Jwniiintf rihi

THE

Ecclesiastical Review
A MONTHLY PUBLICATION FOR THE CLERGY
-^.ΛιΛμΓ jAjTFiLrM ->

Vol. LXXX
JANUARY-JUNE.,

** IrtEidttiâ

tgig

tUTtfiti”

I Cor. t$; $.

wtum.îBU
Bmctican SccieeiMttdt Vevtcw
tûjç

ssgaassfgrrrïnrTL1 1.11 ί· 1 ιοιβμηιπηι^,τ

142

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

exacting practices, regardless of their bearing on our high |
destiny. We are not entirely indifferent. We know that we I
ought to cultivate spiritual exercises. But if one exercise is
I
as good as another, why not take the easy one and be com|
fortable? We take spiritual food, but it does not nourish the
|
soul. “ A life of mortification is of little use unless we mortify
I
that in us which most wants mortifying. ... We have known
|
a youth whose weakness was eating, but whose favorite morti|
fication was keeping silence for five minutes after supper. We
|
have known another who was vain of his hands and his hair,
|
and cultivated and displayed them without any self-restraint,
|
and who practised as a mortification, going without salt on
I
Fridays.”2
I
The Church has her own secrets of practical wisdom. Her
(
traditions have sifted out carefully many practices of spiritual
life, countless forms of renunciation, ways of fostering the
spiritual sense adapted to the wisdom of a genius as readily
as to the simplicity of a child. The watchfulness of those in
authority has done much to hinder unreasonable severities and
•to attach high spiritual dignity to what we may humanly call
trifles. A spiritual director who understands the soul that he
is guiding is free to suggest substitution of more rigorous for
less rigorous spiritual practices or inversely, as may seem to
him proper. Hence substitutions in spiritual life when righly
used are to be welcomed. When the priest as penitent
organizes his spiritual activity as his director advises, no
> problem occurs. But what is held in mind at the moment is
the freer organization of spiritual life as a whole, a.habit of
self-discipline fostered, the spiritual uses of relations with
others, likes and dislikes, habits of piety, as all of these enter
into the composition of supernatural life. We must be on
guard against an easy habit of substitution which excuses
effort and leaves our natural qualities in control.
This easier way of doing things results sometimes from an
inadvertent mistake. The world calls some things small and
other things big in ordinary living. Now the wisdom of the
saints inverts that scale very often and finds big things small
and small things big. They could find immeasurable spiritual
s Lac

Lreitarm* Hedley, ç. ja.

I

TRUTH AND THE POPE’S ENCYCLICAL.

value in trifles and trifling value in things that the world calls
great. This inversion of values which was effected by Christ
in both His teaching and example was nothing short of a pro­
found revolution in all measurements of value. Certainly in
His time the poor were socially insignificant, while the learned
and powerful were looked upon with awe. And yet Christ
elevated His least brethren and robbed the powerful and
learned of their deceiving grandeur. A cup of cold water
given in the name of Christ took on spiritual majesty, while
wealth and ease were shorn of their hitherto unchallenged
attraction. The last place at the banquet table takes pre­
cedence, when viewed with a discerning spiritual eye.
These lessons in spiritual values are learned in the primary
grades in the school of Christ. True interior life frees the
soul from the tyranny of social measurements and introduces
the divine scale of values set by Christ. Hence the individual
soul will be on guard against substitutions and fallacies of
valuation which show the subtle working of the traits of
human nature as it resists the supremacy of the divine ideal in
each life.
William J. Kerby.
THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF TRUTH AND THE POPE’S
ENCYCLICAL.

