is from the pope and his he-virgins, who do not believe it; they use Masonry as a scape-goat for the activities of 184 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Roman Catholics who desire to be progressive — who desire free- dom, and the pope along with his priest-agents strive to keep from other Catholics the fact that some are throwing off the galling yoke of popery and grafting superstitions and rites that originated in the Dark Ages; for if they believed Masonry to be powerful enough in Catholic countries, where they are few in number, to overthrow popery, they know that here in this land they could give the pope many sleepless months, and would not be proading the order to activity as such; in this the church is presuming upon its usually peaceable spirit. (5) As a member of the Baptist church and Knights of Pythias, and not having a lunacy commission to sit in judgment on my sanity, I believe I understand human nature sufficiently to know that when a set of people are called upon to "extirpate" another, there will be friction. Augusta, Ga., Nov. 2, 1917. Dear Sir: Regarding No. 5. You ought to know that a categorical proposition can not be established by implication, inference, analogy or any other form of indirection. Where "No" answers a question, it answers true, unless squarely the opposite, in exact terms of the question, can be shown. This rule of right reason can in no case be ignored without a sacrifice of truth. Your mistake was in not framing your question in the precise language of Pope Leo ; but, of course, he or any other pope never anywhere taught that Catholics must "obey the voice of the pope as BEING THE VOICE OF GOD ALMIGHTY." And I knew it. You tried to hit too hard. Apropos the detached quotations you make, they are all per- fectly sound in the context, like the Scripture — "And thou shalt be to him instead of God" — which God Himself spoke. (Ex. iv:19.) Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT Question 5 reads: "Are Roman Catholics taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the voice of God Almighty?" Mr. Far- rell answers "No." We haven't an altogether "categorical propo- sition" before us; but if "No" answered true, and the Opposite could not be established, then there would be no question to be determined. The word "voice" in a Scriptural sense means a com- mand, or precept, or person; in John x:4 we read, "The sheep follow Him ; for they know His voice." What is the "inference," "analogy," or "implication" here? That Christ is the shepherd, and the sheep knowing His voice, are lead by Him; at His com- mand they go or come ; their movements are absolutely governed by His VOICE. In Deharbe's Catechism we find the following question and The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 185 answer : "What, then, must the Catholic Christian in general be- lieve? He must believe all that God has revealed and the Catholic church proposes to his belief, whether it be contained in the Holy Scripture or not." According to this "precept," a Catholic must believe what the church proposes, whether it is from the Bible or not; and who is "the Catholic church" in this connection? The pope. By whose commands are they governed in all things that pertain to faith and morals? The pope's. To whom do they sub- mit themselves for guidance and direction? The pope. Are they ever permitted to read God's Word and interpret it? No. Even priests swear at orination to interpret it only as "the church" construes it, therefore they hear no "voice" except the pope's; hence, they are taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the voice of God Almighty; the premise can not be refuted, therefore the logical conclusion to the question should be Yes. It will be observed that I did not ask if they "must," but if they are "taught" to obey, etc. Also, I do not find the sentence as quoted in "Ex. iv:19." The church of Rome teaches that the pope is the Vice-Gerent of Christ; that the pope holds the place of Him who came to save that which was lost; that he holds upon this earth the place of God Almighty: "vice-gerent" means one who has been given the power to act in the place of another — that after God got the world in good running order, He made the pope of Rome His Superin- tendent. As everyone knows, a superintendent is vested with all the rights and privileges of the owner in all matters affecting the policy, polity and general management of the concern; and that such superintendent is answerable to no one except his principal, and every one employed in the establishment, or those having dealings with the concern, must treat with the superintendent as if he were proprietor; being supreme in command, he has the right to employ and discharge; increase or decrease the output and the quality of the materials entering into the line of goods produced ; and those under him, in the course of time, completely lose sight of the owner — would not know him if he was passed on the street — which irrefutably establishes the fact that the employees are taught to obey the voice of the superintendent as being the voice of the owner. This analogy establishes the truth of the question at issue ; Leo says that Catholics must be submis- sive and obedient to the will of the pope "as to God Himself." If we scan a few of the "dogmas" of the popes and compare them with the Word of God, we will see at once that such dogmas are in conflict with, or are not taught in, the Bible; yet Catholics prac- tice and are obedient to them — they are obeying a "voice" — is it God's? No! Then it's the pope's, which they are taught to be- lieve is the voice of God. Here are a few of the "dogmas" of the 186 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged church that Catholics MUST believe, which are unscriptural, yet they are following a "voice": 1, Peter was pope twenty-five years and was in Rome; 2, Holy water; 3, Virgins consecrated to use of the church; 4, Marriage not legal without benediction of priest; 5, Use of candles; 6, Ob- servance of Saints' days; 7, Mass; 8, Pope as universal bishop; 9, Image worship or adoration; 10, Priestly celibacy; 11, Praying with beads; 12, Real presence of Christ in the bread and wine; 13, Penance; 14, Auricular confession; 15, Adoration or Host (pancake) ; 16, Right of pope to depose rulers; 17, Indulgences; 18, Immaculate conception; 19, Purgatory; 20, Absolution; 21, Papal infallibility. These are only a few of the innovations estab- lished by the "superintendent," but they must be observed, for Catholics hear no other voice in regard to them than the pope's, and if they dissent, they will be "fired" — excommunicated. Now, does any one think I "tried to hit too hard" and missed? Mr. Farrell endeavors to escape the only conclusion by raising technical questions as to the language used, instead of explaining HOW "No" can be a true answer. He also says this letter answers No. 13! (See letter of October 22.) Augusta, Ga., Nov. 3, 1917. Dear Sir: You have asked that Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 be debated, so in the hope that you can arrange for that, I pass them. You are silent on No. 10; but, in objection to No. 11 say: "Your an- swer is not in harmony with your popes." (1) Without discussing whether it is or not, I will say it doesn't need to be on this question. As the great Irish Catholic and Patriot, O'Connell, once said in Parliament: "We take our reli- gion from Rome, but not our politics." (2) As to our denying the pope the right to teach what you cite, he may teach what seems to him good (you wouldn't deny him that, would you?) ; but I deny, if you wish it straight, and the Catholic people of America as a body would deny, were there any occasion, that the pope has any right to interfere with the run- ning of our Government according to the Constitution as it stands. (3) You say, "If he blunders in matters as important as this," he is like any other man. Who says otherwise? He is not divine, not inspired, not without sin; but he is a great and good man, nevertheless; may God keep him. (4) And when he points the way of eternal life for the Chris- tians of the world, like his glorious predecssor, St. Peter, to whom the keys of the Kingdom were given, he cannot err. Very truly, J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT We look upon a blackberry bush, and know that according to the laws of nature it will bear blackberries at the proper time; see that grape vine — nothing on it but leaves; look again, laden The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 187 with grapes. We look for fruit from the vines according to the laws of nature governing. So, likewise, we must know the law by which Catholics are made and governed to know what sort of fruit to expect; primarily, the pope considers all members as "children," and they look upon the pope as their "holy" father; and as children under that system, they are entirely dependent upon the pope for spiritual food and raiment; they are his especial charge, to be directed and governed in all things which affect them and himself — and he never loses sight of himself. It is the nature of a child to ask ten thousand questions, some of which startle philosophers ; it is the natural duty of a parent not only to direct, control, and govern the child, but also answer its questions as far as he is capable, if he expects the child to develop and as- sume its place according to the natural order of things. In the home, the father inculcates the spirit of love and service one toward the other — that we term "religion"; he requires each one to strive to keep the house, yards, etc., cleared of all trash, and the premises kept free of all that would impair the health of the family in general — that we term "politics." For a child to say it is willing to abide by the "Religion" of the home, but will not be governed in the "Politics" of the institution places it in the category of an alien enemy. Par. (1) According to the above reasoning, the "great Irish Catholic and Patriot O'Connell," was a rebel against his "holy father," or resorted to "mental reservation." Try this assertion by the law which makes and governs Catholics: "We take our religion from Rome," said O'Connell; this is based upon the de- cree of the Vatican Council that established Papal Infallibility, the Fourth Chapter, wherein by its own terms the pope is limited to defining dogmas in ex cathedra utterances; O'Connell con- tinues: "But not our politics" (from Rome). In the Third Chap- ter, Vatican Council, decreed by the same pope and council as the Fourth Chapter, there is no limitation placed upon the pope's authority, requiring unconditional submission to papal discipline and absolute obedience to authority; it says: "If, then, any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction . . . not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the churches, AND OVER EACH AND ALL THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL— let him be anathema." As the physical man needs food and raiment, so the spiritual man: the Fourth Chapter supplies 188 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged "spiritual" food — dogmas — for the Catholic, while the Third Chapter provides his "clothing." The one is as essential as the other; you can not accept the one and reject the other. Let us see if this is not substantiated by physical facts of recent history: in Ireland there are Catholic and Protestant Irish; as other subjects of Great Britain, the Protestant Irish freely re- sponded to the call to arms, while the Catholic Irish refused to do so, the hierarchy administering a pledge to about 90 per cent of the "faithful" to resist the English Government in prosecution of the war, while in the