estimate the value of his opponents' censures by the worth which he
attributes to the undiscriminating praise of his friends; but he who has
devoted himself to the development of principles which will not always
bend to the dictates of expediency will have no such short way of
dealing with objections. His independence will frequently and inexorably
demand the sacrifice of interests to truth--of what is politic to what
is right; and, whenever he makes that sacrifice, he will appear a
traitor to those whom he is most anxious to serve, while his act will be
hailed by those who are farthest from sharing his opinions as a proof of
secret sympathy, and harbinger of future alliance. Thus, the censure
which he incurs will most often come from those whose views are
essentially his own; and the very matter which calls it forth will be
that which elicits the applause of adversaries who cannot bring
themselves to believe either in the truth of his opinions, in the
integrity of his motives, or in the sincerity of his aims.
There are few men living whose career has been more persistently
misinterpreted, more bitterly assailed, or more ignorantly judged, than
the illustrious person who is the head in England of the Church to which
we belong, Cardinal Wiseman has been for many years the chief object of
the attacks of those who have desired to injure or degrade our
community. He is not only the canonical chief of English Catholics, but
his ability, and the devotion of his life to their cause, have made him
their best representative and their most powerful champion. No prelate
in Christendom is more fully trusted by the Holy See, or exercises a
more extensive personal influence, or enjoys so wide a literary renown.
Upon him, therefore, intolerance and fanaticism have concentrated their
malice. He has had to bear the brunt of that hatred which the holiness
of Catholicism inspires in its enemies; and the man who has never been
found wanting when the cause of the Church was at stake may boast, with
a not unworthy pride, of the indifference with which he has encountered
the personal slander of a hostile press.
The Catholics of this country are attached to Cardinal Wiseman by warmer
feelings and more personal ties than those of merely ecclesiastical
subordination. It has been his privilege to gather the spiritual fruits
of the Catholic Emancipation Act; and the history of English Catholicism
has been, for a whole generation, bound up with his name. That immense
change in the internal condition of the Church in England which
distinguishes our days from the time of Milner has grown up under his
influence, and has been in great part his work. We owe it to him that we
have been brought into closer intercourse with Rome, and into contact
with the rest of Europe. By his preaching and his spiritual direction he
has transformed the devotions of our people; while his lectures and
writings have made Protestants familiar with Catholic ideas, and have
given Catholics a deeper insight into their own religion. As a
controversialist he influenced the Oxford movement more deeply than any
other Catholic. As director of the chief literary organ of Catholics
during a quarter of a century he rendered services to our literature,
and overcame difficulties, which none are in a better position to
appreciate than those who are engaged in a similar work. And as
President of Oscott, he acquired the enduring gratitude of hundreds who
owed to his guidance the best portion of their training.
These personal relations with English Catholics, which have made him a
stranger to none and a benefactor to all, have at the same time given
him an authority of peculiar weight amongst them. With less unity of
view and tradition than their brethren in other lands, they were
accustomed, in common with the rest of Englishmen, to judge more
independently and to speak more freely than is often possible in
countries more exclusively Catholic. Their minds are not all cast in the
same mould, nor their ideas derived from the same stock; but all alike,
from bishop to layman, identify their cause with that of the Cardinal,
and feel that, in the midst of a hostile people, no diversity of opinion
ought to interfere with unity of action, no variety of interest with
identity of feeling, no controversy with the universal reverence which
is due to the position and character of the Archbishop of Westminster.
In this spirit the Catholic body have received Cardinal Wiseman's latest
publication--his "Reply to the Address of his Clergy on his return from
Rome." He speaks in it of the great assemblage of the Episcopate, and of
their address to the Holy Father. Among the bishops there present he
was the most conspicuous, and he was President of the Commission to
which the preparation of their address was intrusted. No account of it,
therefore, can be more authentic than that which he is able to give. The
reserve imposed by his office, and by the distinguished part he had to
bear, has been to some extent neutralised by the necessity of refuting
false and exaggerated rumours which were circulated soon after the
meeting, and particularly two articles which appeared in _The Patrie_ on
the 4th and 5th of July, and in which it was stated that the address
written by Cardinal Wiseman contained "most violent attacks on all the
fundamental principles of modern society."
After replying in detail to the untruths of this newspaper, the Cardinal
proceeds as follows:--
With far greater pain I feel compelled to advert to a covert
insinuation of the same charges, in a publication avowedly Catholic,
and edited in my own diocese, consequently canonically subject to my
correction. Should such a misstatement, made under my own eyes, be
passed over by me, it might be surmised that it could not be
contradicted; and whether chronologically it preceded or followed the
French account it evidently becomes my duty to notice it, as French
bishops have considered it theirs to correct the inaccuracies of
their native writers.