N 6 January of last year, 1928, Pope Pius XI issued an
encyclical on the Promotion of True Religious Unity
which has occasioned much adverse criticism outside the
Church. The immediate occasion of the Letter was the grow­
ing movement of uniting the churches of Christendom under
one head, due to the hopeless disintegration in which the sects
find themselves. During the past few years the Anglican
Church has been prominent in this movement and unofficial
approaches have been made to the Holy See to sound out its
stand on the question.
It is significant to note that the union of Churches is not ·
with the Episcopalian, not with the Baptist, not with the
Presbyterian, but with the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics
understand why ; many of our separated brethren do not. Even
Church history is unknown to them. They are of Protestant

O

144

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

affiliation by accident of birth only, as many Catholics are
Catholics because they were bom of Catholic parents and have
never strengthened their faith with the conviction which comes
from study. Not that their faith is weak, but they cannot give
an intelligent explanation of the faith that is in them. To
them, as to non-Catholics whose want of faith is blameless, the
Encyclical of the Holy Father is an enigma. They accept it,
but let them be questioned by those outside the Church con­
cerning it, and their attitude is one of apology rather than
explanation. Their answers instead of satisfying their hear­
ers only deepen conviction that Catholics in matters of re­
ligion have no minds of their own and let the priests think for
them. Priests with a reason for the faith that is in them, who
from the pulpit and the press defend but do not explain the
exclusiveness of the true religion, may stand upon the Rock
of Peter and boast that the gates of Hell will never prevail
against it; but this manner of defence, while satisfying Cath­
olics, will not help them to explain their position to non­
Catholics. It will repel rather than invite investigation by
those outside the Church.
There can and will be no compromise when it is a question
of revealed Truth, as the Holy Father has pointed out. While
granting that no papal document was ever so widely read by
non-Catholics as the recent Encyclical, nevertheless it was not
an open letter to the world. It wras written “ To our Venerable
Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and to
All Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic
See" to Catholic Bishops the world over who knew and be­
lieved the Truths therein exposed before the Holy Father
every penned his Encyclical. Its purpose is clearly explained
in the sixth paragraph. “ In the consciousness of our Apos• tolic office let not the flock of the Lord be led astray by error.’’
The “ error” is definitely pointed out in the second sentence of
the second paragraph in the document. {Ecclesiastical
Review, April 1928, p. 392]. “ Convinced that rarely do men
lack all sense of religion, they {those outside the Church seek­
ing church unity],1 seem to draw from this, reason to hope that
without great difficulty it may come about that all peoples, no
matter how different their religions, will stand fraternally to1 "Words in parenthesis are the writer’s.

TRUTH AND THE POPE’S ENCYCLICAL.

I4g

gether in the profession of a few doctrines which will serve
as a kind of common foundation for the spiritual life.” The
Holy Father continues, “We invoke your zeal, Venerable
Brethren, to ward off this evil ; for we are convinced that by
means of your writings and-your words, the principles and
reasons We shall expound will more quickly reach the people,
and they will come to understand them better so that they will
know how to judge, and how to conduct themselves in relation
to, the efforts made to coalesce in one body through some sort
of pact all who call themselves Christians.” Therein is con­
tained the purpose of the Encyclical, written to the Bishops
that they might instruct their people, the Catholic people, “ how
to conduct themselves in relation to the efforts to coalesce in
one body through some sort of pact all who call themselves
Christians.” These efforts are made by whom? By non­
Catholics seeking some sort of pact of Church unity. Hence
it is dear the Holy Father was not addressing himself to non­
Catholics, but to Catholics, and that he fashioned his diction
accordingly, bidding them to hold fast the faith that is in
them without any compromise.
Now the same truth must be presented to non-Catholics,
and in just as uncompromising a manner. But because they
are non-Catholics, that presentation must be preceded by a
preparation which will dispose them for its acceptance. This
should not be done with a challenging “ I am right and you
are wrong” attitude, if we are to look for any measure of
harvest; but with the charity of the Holy Father which invites
and welcomes without sacrificing principle. “ Let them return
to the common father of them all; he has forgotten the unjust
wrongs inflicted against the Holy See, and will receive them
lovingly.” It is one thing to instruct our own people, “ No
compromise ”. It is quite another thing to present it to non­
Catholics with tact that will assure conviction that one re­
ligion is not as good as another, without assailing error in any
religion, and thus holding the good will and graces of those
not in the fold. This can be attained only by getting them to
understand the Catholic viewpoint of Truth. Once they are
brought to understand the principle in back of “No compro­
mise,” the Church’s stand on the exclusiveness of the true re­
ligion, as laid down in the Encyclical, will occasion admiration