Dominion of Canada the French Catholics were obstructionists, and Catholics in Australia maintained the same spirit and attitude. This was a political question; the very life of the nation was at stake; where did the Irish, French- Canadian and Australian Romanists get their political attitude? I will admit, and hope it is true, that in a conflict many Cath- olics would be true to the Constitution and principles of this Government; but we are not discussing individuals, but a sys- tem; and as long as one adheres to a system, the presumption is he will support and contend for its principles, which presump- tion remains until he demonstrates the contrary to be true, by a test or withdrawal from it. It is the wish of the pope to make all peoples Catholic ; to this end, he has authority over and can command obedience from "ALL THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL" in things which relate to "DISCIPLINE and GOVERNMENT" of the church, and as "POLITICS," or the science of government, is the main obstacle in the way of papalizing the world, it behooves papists to enter politics in the effort to make conditions favor- able to the will of their "holy father"; they must strive to remove those things which impair the health of papalism in the body politic, by "infusing" Romanism into all the veins of the State. It may not be out of place to explain what is meant by "mental reservation" in reference to Catholicism: "St." Liguori, Thomas Tamburini, Suarez, Basenbaum, Bellarmine, Emanuel Sa, San- chez, and many other Jesuit Fathers teach, "To swear with equivocation ... is not an evil; because there is a just cause for concealing the truth," and "a just cause" is said to be "any honest end in order to preserve good things for the spirit or useful things for the body." "If the conscience recoiled before a false oath, one might mur- der the words of the formula in pronouncing them, so as to be beyond all suspicion of sin; for example, instead of 'juro,' which signifies / swear, he may pronounce 'uro,' which signifies / burn." Coming from the fountain sources of popery, what is the spirit of popery, if not deceitf ulness ? Can a government carry out the will of God actuated by that spirit? Is it possible to know one is telling the truth, governed by such doctrine? The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 189 The power and rights of the pope as decreed above give him the power to declare what a person must believe, as also the power to enforce acceptance of the belief, which is exemplified by the Bull Unam Sanctam, previously set out, that the pope through his priests wields the spiritual sword, and at his com- mand the secular sword must be drawn and used in behalf of the spiritual power — which is equivalent to saying that the pope actually rules the "spiritual world," and has direction of the political world. Farrell holds up O'Connell as an example of Catholic political independence; first, let me ask, was this se- cured by Catholics, or was it directly due to the influence of "Freemasonry" and "Protestantism"? Second, if not, then the Catholics are as cakes "unturned" — half baked — a mixture of two systems — a cross between Romanism and Protestantism, in which case O'Connell and others like him are as guilty in the eyes of the church as Luther, Huss, Wycliffe, Calvin, and others who demanded spiritual independence — that is, freedom of con- science, as O'Connell demanded political freedom. But let us hear an eminent authority: Cardinal Newman, speaking in the name of the pope, said, "I acknowledge no civil power; I am the subject of no prince; and I claim more than this. I claim to be the supreme judge of the consciences of men. Of the peasants that till the fields, and of the prince that sits upon the throne; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the legislator that makes laws. I am sole, last, superior judge of what is right and wrong. Moreover, we declare, affirm, define and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." What an Irish Catholic may say in the English Parliament is one thing — what they do in practice when tested is different. Let us now look at the "Irish" Catholics in action in America: in the Tablet, R. C, of Brooklyn, N. Y., Jan. 23, 1915, we read: "One of Brooklyn's Congressmen, Hon. John J. Fitzgerald, spurred to action by the repeated demands of the members of the Brooklyn diocesan branch of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, has introduced in the House of Representa- tives a bill to amend the Postal Laws, H. R. 20644. If this bill is reported favorably and passes both Houses . . . publications attacking the church . . . will be denied the privilege" (of the U. S. mails). In both the Sixty-third and Sixty-fourth Con- gresses five different bills were presented by Romanists to de- stroy the most fundamental guarantee of the Constitution: freedom of the press — a principle as vital to the life our Re- public and the perpetuation of the Constitution itself as air is to the human system. The Gallivan and Fitzgerald bills show political Rome in action; "the Catholic people of America as a 190 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged body" were demanding this "right to interfere with the run- ning of our Government according to the Constitution as it stands." (2) Oh, no! I would not deny the pope the right to "teach what seems to him good," provided he does not attempt to pre- vent me from combating with free inquiry and the press "what seems to me bad." The City Council of Detroit, Mich., passed an ordinance on June 19, 1918, at the instigation of Roman priests and Knights of Columbus (representing the Federated Catholic people of America as a body), prohibiting the sale of periodicals on the streets that reflected on any one's religion; this was an act under the science of government — politics; where did they get their inspiration — from Rome, or "the Con- stitution as it stands"? From ROME, of course! And where did Rome get it? From the pope. Where did he get that prin- ciple? From the Index, established in the pitch blackness of Rome's noonday, when she was in control of the governments of the world. Incidents of a similar nature have occurred all over the country during the past few years, which does not dove-tail with what Farrell says the Catholic people of America would do. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Mr. Farrell said "the Catholic people would deny — ." In the "Manual of Christian Doctrine," issued according to the RULES of the Index, we find the following question and answer: "16. Ought a government to take part in public worship?" Answer: "Yes . . ." p. 239. Let him who can reconcile Farrell and this school book used by Catholics "as a body"! (3) If Catholics believe the pope is no better than any other man, then it seems to me it is a case of "the blind leading the blind," which is contrary to human wisdom derived from expe- rience, reason by which we are to be governed, and the laws of God, which declare, "I am the Way." (4) A shepherd does not "POINT," but LEADS in the "WAY"; the pope "pointed" the way from the sixth to fifteenth century — and the world went through a period of Egyptian-like darkness that has never vanished; the pope points the way in many countries to-day; Poland, where Jews are suffering as much at the hands of Romanists as the Armenians under the Turks; in Cuba, in Spain, in Mexico, in Portugal, in the Philip- pines, in Ireland, and elsewhere. Augusta, Ga., Nov. 5, 1917. Dear Sir: Regarding answer to No. 12. You say your comments on Answer 11 apply to this with equal force, so my criticism nullifying your comments apply here with equal truth. (1) You say as answering for the Catholics of Georgia, you question the truth of my answer. Who is representing the The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 191 Catholics of Georgia, you or I? Had you conferred with one, just one Catholic in Georgia who told you my answer was con- trary to his views? If so, name him. If not, your stricture is purely gratuitous. (2) One is reminded of the Village Schoolmaster, "who was so skilled, that e'en though beaten, he could argue still." You get an answer that is not open to honest objection; but you WON'T be satisfied, so you chase out imaginary "Concordat" or some indefinable "Intention" or that ubiquitous, wet-blanket affair you have made of the "Index," and move them about like pawns, just as if you hadn't been checkmated. (3) My dear man, won't you ever put down that shield of sus- picion, and give your mind a chance? Very truly, J. J. Farrell. COMMENT (1) I endeavored to get the views of TWO rather prominent Georgia Catholics — the Hon. Gus Daly and Mr. A. J. Long; they had no permit from their bishop, therefore could not an- swer any one of the questions, nor would they violate the rules of the Index or its "Intention" by attempting to answer; how- ever, I put one question to three of his superiors — and one is a "Georgia" Catholic — on baptism, which caused the Association to cover many pages of paper in efforts to remove the kinks, without success. To tell the truth, I do not know who is representing the Cath- olics of Georgia, under the nom de plume of "J. J. Farrell." If Farrell could point to "JUST ONE" instance in all the long history of Romanism where the church has taught and decreed according to his answer, then it would be true ; but he can't do it. The great World War was instigated by the Pope of Rome and Crown Prince Ferdinand of Austria signing a Concordat, which covered civilization with a blanket wet in human blood. The basic principle of Romanism is, that no private persons can read or interpret Holy Scripture or religious questions; that the subjects of the church must obediently submit, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but are bound "both individually and collectively" in those that pertain to discipline and government; this is the law; did Farrell answer by refer- ring to the law, or from his imagination? He can not "laugh this case out of court." Claiming to possess all truth, and as truth is intolerant of error, intolerance is the chief cornerstone of the papacy; the Catechism prevents one from maintaining "silence" in the face of heresy else he becomes guilty himself; the law forbids him to become heretical — the inevitable result is, he must strive to destroy error or he is guilty of error; to say the Roman church is not intolerant is to admit an ignorance so dense it can be cut 192 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged with a dull knife ! And if a Catholic is "tolerant," he is march- ing under the wrong banner. (3) In his letter of October 23, 1917, Mr. Farrell admits that all decrees of the church are binding upon Catholics until they are repealed — that is, "as long as they are in force," and a law is in force until the creating power revokes it; therefore, if I am holding up a "shield of suspicion," how can I afford to drop it until the pope revokes those Catholic-guiding decrees of in- tolerance, and the murderous doctrines of the "holy" fathers? Can a man drop a bullet-proof shield as long as he is "covered" by a gun — what chance has the mind to be free of suspicion when papalism holds before the mind's eye Inquisitions and Massacres and laws which sanction these things? Next to the pope and his general councils in making authori- tative, binding declarations, is the Apostolic Delegate of the pope. In a letter to Thomas Carey, of Palestine," Texas, June 10, 1912, Archbishop Bonzano, the papal delegate to Washing- ton, D. C, answered the following question: "Must I as a Catholic surrender my political freedom to the church? . . . By this I mean the right to vote for the Democrat, Socialist, or