Otherwise, in a few years, we might find reference made, as to a
recognised Catholic authority, for the current and unreproved
statement of what occurred at Rome, to _The Home and Foreign Review_.
And that in a matter on which reprehension would have been doubly
expected, if merited. In its first number the Address, which has, I
believe, wonderfully escaped the censure of Protestant and infidel
journals, is thus spoken of: "This Address is said to be a compromise
between one which took the violent course of recommending that major
excommunication should be at once pronounced against the chief
enemies of the temporal power by name, and one still more moderate
than the present" (_The Home and Foreign Review_, p. 264). Now this
very charge about recommending excommunication is the one made by the
French paper against my Address. But, leaving to the writer the
chance of an error, in this application of his words, I am bound to
correct it, to whomever it refers. He speaks of only two addresses:
the distinction between them implies severe censure on one. I assure
you that neither contained the recommendation or the sentiment
alluded to.
My Brethren, I repeat that it pains me to have to contradict the
repetition, in my own diocese, of foreign accusations, without the
smallest pains taken to verify or disprove them with means at hand.
But this can hardly excite surprise in us who know the antecedents of
that journal under another name, the absence for years of all reserve
or reverence in its treatment of persons or of things deemed sacred,
its grazing over the very edges of the most perilous abysses of
error, and its habitual preferences of uncatholic to catholic
instincts, tendencies, and motives. In uttering these sad thoughts,
and entreating you to warn your people, and especially the young,
against such dangerous leadership, believe me I am only obeying a
higher direction than my own impulses, and acting under much more
solemn sanctions. Nor shall I stand alone in this unhappily necessary
correction.
But let us pass to more cheerful and consoling thoughts. If my
connection with the preparation of the Address, from my having held,
though unworthy, office in its Committee, enables and authorises me
to rebut false charges against it, it has further bestowed upon me
the privilege of personal contact with a body of men who justly
represented the entire Episcopate, and would have represented it with
equal advantage in any other period of the Church. I know not who
selected them, nor do I venture to say that many other equal
committees of eighteen could not have been extracted from the
remainder. I think they might; but I must say that a singular wisdom
seemed to me to have presided over the actual, whatever might have
been any other possible, choice.
Deliberations more minute, more mutually respectful, more courteous,
or at the same time more straightforward and unflinching, could
hardly have been carried on. More learning in theology and canon law,
more deep religious feeling, a graver sense of the responsibility
laid upon the Commission, or a more scrupulous regard to the claims
of justice, and no less of mercy, could scarcely have been exhibited.
Its spirit was one of mildness, of gentleness, and of reverence to
all who rightly claimed it. "Violent courses," invitations to "draw
the sword and rush on enemies," or to deal about "the major
excommunication by name," I deliberately assure you, were never
mentioned, never insinuated, and I think I may say, never thought of
by any one in that Council. In the sketches proposed by several,
there was not a harsh or disrespectful word about any sovereign or
government; in anything I ever humbly proposed, there was not a
single allusion to "King or Kaiser."
Our duty to the Cardinal and our duty to our readers alike forbid us to
pass by these remarks without notice. Silence would imply either that we
admitted the charge, or that we disregarded the censure; and each of
these suppositions would probably be welcome to the enemies of our
common cause, while both of them are, in fact, untrue. The impossibility
of silence, however, involves the necessity of our stating the facts on
which charges so definite and so formidable have been founded. In doing
so, we shall endeavour both to exhibit the true sequence of events, and
to explain the origin of the Cardinal's misapprehension; and in this way
we shall reply to the charges made against us.
But we must first explicitly declare, as we have already implied, that
in the Cardinal's support and approbation of our work we should
recognise an aid more valuable to the cause we are engaged in than the
utmost support which could be afforded to us by any other person; and
that we cannot consider the terms he has used respecting us otherwise
than as a misfortune to be profoundly regretted, and a blow which might
seriously impair our power to do service to religion.
A Catholic Review which is deprived of the countenance of the
ecclesiastical authorities is placed in an abnormal position. A germ of
distrust is planted in the ground where the good seed should grow; the
support which the suspected organ endeavours to lend to the Church is
repudiated by the ecclesiastical rulers; and its influence in Protestant
society, as an expositor of Catholic ideas, is in danger of being
destroyed, because its exposition of them may be declared unsound and
unfair, even when it represents them most faithfully and defends them
most successfully. The most devoted efforts of its conductors are liable
to be misconstrued, and perversely turned either against the Church or
against the _Review_ itself; its best works are infected with the
suspicion with which it is regarded, and its merits become almost more
perilous than its faults.