!46

the ecclesiastical review.

on their part and contribute in no little measure to the validity
of her claims. There were a few Protestant journals that
sensed this Catholic viewpoint and in no uncertain terms
praised the Holy Father for His stand, though not agreeing
with him on the validity of his claims. Notably among them
was the Presbyterian. It commented upon the Encyclical as
being “ only what might have been expected, so it seems to us.
What is more, its contents are substantially what they ought to
be—provided the historic position of the Roman Catholic
Church is valid.” Agreeing with the Pope that Church unity
cannot be attained by compromising on matters of faith, it
continues, “ We regret the Pope’s wrong assumptions, but we
admire his loyalty to principle, his unwillingness to sacrifice
what he regards as divinely revealed truth for the sake of
unity of organization. Would that many of our advocates of
a pan-Protestantism had more of the same loyalty to what they
regard as truth, less of a disposition to sacrifice what they, too,
regard as divinely revealed truth for the same unity of organ­
ization.”
If we can get our separated brethren to think with a Catholic
mind on this question, to look at it in an unbiased manner from
a Catholic viewpoint, we can prescind for the time being from
the validity of her claims, and much can be accomplished to­
ward effecting Church unity. To get them to do this is only
to convince them that Truth is one, and necessarily must always
be exclusive of error, and never variable. This can be done
outside the domain of religion entirely, thus lending no occasion of being charged with intolerance and narrow-mindedness.
The presentation can be made without any “Rock of Peter”
defiance, without any “ gates of Hell shall not prevail ” chal­
lenge. It can be made inviting and convincing that further
inquiry is worth while.
Let us take the truth that two and two make four. Whether
new schools of mathematics arose or not, they must all be based
on that elementary truth, else chaos would result. Now we will
suppose that such a condition should arise. One school teaches
that the sum of two and two make five, another, six ; still an­
other, seven. We remain with the old school which teaches
two and two make four. We respect, we number among our
friends those who believe differently. But we can never sanc-

atiwiiateseuMMi

TRUTH AND THE POPE’S ENCYCLICAL.

;

i
>
;
!

i
J
j

L·

I4y

tion their error. The schools multiply till there are almost
as many answers to what two and two do make as there are
people. Then in a hopeless division of beliefs, occasioned by
the captious diction, “ It does not matter what school you be­
long to; one is as good as another,” some leader in these
" schools says, “ Let us get unity on this matter; we are getting
further apart every day.” And so they come to us of the
school of two and two make four, and say, “You were the first
school, and all of us desire unity, but some of these schools
will demand that you yield a little. Surely for the sake of
peace and unity you will grant some compromise, since we are
so broadminded on our part as to be willing to yield a little.”
Now what must be our stand? We have a consciousness of
possessing truth. We know that we are right and they are
wrong. We reply, “We respect you as individuals. We
count you among our closest friends. Some of you have
married into our families. But we do not hold as you do that
contradictory terms can both be true. We cannot grant that
two plus two make five, six, seven, etc. We cannot concede
that one school of mathematics is as good as another when each
is teaching different answers, one contradictory to the other.
We have a consciousness of possessing the truth that two and
two make four, and we cannot yield one iota on that point.
We cannot even compromise on four and one-eighth for an
answer. We believe anyone belonging to a school teaching
that the sum of two plus two is five, and who holds at the same
time that schools teaching the sum makes six, seven, etc, are
Just as good, is making an admission that he does not possess
truth.
It will likewise be evident that, should anyone of these
schools holding different and contradictory answers, give a
series of lectures open especially to those believing two and
two make four, not one of us would attend. Why? Because
we have again the consciousness of possessing truth. We
should smile charitably at their invitation to us. We should
not want to be put down as narrow-minded. We know we
should be criticized because our school bade us not to attend.
Possessing truth, and conscious that we alone have it, we
should not criticize the heads of our school for making such a
prohibition. We would realize the ruling to be wise, and