Re- publican party when and where I please?" The delegate replied: "You should submit to the decisions of the church, even at the cost of sacrificing political principles." Here is what Catholics are taught in their schools: Qu. "34. How should citizens exercise their political rights?" Ans. ". . . they should, in their choice of candidates ... be governed only by the best interests of country and religion. To . . . vote . . . for those who are friendly to religion, or at least not hostile to it." p. 274, "Manual of Christian Doctrine." ("Re- ligon" here means Roman Catholicism.) In The Catholic Educator, published in 1902 by John G. Shea, LL. D., New York, and endorsed as true papalism by Augustine, Bishop of New York, is found a defense of the law of Romanism establishing and operating the Inquisition. It says: "In no age of Christianity has the church had any doubt that in her hands, and only in hers, was the deposit of the true faith and religion placed by Jesus Christ, and that, as it is her duty to teach all nations, so she is bound by all practicable and lawful means to restrain the malice of those who would corrupt the message or resist the TEACHER (POPE). . . . The power of the church, according to Fleury, is 'purely spiritual.' ... The overwhelming majority of the canonists take the opposite view — namely, that the church can and ought to visit with fitting punishment the heretic and the revolter ; and since the publication of the numerous encyclical letters and allocutions of the late pope treating of the relation between Church and State, and the inherent rights of the former, the view of Fleury can no The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 193 longer be held by any Catholic." (This also corroborates my position as shown under Question 13, that the papal Italian in- stitution is a standing menace to any government not Catholic.) A person can not remain a member of an institution holding fundamentally, as an "inherent right," such doctrine in this twentieth century and be entitled to the protection of the laws for such institution, or worthy to be "trusted" with the rights of American citizenship. (I am sure "The Village Schoolmaster" was not a Romanist arguing with a priest I) Augusta, Ga., Nov. 6, 1917. Dear Sir: (1) Your objections under No. 14 remind me of the advice of Samuel Johnson, when he said, "Endeavor to clear your mind of cant," and, you know, "cant," according to Carlyle, is "a double distilled lie; the second power of a lie." (2) This in reference to your statement that "Ferrer was shot a few years ago for advocating free progressive school system for Spain." Because Francisco Ferrer, professional agitator, atheist, anarchist, was shot for inciting riot, in Barcelona in the latter days of August, 1910. His character, principles and aim may be judged by the following excerpts from his writings. (3) First, from his book entitled "Patriotism y Colonezacion," where he says, "Don't get excited about the flag, it is only three yards of cotton stuck on the end of a pole" (p. 15). And again, "Property has been established by spoliation, cunning, trickery, rapidity and deception, under the name of commerce and indus- try" (p. 240). And again, "The words country, flag, family arouse in me no more than hypothetical echoes of wind and sound" (p. 180). Second, from his book, "Historia de Espana," where he says "Government, usurpation, tyranny — a question of words; not only all government, more or less legitimate, but all power is tyranny" (p. 121). Finally, in his "Compendio de Historia Universal," where he speaks derisively of Jesus Christ as one "devoid of filial sentiment, and let's pass no opportunity to insult his mother" (p. 43). (4) A man with such principles, inspired by such a sentiment as these words from his own pen show, is a criminal at heart, and having incited a mob to riot, being tried and condemned in manner and form prescribed by law, is a criminal in fact, and it is pure cant, cant raised to the 'nth power, to play him up as a martyr of progressive thought. Very truly yours, JJF/MC J- J- Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) I agree with Carlyle and Mr. Farrell: because my objection to his Answer 14 is based upon statements of two recent popes. It is characteristic of Roman priests or near-priests to hide behind their petticoats and yell "Liar! Liar!" whenever they are confronted with derogatory facts pertaining to their religion 194 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged which they "can't" answer in the presence of an intelligent audience. The reference to Ferrer is purely incidental; however, will not "pass" Farrell on that; but before taking it up for consid- ration will present additional "cant" here as Question 14 is in regard to education. I have charged elsewhere that one means of destroying the principles of this free Republic, Rome was concentrating upon getting control of education — either destroy public schools or convert them into parochial schools by filling them with Catholic teachers. From Harper's Weekly, New York, November 11, 1871, we can see how Rome began long ago her war on the free public schools, which I will supplement with statistical facts; said Harper's: "Emigrants to our own country will find renewed the struggle which has ended so prosperously in Europe. Baffled in Italy, the papal faction is still powerful in America. It rules New York. ... Its agents are active in every election; it aims its chief blows against popular education ... it is still in doubt whether that wide system of instruction which has flourished so signally from ocean to ocean may not sink amidst the strife of factions, or live wounded and decaying. . . . The ruin of the common school system has become the secret or open aim of every adherent of popery." From statistics prepared in 1915 — forty-five years after that statement — we find the papal power increased in politics to this extent: In thirty-one States, the Democratic Central Commit- tees are Catholic; Republicans twenty- three ; President and Secretary of National Democratic Committee, Catholic; Presi- dent Wilson's Campaign Manager, Catholic; his private Secre- tary, Catholic; 70 per cent, of his appointments Catholic; ten States under Catholic administration; in 20,000 public schools, one-half of the teachers are Catholics; over 100,000 public schools have a large per cent, of Catholic teachers; 600 public schools use Catholic readers (school books) and teach the Cate- chism; New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo and St. Louis employ 75 per cent. Catholic teachers in public schools, while Detroit has 65 per cent. — yet those cities do not have over 20 to 35 per cent. Catholic population. In all the cities and towns of over 10,000 inhabi- tants, Roman Catholics form 80 per cent, of the police and fire departments, and are in the majority in 15,000 councils of towns and cities of this country. In a little book entitled, "The Catholic Church and Modern Christianity," Rev. B. J. Otten, Jesuit, Professor of Philosophy in the St. Louis University, lays down a clear rule by which every The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 195 school teacher is guided. On page 180 he says, "They teach and must teach such branches as history, literature, and the natural sciences, and in these THE RELIGIOUS BIAS of the teacher will manifest itself in spite of his best intention. . . The teacher who takes his or her profession seriously can NEVER be con- tent with the mechanical teaching of the 'three R's,' but will SOMEHOW blend them with the fourth, 'Religion,' and while no text-book of dogma are in his or her hands, will so teach . ." (He clearly substaniates my charge as to why Rome permits her grown-up "children" to teach in those schools that she terms "godless" and "sinks of pollution," which Catholic children can not attend except for such reasons as may satisfy the bishop, who will give permission to attend.) (2) To advocate Liberalism (or progressive schools) in Spain, as Ferrer did, means certain death, on some sort of pretext. If the papal church will teach the following doctrine in Catholic schools IN AMERICA TO-DAY, against the laws of the land and in the very face of overwhelming Protestant sentiment, we can imagine the fate of one who opposes such teaching in an ALL-CATHOLIC country; here's what the pope is teaching in our country: Qu. "122. May the State separate itself from the Church?" Ans. "No, because it may not withdraw from the supreme rule of Christ. "123. What name is given to the doctrine that the State has neither the right nor the duty to be united to the church . . .? "It is called Liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact that modern society rests on Liberty of Conscience and of Wor- ship, on Liberty of Speech and of the Press. "124. Why is Liberalism to be condemned? "1. Because it denies all subordination of the State to the Church; 2. Because it confounds liberty with right . . ." p. 123 "Manual of Christian Doctrine," a book American "village" schoolmasters never use, but essential to the life of papa's school- master priests ! As you read the following also from the pen of Jesuit Otten (pp. 183-4) keep in mind the number of Catholic teachers in public schools: "Wherever our pupils, whether from parochial schools, or academies or colleges, have had an opportunity to com- pete with those of corresponding institutions of the State, they have INVARIABLY shown to advantage. Listen, ... do these parochial schools turn out better educated children than those from the public schools? Last summer, while 75 per cent, of the graduates of the parochial schools who presented themselves for examination for entrance into the normal college were admitted (and many with honors), ONLY 25 PER CENT. OF THE GRADUATES OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE SUCCESSFUL. This summer the Catholic percentage was higher. Similar re- 196 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged ports come from Chicago, Pittsburgh, and other cities, where the matter has been publicly investigated. Here we have the unvarnished fact from the pen of a Catholic University professor, that where there are 75 per cent. Roman Catholic teachers in the public schools, AND ON THE EXAM- INING BOARDS, the pupils are just SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENT. DEFICIENT, as compared with pupils educated by the same kind of teachers, but IN their schools — the rival of the pub- lic schools. American Citizens! Must you, like the little dog, have your brains knocked out before you can get your eyes open? Can't you see that Rome is getting her teachers in the public schools for one purpose — to destroy its efficiency while teaching, imperceptibly, the fourth "R" — that they are put there by the commander of the papal army? No one should be permitted to teach or be a member of the public school board except those who receive their training in the public school, and possess a certificate to that effect. It is said that a president of the Chicago public school board was a Roman- ist, who sent his children to the papal school. The hatred of the Roman Catholic church is voiced by the hier- archy — hear them "praise" the public school system, that has made America the greatest nation in the world : "Let the public school system go to where it came from — the devil." — Freeman's (Cath.) Journal, Nov. 20, 1869. Cardinal Gibbons is impressed thus with the public school sys- tem: "An imperfect and vicious system of education which un-. dermines the religion of youth." "The common schools of this country are sinks of moral pollu- tion and nurseries of hell." — The Chicago (Cath.) Tablet. "Education outside the Catholic church is a damnable heresy." —Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Props. 