§ 5

Supr., p. 254. I have said, “The Pope, who comes of Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature,” i.e. the natural Law. Mr. Gladstone on the other hand says, “Idle it is to tell us, finally, that the Pope is bound by the moral and divine law, by the commandments of God, by the rules of the Gospel: ... for of these, one and all, the Pope himself, by himself, is the judge without appeal,” p. 102. That is, Mr. Gladstone thinks that the Pope may deny and anathematize the proposition, “There is one God:” and may proceed to circulate by Cardinal Antonelli a whole Syllabus of kindred “erroneous theses” for the instruction of the Bishops. Catholics think this impossible, as believing in a Divine Providence ever exercised over the Church. But let us grant, for argument-sake, that a Pope could commit so insane a violation of the Natural and the Revealed Law:—we know what would be the consequence to such a Pope. Cardinal Turrecremata teaches, as I have quoted him, that “were the Pope to command anything {359} against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands to be ignored.” Supr., p. 242. Other, and they the highest Ultramontane theologians, hold that a Pope who teaches heresy ipso facto ceases to be Pope.

Supr., p. 261. Here, after stating that there are cases in which the Pope’s commands are to be resisted by individual Catholics, I challenge Mr. Gladstone to bring passages from our authoritative writers to the contrary: and I add, “they must be passages declaring not only that the Pope is ever to be obeyed, but that there are no exceptions to this rule, for exceptions ever must be in all concrete matters.” Instead of doing so, Mr. Gladstone contents himself with enunciating the contradictory to what I have said. “Dr. Newman says there are exceptions to this precept of obedience. But this is just what the Council has not said. The Church by the Council imposes Aye. The private conscience reserves to itself the title to say No. I must confess that in this apology there is to me a strong, undeniable smack of Protestantism,” p. 69.

Mr. Gladstone says “there is to me;” yes, certainly to him and other Protestants, because they do not know our doctrine. I have given in my Pamphlet, three reasons in justification of what I said; first that exceptions must be from the nature of the case, “for in all concrete matters,” not only in precepts of obedience, rules are but general, and exceptions must occur. Then, in a later page, p. 334, I give actual instances, which have {360} occurred in the history of Catholic teaching, of exceptions after large principles have been laid down. But my main reason lies in the absolute statements of theologians. I willingly endure to have about me a smack of Protestantism, which attaches to Cardinal Turrecremata in the 15th century, to Cardinals Jacobatius and Bellarmine in the 16th, to the Carmelites of Salamanca in the 17th, and to all theologians prior to them; and also to the whole Schola after them, such as to Fathers Corduba, Natalis Alexander, and Busenbaum, and so down to St. Alfonso Liguori, the latest Doctor of the Church, in the 18th, and to Cardinal Gousset and Archbishop Kenrick in the 19th.

On the subject of the supremacy of Conscience a correspondent has done me the favour of referring me to a passage in the life of the well-known M. Emery (Paris, 1862), Supérieur of St. Sulpice. It runs as follows:—

“La célébration du mariage de Napoléon avec l’Archiduchesse d’Autriche donna lieu à une autre difficulté sur la quelle M. Emery fut dans le cas de s’expliquer, non avec le gouvernement, mais avec quelques cardinaux qui désiraient connaître son sentiment. Il s’agissait de savoir si les cardinaux résident à Paris, au nombre de vingt-six, pouvaient en conscience assister à la cérémonie religieuse du mariage. Quelques jours avant cette cérémonie, M. Emery, consulté la-dessus par le cardinal della Somaglia, qui paraissait regarder cette assistance comme illicite, lui répondit que, s’il était effectivement dans cette persuasion, il ne pouvait en conscience assister à la cérémonie, parce qu’il n’est jamais {361} permis d’agir contre sa conscience. Mais il ajouta que cette assistance, au fond, ne lui paraissait pas illicite,” &c.

It got about in consequence that he had denied that any cardinal could with a safe conscience be present at the religious ceremony. This led Cardinal Fesch to write him a letter asking for an explanation, inasmuch as a cardinal had distinctly stated “que M. Emery avait confirmé ce cardinal dans son opinion, qu’il ne pouvait pas, en conscience, assister au mariage de l’Empereur;” whereas, Cardinal Fesch proceeds, “hier même, à trois heures après midi, M. Emery, pour la seconde ou troi-sième fois, m’avait protesté qui’l était d’une opinion toute contraire, et qu’il pensait que les cardinaux pouvaient assister à la cérémonie.” In consequence he asked for “une réponse catégorique” from M. Emory.

M. Emery in consequence wrote letters to both cardinals to show his consistency in the language he had used in conversation with each of them, insisting for that purpose on the distinction which has led to the introduction of his name and conduct into this place, viz., that every man must go by his own conscience, not by that of another. He says to Cardinal Somaglia, “Vous m’avez dit qu’après avoir fait les récherches les plus exactes, vous étiez convaincu que vous ne pouviez aller au mariage sans blesser votre conscience. J’ai dû vous dire, et je vous ai dit, que, dans cette supposition, vous ne deviez point y assister, parce que j’étais persuadé comme vous, qu’on ne pouvait, qu’on ne devait jamais, agir contre sa conscience, même erronée.” He adds, “Non que les inconvénients soient une raison d’autoriser l’assistance qui serait d’ailleurs illicite, mais ces inconvenients sont {362} une raison très-forte d’examiner le plus attentivement qu’il est possible, si réellement l’assistance est illicite, et si la conscience qu’on s’est formée à cette sujet n’est point une conscience erronée.”—t. 2, pp. 249-254.

In the event Cardinal Somaglia kept to his view, contrary to M. Emery, and did not attend the marriage ceremony.