■I
®a

I
■Ï
J
148

1
•S
S·
•■a

st

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

calculated to protect us against error. Should our school for­
bid us to read books teaching that schools holding the sum
to be equal to five, six, seven, etc., is each one as good as the
other, we would see the wisdom of the prohibition. It would
not be restraint or the taking away of our liberty of thought;
rather a bulwark for protecting the truth we have. At the
same fame, we could understand why those of other schools
would regard ours as tyrannical, because they have not our
viewpoint as to the exclusiveness of truth. Now on the other
hand when we hold lectures and invite them to our school, we
do so in charity, praying that they may be convinced and
share with us the consciousness we have of possessing truth
that two and two make four.
Having demonstrated by some such example as the above
the exclusiveness of truth, that contradictory things at the
same time cannot be true, that truth can never be variable, we
can pass to the truth in the field of religion.
Something more important than a sum of figures is the
salvation of an immortal soul. Something more than human
certitude does the Catholic believe he possesses as to the creed
and actions necessary to save that soul. He believes that
Christ came to give testimony of the truth ; that He founded
a Church and commissioned her to “ teach all nations whatso­
ever I have commanded you;" that He never taught that it
does not matter what you believe, just so you lead a good life;
baton the contrary threatened with eternal punishment those
: who did not believe, " Preach the gospel to every creature, and
he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that
believeth not shall be condemned ” Mark, 15-16. The Catholic
believes in regard to his religion that he possesses the whole
revealed truth, and that any religion teaching doctrines con­
trary to his Church must necessarily be false, just as the
members of the school of two and two make four believe that
any school teaching an answer contradictory to this, is in
error. It is not narrow-mindedness on their part. It is not in­
tolerance when they refuse to listen to lectures given in schools
teaching that two and two make five. They know these schools
are in error. When they invite members of these schools to
. errs to listen to a preachment that two and two make four,
it c y that they may share with them the consciousness they

TRUTH AND THE POPE’S ENCYCLICAL.

14g

have of possessing truth that two and two are four, and can
never be anything else.
Now in the field of religion Truth must equally be as ex­
clusive of error. The Catholic holds there are three Persons
in God; the Unitarian, one. Both cannot be right, unless
three and one mean the same thing, but any sane man will
deny this. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is really
present in the Eucharist; the Lutheran denies that Presence.
One says, “Yes,” the other, “No”. Both cannot be right,
unless “Yes” and “No” are identical in meaning. The
Catholic Church teaches that Christ instituted seven sacra­
ments; another Church says only two, still another three, etc.
The Catholic sees here a contradiction. Only one can be
right, because truth is one. So we might multiply examples,
showing how the sects are all teaching doctrines, one contra­
dicting the other, one diametrically opposed to the other, and
all mutually exclusive of each other, just as four, five, six, etc.,
are mutually exclusive of each other, and yet most of them
teaching that fallacy of fallacies in regard to the salvation of
the human soul, "that one religion is as good as another,” a
fallacy they would not think of admitting in the field of
mathematics.
Thus far m our presentation we have not asked our non­
Catholic hearers, the seekers after truth, to accept the validity
of the Church’s claim. Get them to see and admit that truth
is one, and exclusive of contradictions, by some such example
as used above, and it follows that religions teaching contra­
dictory doctrines cannot be each as good or true as the other,
equally pleasing to God, unless it be that God is equally
pleased with error as with truth. Admit that God has the
right to determine the kind of service His creatures must
render to Him, then man-made doctrines and creeds contra­
dictory to His doctrines and precepts must be false. Admit
that God through His Divine Son did determine the service
man was to render ; namely, what man was to believe and do
in order to save his soul, and that He founded a Church with
a commission to preach those doctrines and morals, and it fol­
lows that no one has a right to remain outside that Church.
The employee has not the right to determine the kind of service
he is to render to his employer. The work he. is to do, the