45, 46, 47, 48. "It will be a glorious day in this country when, under the laws, the school system will be shivered to pieces." — Catholic TeUgraph. (How can it be shivered to pieces by law unless we put Catholics where they can make or administer the law?) "We must take part in the elections, move in solid mass in every State against the (political) party pledged to sustain the integrity of the public schools."— Card. McClosky. "The day is not far distant when Catholics, at the order of the pope, will refuse to pay the school tax and will send bullets into the hearts of the officers who attempt to collect them." — Mgr. Cappell. "Education must be controlled by Catholic authorities .... even to war and bloodshed." — Priest Hecker in Catholic World, 1870. The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 197 "The children of public schools turn out to be horse thieves, scholastic counterfeiters and well versed in schemes of deviltry." —Priest Phelan, St. Louis, 1873. "The American Federation of Catholic Societies has been or- ganized to bring the powerful influence of the entire Catholic church in America against the injustice of the public school sys- tem." — Bishop McPhaul in an address before the society in Mil- waukee. (Mr. Farrell admits that the Catholics of Georgia are affiliated with that society — but a little thing as that should not stand in the way of us having peace!) Many pages could be filled with documentary evidence showing that the pope is a deadly enemy of popular education and the free school system — a system that was provided for by many States as soon as they became States, by setting aside large tracts of land for the erection or maintenance of public schools as the only means of perpetuating government by the people — there were but few Catholics in America at that time; and those knew what they ran away from in Europe, and acted very much like free people; they didn't have a sufficient number of people and priests then to oppose the principles of the early pioneers, as they are doing now. With the above information before us, we can better under- stand the Ferrer case, with but one other reference by which to judge the real truth of a proposition when presented by a Roman Catholic : In an address before the Society for the Preservation of the Faith, in Rome, Italy, November, 1915, the present pope, Bene- dict XV, paid his respects to the Protestant ministers from America, saying: "What is it that these emissaries of satan do who, in the midst of the Holy City, raise temples within which the true worship is denied to God, who establish pestilential chairs for the spread of error in the midst of the people, and who, with free hands, scatter broadcast lies and calumnies against the Catholic religion and its ministers? These diabolical arts are so many assaults against the children of Rome. . . . The conspiracy of these thieves should be destroyed." (In Protestant communities, priests refer to us as "separated" brothers; in papal communities, "Emissaries of satan." Now for the Ferrer case (Par. 2) : Ferrer was a native Span- iard. When about 20 years old, he took part in a revolutionary movement led by General Villacampa; fled to Paris, where he made a living teaching Spanish. He gave much time to reading and study along progressive lines, by which his social and politi- cal views were materially changed ; realizing that a sound educa- tional system on non-Catholic lines, as in America, held the hope of the future, and loving his country, he desired to see her liber- ated from the long night of priestly domination under which she 198 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged had slept for centuries; he wanted her to keep step with advanc- ing civilization — which could be possible only through the light of liberal education. He returned to Barcelona, near the place of his birth, and estab- lished the Modern School. Any one can imagine the frocity of papal prists, who dread nothing so much as liberating human reason through freedom of thought, conscience, inquiry, speech, press and assembly. Consider Benedict's screed against the Pro- testant preachers now in Rome, nearly fifty years after the Italian Government drove the pope out of civil affairs and per- mitted other churches to exist in Rome — now think of Ferrer in a community where the pope is supreme, establishing a free school ! The world at large believes he was shot on trumped up charges, and executed October 13, 1909. (It will be recalled that in 1914 the Christian Endeavor Society held a meeting in Spain; the Gov- ernment had much difficulty in preventing Catholics from massa- creing them.) (3) As to his books, they may have been written before he reached a broader view — in young manhood; not having these books, I do not know; but I can imagine that the Spanish flag, hanging figuratively as it does under the papal flag, does not mean much to one who knows history, as he evidently did — signi- fying a combined tyranny, the like of which may the world soon banish. A flag of a nation means nothing, except the principles over which it floats to protect; the Stars and Stripes — what was it more than "three yards of cotton stuck on the end of a pole" to those Knights of Columbus who mobbed Otis Spurgeon in Cali- fornia, or that mob of ten thousand Romanists who assaulted the city hall of Haverhill, Mass., wounding many citizens, destroying property — exciting a riot to prevent free speech wherein a man was going to make public protest against appropriating public funds to sectarian schools — insults to the Flag and attacks upon the Constitution over which it floats — and these facts were not even put on the wires ! And what can any flag mean to those sub- ject to the bishop's oath? As to his derision of Jesus Christ : Christ said, "Let your light so shine, that others seeing your good works, may be constrained to glorify your Heavenly Father" — what did the history of all Europe and of his own country under the papal yoke tell him of Jesus Christ — what did he see in the "light" of papalism? Noth- ing but tyranny, bloodshed, murder, ignorance and superstition. Some of the blackest of all the black pages of history had the name of his country on them — written there in crimson letters of blood drawn from human veins to satiate him who said he was "Christ veiled in the flesh!" the diabolical instruments of torture The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 199 invented by the so-called followers of Christ, the pope's priests, to break human bones, to dissever the body, limb by limb, to pluck out eyes, the very reading of which makes the blood course faster and the fists to double hard as lightwood knots while the brain almost reels with fury — all these crimes by devils in robes as "rays of light" to draw men unto God through Christ; priests before whom the people must bow or have their quivering hearts torn out, bone after bone broken until the victim died from sheer exhaustion; or placed in a dungeon, isolated from mankind and cut off from God's sunshine if they refused to pray to "Mary, the Mother of God." I will say right here that God's command is,"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me— thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them," and every time a soul supplicates any person outside of the Trinity, it is committing spiritual adultery, or for- nication, which is an abomination to the Lord. (4) Where a man has a religion which permits him to use mental reservation or evasion of mind, when he speaks, swears or writes, what he says must not be taken too seriously; no doubt Benedict XV, if he had the power, would take pleasure in having those Baptist, Methodist and other Protestant preachers in Rome shot, as "St." Thomas Aquinas teaches, because they are counter- feiters of the true faith, and as he, Benedict, says, "These thieves should be destroyed." If Ferrer was a "criminal at heart" and deserved to be shot because he was not in love with the flag and what it protected, what is to be said of the Irish Catholics who riot against the Flag of England, one or more of these Irish "martyrs" having been canonized — that is, made "Saints" by the popes? Practically all said against Francisco Ferrer by Farrell applies with equal weight against the papists of the world, and does not help his case at all. Augusta, Ga., Nov. 7, 1917. Dear Sir: (1) Referring again to your objection under Num- ber 14, and still having Dr. Johnson and Carlyle in mind. (2) You say, "A Concordat MUST provide for church control of education." To persuade you to the contrary, I cite the follow- ing Concordats which make no mention of education: That with Prussia concluded in 1821; that of the Upper Rhine Provinces concluded the same year; that with Belgium concluded in 1827; the Concordat of Hanover between Pius VII and George IV of England concluded in 1824; the Concordat of Oldenburg con- cluded in 1830; the concordat with Austria concerning Bosnia- Herzegovania concluded in 1881; that with Russia concluded in 1847; that with Switzerland concluded in 1828; that with Swit- zerland concluded in 1845; that with the Two Sicilies in 1834. I think probably there are others equally silent as to education, but this ought to be enough. 200 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged (3) Am afraid you do not know very much about these things, my friend. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT Par. (1): I am perfectly willing, and invite, Americans to keep Johnson, Carlyle, Farrell, the pope, and Jesus Christ in mind as they read FarrelPs letters and my comments, and draw their own conclusions, as to what is, and who indulges in, cant, lies, or truth. (2) Two facts are proved here : first, that the pope has executed many concordats — Farrell omits the one which was at the bottom of the great war; second, verifying the claim of the popes that they are civil or temporal sovereigns — Romanists in America at- tempt to deny. Temporal rulers enter into treaties ; this is an attribute of tem- poral sovereignty. A treaty is an agreement reached by the com- missions from two or more governments, which must be ratified by the sovereign power of the government, if such power is not delegated to the commissioners. A concordat is also an agreement. Taunton's Canon Law de- fines concordat: "1. A concordat is an agreement which the pope makes with some supreme civil power. By it the church delegates and communicates some of her powers to the State in return for an acknowledgment and the free exercise of duties and rights in- herent in HER Constitution" In the concordat between Ferdinand and the pope, education was one of the many specified articles of the agreement; but this need not be specified by name, as the right to control all education is claimed by the church of Rome as one of u the duties and rights^ inherent in her Constitution." Hence, it is clear, if a civil power makes a treaty with the pope, unless the agreement specifically stipulates otherwise, but agrees to give the pope's church "the free exercise of duties and rights inherent in her Constitution," the first "inherent right" is to "teach," as the church proclaims all education outside of it is a damnable heresy. In his letter on Human Liberty, Pope Leo leaves no doubt as to what are among the rights of the Roman church. He says: "She is therefore the greatest and most reliable teacher of mankind, and in her dwells an inviolable right to teach them," p. 154 Gt. Lets. The Jesuit Professor of Philosophy in the Catholic University of St. Louis, Rev. B. J. Otten, says : "To understand properly the attitude of the Catholic church. . . . She