I JO

«

ί

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

time he is to spend in its performance, are all determined for
him by his employer. We are all in the employment of God,
in His sendee. We exist for no other reason. It is not for
us to say what kind of service we are to give, what we are to
do, or what we are to believe. Our employer, God, has de­
termined that for us, and has entrusted that commission to
His Church. We have no other alternative than to believe
and act according to the orders of the Divine Employer, re­
vealed and entrusted to His Church. At this point we are
ready to demonstrate the claims of the Catholic Church that
she alone received that Divine commission.
Some such process of reasoning, instead of repelling, will
rather invite to further investigation and bring the seeker of
truth to the conviction that the modem fallacy, “ one religion
is as good as another,” has absolutely no fundamentum in re,
possesses no vestige whatsoever of common sense, and is, with­
out any redeeming qualification, unworthy of the consideration
of any sane mind. He will then have grasped the Catholic
viewpoint on the exclusiveness of Truth. Though he may not
assent to the Church’s claims of Divine commission, he will
nevertheless understand why she is uncompromising when it
is a question of Divine Truth. Like the Presbyterian, while
not agreeing with the Holy Father’s claims, he will neverthe­
less see that the Encyclical is “ only what might have been
expected ... its contents substantially what they ought to
be.” Though “ regretting the Pope’s wrong assumptions”,
he will “ admire his loyalty to principle, his unwillingness to
sacrifice what he regards as divinely revealed truth for the
sake of unify of organization.”
Sensing the Catholic mind on the exclusiveness of truth, he
is now ready to listen to the Catholic claim to Truth. The
slogan, “one religion is as good as another,” has been stripped
. of every vestige of respectability, without a single attack upon
any church. The good will of the seeker of truth is still ours.
Before him he sees hundreds of different sects, all teaching
doctrines that are diametrically opposed to each other. One
cannot be as good as another. Truth is one. He finds no
church in Protestantism with even a pretence to infallibility.
He wants to be sure that he possesses the Truth of Christ
Uncertainty will not satisfy Him. There is too much at

BODY OF THE VENERABLE JOHN SOUTHWORTH.

stake, his immortal soul. He finds among the Churches one
only that lays claim to infallibility. “ One religion is as good
as another,” condemns Protestantism. It is a profession that
it does not possess truth. Not even claiming infallibility, that
for him is a confession that Protestantism does not believe with
certitude that which it professes. The Catholic Church’s claim
to infallibility convinces him that Catholics believe with certi­
tude that which they profess. Its claim to infallibility creates
at least a presumption in its favor. He is now ready to
examine that claim.
Wm. J. Burke, C.S.C.
Notre Dame, Indiana.
THE RECOVERY OF THE BODY OF THE V UN RBABEF, JOHN
SOUTHWORTH.

The Only Preserved Body of an English Secular Priest Martyr.

N 20 December, 1927, it was my happy privilege to bring
back to English soil the body of the Venerable John
Southworth, who was martyred at Tyburn on 28 June, 1654,
and whose remains had been sent to Douai in Flanders by one
of the Norfolk family, there to rest for nearly three centuries in
the college where he had been nurtured, the college that could
claim some three hundred martyrs among the long procession
of devoted priests that issued from its walls to work on the
English mission.
It was in the preceding July that I first went to Douai and
was able to identify the remains as those of our English martyr:
it took a month or more to substantiate this identification, and
then at last through the mediation of the British Foreign Office
the claim of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster that the
body should be returned to England was allowed by the French
Government
It will perhaps interest American Catholics to read some
account of the discovery of the body : for particulars of the life
of the martyr it will be sufficient to refer the reader to Bishop
Chailoner’s Memoirs of Missionary Priests, where an adequate
biography will be found.
The English Secular College was founded at Douai in the
north of France by Cardinal Allen in the year 1568. It was a

O

■■