never loses sight of the fact that education is in a certain sense but a continuation of the creative act of God, and as God created human beings, not merely for the enjoyment of this world, but for the endless joys of eter- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 201 nity, so also must education be directed to the attainment of that same end." And what is her record? That Rome claims the sole right to educate where she has an agreement, is proved by her attitude in America to-day; she can not get "the favor of the civil law" to do this, so she sets up her own parochial schools, in which she teaches this doctrine. When there is a union between a man and woman by marriage, it is mutually understood without mention that one of the natural rights is to propagate the race; and where there is a concordat between the State and the pope, it is understood that one of the rights accruing to him is, to have control of education. To deny this, is to belie the existence of the pope's parochial schools irt America', to deny this "right" of that institution calling itself the only true church which arrogates to itself the rights of a "perfect society" destroys its claim as such. (3) I will admit that I do not know much about these things — but I am striving to learn. One thing is certain, however: in deny- ing the doctrine of baptism until in a subsequent letter the Cath- olic Laymen's Association learned that their "superiors" had been questioned and answered differently; and in denying the authen- ticity and import of the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Mr. Far- rell (?) does not seem to be so sure that he knows any more than THE LAW allows about "these things" — or, that the law forbids him to tell what he knows! Augusta, Ga., Nov. 8, 1917. Dear Sir: (1) You say Mr. Taft reported over 1,000 priests in the Philippines and not over 6,000 "educated" people. Inasmuch as there are some 6,000 islands in the Philippines, with about 7,000,000 souls inhabiting them, it strikes me as rather remark- able that there were 6,000 "educated" people. (2) For "educated" people are not so plentiful under the most favorable conditions, as you no doubt, being one of them, ought to be aware. As to "educating" a dog, cat, flea, etc., you are welcome to all the comfort that thought or that practice brings to you. (3) Regarding the illiteracy of Spain, the official educational report of 1908, "La Estandistica Escolar de Espana," gives the percentage as 28 instead of 65, which you name. By the school census of 1903 there were in Spain 31,838 schools with a total of pupils between the ages of 5 and 15 years, of 4,896,927; which in a population of 18,618,086 is not a bad showing. Compare it to our 19,000,000 school children in a population of over 102,000,000 and there seems to be no less educational activity in Spain than among ourselves. Of course, if you go back far enough you can find when we had 65 per cent, illiterate. You will note that I cite you nothing but official documents and I hope you will appreciate the fact. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 202 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged comment (1) Having denied almost every other fact, though demon- strable, I am a little surprised that he did not deny the subject- matter and findings of the Taft Commission as being "cant" as per Johnson and Carlyle. As the Roman church declares she alone has the right to teach — that is, educate — "draw out," "develop" the God-given powers of the mind, it certainly is "rather remarkable that there were 6,000 educated people" on those islands containing 7,000,000 souls, with 1,000 priests: 6,000 among 7,000,000 is less than ONJE to the THOUSAND inhabitants! This is pure, unadulterated Roman- ism in action where it is not surrounded by Protestantism. In Protestant countries, Rome must show some marks of trying to keep step with progress — to see what a beast really is when not under restraint, observe it in its native surroundings; to learn how popery discharges its obligations in the matter of education, note results in her native element, that is, where there is no op- position ! The priest ruled in all matters in the islands ; one wit- ness said the people were practicaly all "fanatical Catholics" — 1,000 priests could make them fanatically Catholic, but nothing else. (Have those ignorant people a "Layman's Hand-Book," to keep the priest from having to ask them questions?) God created the human body and gave it a mind. It is the duty of parents to take such precautionary measures as will assure the child given into their keeping a healthy body and a strong mind. To follow any course which would dwarf the body or impair the mind would be a crime against the child and its Creator and con- demn the parents as brutes unfit to rear children — this natural law applies to Rome in regard to education. She says God com- mitted the welfare of the human race into her hands — intellect and all ; we see how she discharged the self-imposed obligation in those islands, where she was without opposition since the fifteenth century ! Less than one to the thousand — and many of those went elsewhere for their education — though she has an "inviolable" right to teach ! (2) The fact that dogs, cats, etc., can be "educated" affords certain comfort, proving that all of God's creatures can be devel- oped to a high state of perfection in accordance with their natures and the purposes of their creation, and it proves that any nation existing under the bondage of ignorance and superstition is a vic- tim of circumstances at times rather than a mental defect as a people. (3) I am glad to note the percentage has been reduced in recent years; however, Rome can not claim the credit. For centuries Spain has been a decadent nation, but of recent years the "Lib- erals" have increased, who desire to pull her out of the rut; and The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 203 like one who realizes that if he does not make some effort at self- preservation under certain circumstances, he is doomed, it seems that education is being recognized as necessary if Spain hopes to keep in speaking distance with the other nations of the earth. But think! For a thousand years education in Spain has been dominated continuously by Rome, yet her last and best showing in this glorious age is twenty-eight out of every hundred can not read or write. Verily, a tree is known by its fruit. It is indeed refreshing to note that Mr. Farrell here quotes figures, and one time cites official authority to substantiate an incidental proposition; I asked him to do this in answering all of the thirty-two questions — but he wouldn't — because he couldn't! The Bureau of the Census, 1910, shows Spain to be 58.7 per cent, illiterate, America 7.7! Augusta, Ga., Nov. 9, 1917. Dear Sir: (1) Your objections under No. 15 appear to be due to a confusion in the mind of the real claim of the pope to tem- poral sovereignty over the papal States and the alleged claim wrongfully attributed to him to universal temporal sovereignty. (2) You know the grandfather of Charlemagne ceded to the pope certain territory in what is now Italy and some time later the papacy purchased from the Countess of Tuscany a certain additional territory and these two became what is known as the Papal States over which the pope until toward the close of the last century was considered by the whole world to be rightfully the temporal sovereign. (3) The Papal States comprised about 18,000 square miles which included the City of Rome. The present Italian Govern- ment took this from the pope by force and the pope still claims that he is rightfully the temporal ruler over this territory. The present Italian Government recognized this claim to the extent of voting the pope an annuity of 15,000,000 lire as indemnity for having deprived him of his patrimony. This sum has been set apart every year since 1870, but the pope has consistently refused it, claiming his temporal sovereignty instead. (4) Now this question as to whether the pope is entitled to sovereignty over the Papal States has no practical interest for Catholics outside of Italy; and, in deed, the Catholics of Italy seem very little concerned about it. And if you will separate this claim of the pope, which he really does make, from the claim that he does not make, but is attributed to him, of wishing to be uni- versal temporal ruler, you will avoid many pitfalls in your inves- tigation of the political bearing of different papal utterances. Very truly yours, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 204 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged comment That the pope claims universal temporal sovereignty can be established, I believe, from carefully considering the question on the following bases: a. Was the pope ever a temporal sovereign in fact? b. Did a pope at any time crown a temporal ruler? c. Did any pope at any time ever declare a temporal ruler had forfeited his crown? d. Has any pope ever dethroned a ruler and given the crown to another? e. Did any pope ever receive his crown from a temporal ruler? f. Does the pope claim to be God's instrument, substitute, superintendent, or vice-gerent upon earth? g. Does the pope consider members of his church as "subjects"? h. Are such subjects restricted to any particular state, terri- tory, country, or continent? i. Does the pope expect his subjects, in any land, to aid him in establishing his "religion" to the exclusion of others? j. Has a pope ever asserted the claim to universal temporal supremacy? All these questions may be reduced to two propositions : I. Has any pope ever exercised temporal sovereignty over any people? And II. Does the pope exercise a spiritual sovereignty over any one person? The answers to these propositions determinte the issue under discussion. Let us see, now: (a) The Supreme Court of the United States, in 1908, said: "At one time the United States maintained diplomatic relations with the Papal States, which continued up to the time of the loss of the temporal power of the papacy" (in 1870), 210 U. S. loc cit. 318, 28 Sup. Ct. 737; Farrell also admits the pope was temporal sovereign over certain States. Now, if it was in the general scheme of Redemption that the pope should be sovereign over ONE State, presumably for the good of that State or for the in- terest of the church, then no restriction can be placed upon the extent of his principality, as he must, as God's substitute, sustain the same relation to all men on earth as he maintains to any ONE or any section. Competent authorities on International Law establish the fact: Says one, "As head of the Catholic church, the pope exercised powers and possessed attributes absolutely unprecedented. His authority transcended the material boundaries of the States and extended throughout the entire world, in the East as well as in the West, in Asia, in Africa, as well as in Europe and in America, The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 205 everywhere that there was a Catholic community. "Droii Inter- national Public, Paris, 1914. "Innocent III freely exercised the privilege of creating as well as deposing kings." — Hosack on Law of Nations. (b) King Henry of Germany surrendered his crown to Pope Gregory VII with all humility and degradation; Pepin, Emperor of France, was crowned by the pope, Celestine III. (c) Instances too numerous to mention throughout the ages. (d) Yes. (e) Yes, from about the sixth to eighth century. (f) This is the foundation of the pope's church; Leo XIII said, "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." (g) Yes; Leo refers to Catholics as "subjects" of the church, (h) All Catholics are bound to the pope through the decree of Infallibility and that of Universal Obedience, hence they are sub- jects in whatsoever he commands, in all lands. (i) Declaring he has been intrusted with the custody of all truth, and truth being intolerant of error, it is the duty of papal subjects throughout the world to strive to render papalism su- preme. (j) To Philip King of France, Pope Innocent III wrote: "To princes power is given on earth . . . but Peter, as in the plenti- tude, so in the extent of his power, is pre-eminent over all, since he is vicar of Him whose is the earth and the fullness thereof, the whole wide world, and all that dwell therein," while the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII declares that "every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff." I. From the time of Pepin in the eighth century to 1870, the popes were civil sovereigns over certain Papal States. On this nucleus the church hoped to build a world-wide temporal sover- eignty; from Emperor Phocas Pope Boniface III received the title of Universal Bishop, or "Pope," which was cemented by the use of false decretals establishing permanently the supremacy of the pope in the church; so, in like manner, the grant of what is known as the Papal States was to be the base of universal tem- poral supremacy. II. Every cardinal, legate, archbishop, bishop, priest and lay- man of the Catholic church take some sort of oath of subjection to the pope, who directs what they shall or shall not believe, and what they must do or refrain from doing, to gain his "spiritual" blessing in life, death and eternity. Remember that the pope is the church; now listen to Leo XIII: "Both the will of God and the common weal of society impera- tively require that the civil power should be in accord with the ecclesiastical in its rule and administration ... it is necessary that each should be united in the bonds of accord. . . . Let us 206 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged ONE and ALL, then, for the sake of the common welfare, labor with equal assiduity to restore the ancient concord." Gt. Lets. pp. 313-14-18. Would any one contend that Leo was speaking for and in rela- tion to the several small papal "states"? If so, Leo himself dis- abuses the opinion ; says he : "The mission of Christ is to save that which had perished ; that is to say, not SOME nations or peoples, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. . . . Wherefore ... it is necessary that this church should be one in all lands and at all times. . . . That the one church should embrace all men every- where and at all times," p. 356 Ibid. Thus, in writing to Catholics around the whole world, Leo makes it plain that the pope is supreme sovereign over every foot of earth inhabitd by man — extending as far in fact as God's rights among men, which doctrine is taught in papal schools. Wherever the church of Rome is established in any land its "rights" are demanded as soon as there are enough subjects to make the demand. The first thing the church begins to do, is, to define her position; to remove doubt, Leo cites the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, who branded "publicly many false opinions'* which were gaining ground; one of which reads: "Prop. xix. The Church is not a true, perfect, and wholly independent society, possessing its own unchanging rights conferred upon it by its Divine Founder; but it is for the civil power to determine what are the rights of the church, and the limits within which it may use them," p. 125. Another opinion that was branded as false: "Prop. lv. The Church must be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." The "ancient concord" desired by Leo renders temporal rulers mere puppets of the pope, to be enthroned or dethroned at his pleasure; that "accord" which enabled popes to order temporal rulers to extirpate all heretics in their realms; that "accord" which would allow a bishop to enter the kingdom and butcher those whose conscience repudiated popery with its idols, relics, bleached bones, saints, etc. To those millions who weltered in their own blood rather than surrender free conscience, it made no difference whether they were murdered according to the papal rights set out in the Third or Fourth Chapter of the Vatican Decrees ! By what test are the subjects of the church proven? Leo XIII says: "Obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith," 380. I do not believe there is any "confusion" in the mind of the reader as to the "real claim of the pope to temporal power." (2) It was the decision of a pope that made Pepin Emperor The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 207 of France; he engaged in wars with the Lombards. About the year 754 Pepin was importuned by the pope to war on Astol- phus, King of the Lombards; this king, desiring to secure peace at any price, among other concessions, agreed to recognize the sovereignty of the Franks, pay them tribute, and ceded to Pepin the towns and lands belonging to the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire, which were then occupied by the Lombards, which took in Ravenna, Pimini, Pesaro or the Romaga, the Duchy of Urbino, and a part of the marches of Ancona. These being subjugated by the sword, Pepin deeded them to the pope — which was the be- ginning of the temporal sovereignty of the pope over them, known in history as the "Papal States." (3) Those who believe in Democracy, and the Bible, recognize that all just powers of the government are derived from the "con- sent of the governed.'' Having been favored by the pope, Pepin believed that "one good turn deserved another," so he presented the pope with the fruits of his conquest — and it took those people just one thousand years to realize they were being governed with- out their consent; and when they did, they cast off what Leo terms the "sweet yoke" of the papacy. As to other territory gained by purchase or grant — every school boy is supposed to know that the people have the right, under the law of Eminent Domain, to terminate or abrogate the rights of an individual or combination of individuals when that course is deemed to be for the best interests of the community, just com- pensation being tendered; the darkest spot throughout all the Dark Ages was these same Papal States when the pope was King. By the sword were the original Papal States won — by the sword were they liberated. (4) This is a very blatant assertion, and it would pass muster were it not known that the popes demand and strive for the resto- ration of the temporal sovereignty, as Leo says, "by the very nature of Our office and Our sacred promise confirmed on oath'* p. 15. Here is the pope, God's Superintendent ( ! ) upon earth* swearing before his "sacred" congregation of cardinals to strive to get back his temporal power (although Christ said, "May king- dom is not of this world") , while Farrell says that question "has no practical interest for Catholics outside of Italy!" The pope says it is necessary for him to have it, and this question contains the germ of a world-disaster; like Samson, when he realized his day was done, he may try to wreck the world, and not even Romanists know what infernal trickery the pope under the direc- tion of Jesuitism may stage, by an infallible decree calling upon the "faithful" of the world to rise up in his behalf and attempt to restore his "princedom" : the pope sent Pepin a message, which he said had been delivered to him by St. Peter from heaven, 208 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged directing him to make war on the Lombards — thus the origin of temporal sovereignty; can the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia give valid bond that the pope will not get in touch with Peter and again attempt to hoax the world? The people of Italy are very much concerned with this matter. So much so, that the pope has less real influence in Rome than he has in New York, Chicago, or other large American centers — be- cause the people of Italy KNOW HIM AND HIS WORKS; his priests are forbidden, by Catholic-made law, to officiate at mar- riages unless they have first been performed by the civil authority, while in some of the States of Italy it is against the law to sell such books as Liguori's "Moral" (?) Theology. Cardinal Manning evidently spoke by the "cards" — he pre- dicted this question would bring on a world war. Augusta, Ga., Nov. 9, 1917. Dear Sir: You quote the Syllabus of Errors again under 15 (rather you misquote it). (1) I failed to mention that you misquoted it, also, under 14; in fact, you invariably misquote it, as you yourself will see if you only take the trouble to read the Syllabus first-hand. And you might know by inference if you only reflect that the Syllabus of Errors is a collection of negations from which it is clearly bad logic to conclude the opposite affirmative as necessarily true and worse argument to quote that opposite in language that does not appear in the document you purpose to quote from. Moreover, paragraph 27, which you misquote, has no reference to the universal church but only to the Papal States, as you would know, if you had by you the allocution which this particular para- graph refers to. (2) As to the statement of Leo XIII where he says "if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with divine law ... to resist becomes a positive duty; to obey a crime," I endorse that. All Catholics endorse it. All men ought to endorse it. If that be treason — make the most of it. Very truly, JJF/MC J. J- Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT Mr. Farrell here again charges me with misquoting the Sylla- bus of Errors and also denies their relevance to countries outside the Papal States. Claiming he holds the place of God on earth, the pope's jurisdiction, necessarily in all things, extends as far as that of his principal— God. It is needless to say more as to that proposition. Any intelligent person knows that if I had mis- quoted the Syllabus of Errors, Farrell would have set me right, BY QUOTING THEM. If a lawyer at the bar objects to the citation of his opponent, or denies the sense in which the law cited is used in the instant case, it is his duty not only to object, but he must sustain his objection by himself reading the citations The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 209 objected to for the benefit of the court and jury: a simple denial does not help his case — especially when he is supposed to have the volumes at hand. Apply this rule to Farrell's charge. Farrell says "the Syllabus of Terrors is a collection of negations from which it is clearly bad logic to conclude the opposite affirma- tive as necessarily true." "Negation: Denial" — "a collection of denials," then, if you prefer; what do they deny? Leo says, cer- tain "false opinions that were gaining ground." If the premise is true that Pius IX branded as false certain opinions, then the only logical conclusion is, the opposite affirmative IS TRUE. Again I will cite one of the propositions as quoted by Leo XIII : "To like effect . . . did Pius IX brand publicly many false opin- ions ... it will suffice to indicate a few of them : Prop. lv. The Church must be separated from the State and the State from the Church!" Farrell says it is "bad logic" for me to say that Pius taught "it is error to say the Church must be separated from the State and the State from the Church!" and that in doing so, I am misquoting ! To say that it is error to hold that "The male is the mother of its species," and then also say it is "bad logic" to con- clude the opposite affirmative is necessarily true by declaring "The female is the mother of its species," may be good logic to those accustomed to accept the dictum of a priest, but is senseless, childish twaddle to minds free from the Papal Index. I am sur- prised to learn that Leo fell into the same error as myself; the pope should get Mr. Farrell, of the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, to straighten out the contents of the Vatican archives. (I will have occasion later to refer to this Syllabus of Errors — and will show that one of its propositions is now written in the canon law of Farrell's church!) A Catholic acts according to papal law — it's his conscience. So, before discussing Farrell's deleted quotation from Leo, we will first consider "conscience" and what it signifies to the mind of a Romanist; we have previously treated of the law. The untutored savage would not kill more game than he could dispose of properly — his "conscience" forbade it; primitive in- stinct was his monitor. "Conscience" is that element of the human mind and heart by which man distinguishes good from evil, if it has not been "seared as with a hot iron" by some subtle process; it is subject to a refined state of development, or debase- ment. Under the Christian dispensation, God gave man His Word the Bible as a guide for his conscience: "The entrance of Thy Word giveth light" and is a guide to all truth ; we can not have a conscience void of offense to God and man unless it is developed under the influence of the Bible, as summed up in the Ten Com- mandments; based upon any other theory, is paganism. In placing himself between the Creature and its God, the pope 210 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged diverts the human conscience from the Bible to himself and human "Traditions," placing the writings of man (St. Thomas Aquinas) on an equal footing with the Bible; hence, the Catholic conscience must be developed universally in accord with the will of a man — the pope; and if it is exercised at all, it must be in harmony, not with the Word of God, but with the word of the pope. Under stated conditions, a Catholic will disobey the laws of the land; his conscience prompts it. Let us consider a few manifesta- tions of Catholic conscience; it may throw some light on their attitude to our law, whether or not it is a safe monitor in a de- mocracy : Following the promptings of his conscience, John Wycliffe trans- lated the Holy Scriptures in the common tongue, for which he was harassed by popery; thirty years after his death, his remains were exhumed, by a decree issued by the Council of Constance, and burnt; that's Catholic conscience. John Huss embraced the teaching of Wycliffe by the prompt- ings of his conscience; he was summoned to appear before this same Council of Constance; he appeared, having a safe pass-port from the Catholic king going and coming — he trusted them. This council found him guilty of heresy, and the Catholic conscience and plighted word burnt him at the stake. In obedience to his conscience, the monk, Savonarola, denounced the wickedness and corruption of his fellow-priests; the Catholic conscience burnt him. Bruno discovered it was death to know more than the con- science of the pope allowed. The earlier Christians, known as Albigenses, Waldenses, and Lollards, were put to death by wholesale because their conscience would not permit them to subscribe to popery. A writer has said: "Among the hereditable or transmissible qualities in animals and in man, the most stubbornly persistent is an instinctive tendency to respond to environment." The real characteristics of a man, or nation, will not only be developed, but revealed by environment, and the inner conscience — or what the nation is at heart — will be manifested in actions, words, deeds, literature and law. A cannibal inherits his taste for human flesh; his environment fosters and develops it; this characteristic finds expression when opportunity brings a victim within reach. To overcome this bar- barism, there must be enlightenment: ''The entrance of Thy Word giveth light"; when the cannibal learns the true relation of man to man and his God, this practice that was once a joyous feast becomes abhorrent— but make it impossible to change en- vironment by keeping intellect in the dark — as by an "Index" — The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 211 and each succeeding generation would be man-eaters to the end of time. To appreciate the conscience of a Catholic, it is necessary to understand somewhat of the environment into which he is born and raised — the nature he inherits: viewed from a religious standpoint, Romanism dethrones God and substitutes the pope; destroys the Gospel and relies upon Tradition ; fetters reason with the iron grip of authority, making it criminal to reason, but virtue to murder; all this produces a heart, mind and "conscience" that will hear no voice but the pope's, and hence, like clay in the potter's hands, can be moulded into any phantastic shape the enemy of man desires; if the pope declares the blackness of hell to be the light of heaven, the environment of the Catholic has been such as to force him to assent to the pope's definition. Now let us consider Leo's statement, and set it out in full, as it was intended to be construed by Catholics : "If the laws of the State are at variance with divine law; or, "If the laws of the State contain enactments hurtful to the church; or, "If the laws of the State convey injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion ; or, "If the laws of the State violate the authority of Christ vested in the pope of Rome, Catholics must not only resist such, but to obey these laws of the State would be a crime." Now, as between the State and the pope, who is to determine when the laws of the State violate the pope's laws? The pope. Who is to resist these laws of the State when the pope declares they violate his laws? The Roman Catholic. Deharbe's Catechism teaching "On Faith" says: "1. What is Faith as proposed by a Catholic Christian? "Faith is a virtue infused by God into our souls, by which we believe, without doubting, all those things which God has re- vealed, and proposes by His church to our belief. "7 How did Divine Revelation come down to us? "Divine Revelation came down to us partly by writing — that is, by the Holy Scripture or the Bible; partly by word of mouth — that is, by Tradition. "14. Is it enough to believe only those doctrines which are con- tained in the Holy Scripture? "No ; we must also believe Tradition. "17. How has Tradition been handed down to us? ". . . by the rites of the church . . . in the decrees and defini- tions of the church, and in the writings of the Holy Fathers. "20. What, then, must the Catholic Christian in general believe? "He must believe all that God has revealed and the Catholic 212 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged church (that is, THE POPE) proposes to his belief, whether it be contained in the Holy Scripture or not." Observe, that in the earliest training, the Catholic is taught to believe in God only as He is revealed by the pope, to believe in Tradition, the Decrees and Definitions of the popes, and the writ- ings of the "holy" fathers of the church ; all subsequent education is but to strengthen belief in papalism along these lines: there- fore, when the pope through his priests says any law is in conflict with the laws of God, a Catholic has no alternative but to believe it, and act accordingly; being the only person in the world who has the right to teach what is "Divine Law," naturally the pope is the sole judge whether or not the laws of the land conflict with "divine" law; now — The Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the sev- eral States of the Union, separate the State from the church; this is "manifestly at variance with divine law," and for a Cath- olic to assent to it is, to commit a crime against his church. Every law of every State in the Union which provides for and maintains the free public school in which citizens are to be trained to perpetuate the State is an enactment "hurtful to the church" of Rome, and it is the positive duty of Catholics to resist this law — "to obey, a crime." One manifestation of "resisting" this law is concretely shown by the competitive parochial school being formed where there are enough Romanists to make it pay. The laws of the land give every man the right to civil and reli- gious liberty — a "Free Conscience," which "convey injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion" — laws which prevent the pope's subjects from killing their fellow-citizens because they will not subscribe to Traditions and writings of the papal fathers, pray to Mary, worship the pancake god and eat him at the com- mand of the priest — "to obey" these laws is "a crime." The laws of the land provide penalties against liars, thieves, adulterers, murderers, etc., all of which "violate in the person of the pope the authority of Jesus Christ," which Catholics are taught to resist as a duty, and a crime to obey, such being an in- vasion of priestly precincts! If Romanists were numerous enough in America to put into effect the pope's interpretation of "divine" law, every right guar- anteed by the Constitution along with the free public school would be blotted out and the polluting doctrines of the "Holy Fathers"— Aquinas, Dens, Liguori, et al., would do for America what they have done for the Latin nations of the earth — the destruction of morality, justice, and truth, while rivers of blood would flow to satiate an insatiable monster. Mr. Farrel, speaking with authority for the Catholics of Geor- gia—and a unit of the Federated Society of Catholics — says: "// that be treason — make the most of it." The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 213 Farrell and all Catholics receive their inspiration and direction from Rome — from the "Traditions" of the "holy" fathers — the product and cause of the Dark Ages — people among us, but not of us, who live under oath to wreck American civilization the instant the pope thinks it can be done with safety to himself, with a wrecking-crew of 20,000 priests and Jesuits to direct his "faith- ful," who boast of their position : "If that be treason — make the most of it." The American people will dispose of that issue — they have never yet failed to handle a matter when it was up for action — and if that attitude of Catholics be treason, the people will make the most of it. The fundamental law of the land grants freedom of conscience and enforces religious toleration ; but it does not give any one the right to use that very law as a basis upon which to stand and de- stroy or undermine such fundamental law, so that the reverse can be instituted. To the Romanists of America, the pope says, "Whosoever is separated from the (Roman) church is united to an adulteress": this is a picture of our beloved land as impressed on the "con- science" of a Catholic, who is in duty bound to aid him in estab- lishing the opposite, by uniting State and Church under popery; like the German Kaiser, the Romanists want "Peace" — but it must come only after the opponents of the pope are under the sod, or are resistless under the spiked heel of that institution, reason secure under the pope's Authority, with virtue and honesty com- mitted to his agents the priests ! What does "the" church teach which must be held as of equal authority as the Gospels? Here are a few articles of "faith" which will indicate what may be expected from a Catholic "con- science" : "Saint" Liguori : "When a crime is well concealed, the witness, and even the criminal, may and even must swear that the crime has not been committed." "The guilty party may yet do likewise, when a half proof can not be brought against him." Can a woman who has committed adultery deny it under oath? Liguori answers: "Yes; provided she has been to confess, and received the absolution ; for then the sin has been pardoned, and has really ceased to exist." ( !) Liguori (L. 2) : "Though lying is forbidden, we may be allowed to conceal the truth, or to disguise it under ambiguous or equivo- cal words or signs for a just cause. ... If, for example, you are among heretical people, you can do more good by concealing your faith." (To what extent were the Jesuit "missionaries" governed by this "principle" among the heathen of India, China, Japan? To what extent does FarrelFs letters show he was governed by it 214 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged in this the twentieth century? Verily, the Roman church NEVER CHANGES.) Qu. "22. Are we sometimes allowed to use mental reservation in a loose sense or determinable equivocation? Ans. : "Yes ; when there is a grave reason for doing so. Such a manner of speaking" merely permits the hearer "to deceive him- self concerning matters which he has no right to know," p. 306, "Manual of Christian Doctrine." (This is the predicate of Liguori's theology.) The pope can release from any oath. — St. Thomas, Ques. 89» Art. 9, Vol. IV. Heretics must be killed. — St. Thomas, Vol. IV, p. 91. Pope can release subjects from oath of allegiance to civil ruler. —St. Thomas, Vol. IV, p. 91. All the foregoing goes to shape the Catholic "conscience." And here's more ; from the decree of the church adopted at the Lateran Council, which is not dead — but sleeping — awaiting "expediency": "We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy ... by whatever name they may be known. . . . Seculiar powers . . . are . . . compelled ... to swear that they will exert themselves to the utmost in the defense of the faith, and extirpate all heretics. "If any temporal lord . . . neglect to clear his territory of heretical depravity . . . the fact shall be signified to the Supreme Pontiff, who will declare his vassals (subjects) released from their allegiance from that time, and will bestow the territory on Catholics, to be occupied by them, on the condition of exterminat- ing the heretics. "Catholics who shall assume the cross for the extermination of heretics shall enjoy the indulgencies as are granted those who go to the help of the Holy Land" (i. e., same as those who fight against the Turks!) "We decree further, that all who may have dealings with here- tics, and especially such as receive, defend, or encourage them, shall be excommunicated." THE LAWS OF THE STATES OF THE UNION FORBID ALL THESE LAWS AND DECREES OF THE ITALIAN CHURCH — Farrell says if it be treason to oppose the laws of the land in favor of the laws of his church, make the most of it. When a man studies for the Roman priesthood, he spends about six years with the "classics" — ancient paganism, and the same amount of time with the "traditions" and "decrees and defini- tions" and "writings of the holy fathers"; now give him a "sub- ject" with a "conscience" brought up under the Index, one not allowed to question, and you can the more readily understand from Farrell's letters what chance a papal subject has of learn- The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 215 ing the difference between God's law and the pope's will — the utter impossibility of appreciating the liberties of a free people, and to ever be content to live in a land where the accursed doc- trines of popery are not the laws of the land. The Congress of the United States should appoint a joint com- mission and make a thorough investigation of the pope's religion; and if it be found conflicting with the fundamental laws of the land, or tends to debase the morals of the people, or subverts the principles of democracy, ABOLISH IT. Make it a penitentiary offense to teach or practice Rome's polluting Theology, just as Mormon Polygamy was abolished. It can be done — it must be done. What say you, Americans? To Roman Catholics, I say: "If this be 'religious' intolerance — make the most of it." That foreign, Italian institution that has slipped into America under the veneer of Christianity to tear down what our fore- fathers erected at the cost of blood, teaches that in countries not Catholic, in order that the demoralizing, blighting curse of popery may have freedom to operate its laws and practice its political schemes for a world-empire under the livery of heaven, "it is lawful to seek for such change of government as will bring about due liberty of action." Leo XIII, Enc. Lets., p. 16. This is inciting to treason and rebellion — awaiting opportunity or "expediency," for execution, as in Ireland. Augusta, Ga., Nov. 10, 1917. Dear Sir: In answer to your Question 17, I stated: "The Catholic church does not recognize any other church as having been founded by Jesus Christ. Christ established but one church. Our church teaches, and we Catholics believe, that the Catholic church is that church." (1) Your objections under this head are not pertinent. Indeed, since we do not demand that you believe that the Catholic church was founded by Christ, and since you have nothing to do with our believing it, it seems rather bordering on the impertinent; but it is a small matter. (2) Only, you ought to be satisfied NOT to believe what you don't believe. If you are not, how can it satisfy you better to have us also dissatisfied? Very truly, JJF/MC J- J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) Christ said: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? "A good tree can not bring forth evil fruit, neither can a cor- rupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matt, vii: 15-18. 216 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged Farrell says "since we do not demand — " Who are "we"? — Catholic laymen? Since when has the pope delegated to them the right to speak authoritatively for him on this subject? What Catholic laymen say and what the LAW of the POPE DEMANDS are different matters, and until Farrell can show credentials au- thorizing what "we" demand as being LAW, his remarks must remain as those of an individual, and not an answer to what the church teaches. I have tried all the way along to get him to dis- tinguish between what individuals wished and what his church taught "we" must do. When an unfettered mind can be convinced that Christ has any connection with an Institution with the record of the popes behind it, with bloody record behind it, with the mur- derous laws now supporting it, with the anti-social doctrines it teaches, then I will be willing to admit such to be Christian; how- ever, I am not so much interested in whether the Roman church be pagan or Christian in religion, as I am in what it teaches in re- gard to those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of the pope; and the Italian church has ever considered it "impertinent" to question what the pope teaches through his church the priests, especially when the fruits of the system are involved. (2) The ten lost tribes of Israel were at one time among God's chosen people : the Roman church was Christian, until it fell into the pit the devil dug for Christ: "And the devil taketh Him into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Matt. iv:8-9. As an American, I am satisfied to let Romanists enjoy their religion in all its phases, even if such be abhorrent to me, until said religion intrenches upon the rights of non-Catholics; then, I am for abolishing by law every phase of that religion which seeks to interfere, or would if in the ascendency interfere, with the laws of the land and the guarantees of liberty of the Constitution. It is impossible for me to make "Catholics" dissatisfied; there is no chance in the world for this book to "get by" the Index — that's what it is for: a few priests may read it — and admit its truth; but these leters from the association have been a revelation to me; I see deeper into the system now than could have been possible from any course of reading, and if I can show my fellow- countrymen the social and political menace of the papal institu- tion, I will consider my work not in vain. I am convinced Roman- ism is a political institution with a world-wide ambition, mas- querading under the thin veil of Christianity, and if not held in subjection to the laws of the land will make America what she has made Spain — for the forces which made this country did not make Spain and Italy — Italy up to 1870. The issue is purely The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 217 political, and if "religion" enters into it at all, it is merely used as a cloak. I ask the reader to carefully consider the laws and decrees of the Roman chuich, and ask himself the question honestly: Can they bless a fr«e people? Are the laws of the pope the will of Christ? If not, then, they must be suppressed. Augusta, Ga., Nov. 10, 1917. Dear Sir : Yai asked me in 16 if I thought there is any perse- cution of Catholics in this country. Now, you say, "the object of this question was to ascertain if you really believe . . . that Catholics and non-Catholics are of the same flesh, vith the same feelings, the same nature," and so on. I hope you willpardon me, but I am at an utter loss to fathom your meaning. Snce you have been good enough to disclose the hidden motive of your question, you will doubtless be willing to unveil the hiddenmeaning of your objection. (1) I shall awat your helpful and enlightening assistance on this score. Very truly yours, JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. COMMENT (1) Mr. Farrell wants enlightenment — very well: Human nature has been th same since the day Adam and Eve walked out of the Garden d Eden: the laws and decrees of the pope have been the same through all the centuries where papal subjects were in the majority in e^ry country, and the result has been the same in those countries. Vhere popery has been in power, a country's law-makers must mke it a penal crime — punish with death or debasement — not to belong to the papal church, the essence of the papal laws and (screes. Now, Romanists en not point to a single country in the world where the church wa in "accord" with the State without admit- ting the above charg0and that this "accord" blighted that nation; now, then, if Catholic believe all men are essentially alike — that we are all of the same^lesh and blood, they know that that which will make one bleed, vM also make another bleed ; that which will make one smile, will lave the same effect upon another; that which will stir and kiflle the wrath of one will have like effect upon another; AND, lit has ever been true, or would be true again, under Romanisn to be a Protestant was your death war- rant, certainly Rome c^ not fill a non-Catholic country, as this, with her priest-agentslo direct the laymen toward control of politics, secure 80 per tent, of all prominent national appoint- ments, secure and hold Vluable untaxed property in the name of the pope, monopolize thdt>icture shows to advertise priests, nuns, and other papal propaghda while holding up all non-Catholic affairs and institutions b ridicule in the most subtle manner, 218 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged censor and curb the free press, intimidate Protestant ministers and non-Catholic speakers by boycott or murder End mob violence, attempt to close all public halls against those wk> desire to speak on popery, combine into one society all the Cathdics in the coun- try and become the balance of power politically, work for the destruction of the free public school system in fzvor of the papal parochial school, introduce bills in Congress, Stete Legislatures and City Councils to suppress free speech and tie free press, and use its membership to try to block every civil mcral reform of the country — I repeat, if Catholics believe we are