These considerations could not have been overlooked by the Cardinal when
he resolved to take a step which threatened to paralyse one of the few
organs of Catholic opinion in England. Yet he took that step. If an
enemy had done this, it would have been enough to vindicate ourselves,
and to leave the burden of an unjust accusation to be borne by its
author. But since it has been done by an ecclesiastical superior, with
entire foresight of the grave consequences of the act, it has become
necessary for us, in addition, to explain the circumstances by which he
was led into a course we have so much reason to deplore, and to show how
an erroneous and unjust opinion could arise in the mind of one whom
obvious motives would have disposed to make the best use of a
publication, the conductors of which are labouring to serve the
community he governs, and desired and endeavoured to obtain his sanction
for their work. If we were unable to reconcile these two
necessities,--if we were compelled to choose between a forbearance
dishonourable to ourselves, and a refutation injurious to the Cardinal,
we should be placed in a painful and almost inextricable difficulty. For
a Catholic who defends himself at the expense of an ecclesiastical
superior sacrifices that which is generally of more public value than
his own fair fame; and an English Catholic who casts back on Cardinal
Wiseman the blame unjustly thrown on himself, hurts a reputation which
belongs to the whole body, and disgraces the entire community of
Catholics. By such a course, a Review which exists only for public
objects would stultify its own position and injure its own cause, and
_The Home and Foreign Review_ has no object to attain, and no views to
advance, except objects and views in which the Catholic Church is
interested. The ends for which it labours, according to its light and
ability, are ends by which the Church cannot but gain; the doctrine it
receives, and the authority it obeys, are none other than those which
command the acceptance and submission of the Cardinal himself. It
desires to enjoy his support; it has no end to gain by opposing him. But
we are not in this painful dilemma. We can show that the accusations of
the Cardinal are unjust; and, at the same time, we can explain how
naturally the suppositions on which they are founded have arisen, by
giving a distinct and ample statement of our own principles and
position.
The complaint which the Cardinal makes against us contains,
substantially, five charges: (1) that we made a misstatement, affirming
something historically false to be historically true; (2) that the
falsehood consists in the statement that only two addresses were
proposed in the Commission--one violent, the other very moderate,--and
that the address finally adopted was a compromise between these two; (3)
that we insinuated that the Cardinal himself was the author of the
violent address; (4) that we cast, by implication, a severe censure on
that address and its author; and (5) that our narrative was derived from
the same sources, and inspired by the same motives, as that given in
_The Patrie_,--for the Cardinal distinctly connects the two accounts,
and quotes passages indifferently from both, in such a way that words
which we never used might by a superficial reader be supposed to be
ours.
To these charges our reply is as follows: (1) We gave the statement of
which the Cardinal complains as a mere rumour current on any good
authority at the time of our publication, and we employed every means in
our power to test its accuracy, though the only other narratives which
had then reached England were, as the Cardinal says (p. 9), too "partial
and perverted" to enable us to sift it to the bottom. We stated that a
rumour was current, not that its purport was true. (2) We did not speak
of "only two addresses" actually submitted to the Commission. We
supposed the report to mean, that of the three possible forms of
address, two extreme and one mean, each of which actually had partisans
in the Commission, the middle or moderate form was the one finally
adopted. (3) We had no suspicion that the Cardinal had proposed any
violent address at all; we did not know that such a proposal had been,
or was about to be, attributed to him; and there was no connection
whatever between him and it either in our mind or in our language. (4)
We implied no censure either on the course proposed or on its proposer,
still less on the Cardinal personally. (5) The articles in _The Patrie_
first appeared--and that in France--some days after our Review was in
the hands of the public; we know nothing of the authority on which their
statements were founded, and we have not the least sympathy either with
the politics or the motives of that newspaper.
This reply would be enough for our own defence; but it is right that we
should show, on the other side, how it came to pass that the Cardinal
was led to subject our words to that construction which we have so much
reason to regret. Reading them by the light of his own knowledge, and
through the medium of the false reports which afterwards arose with
regard to himself, his interpretation of them may easily have appeared
both plausible and likely. For there were more draft addresses than one:
one was his; the actual address was a compromise between them, and he
had been falsely accused of, and severely censured for, proposing
violent courses in his address. Knowing this, he was tempted to suspect
a covert allusion to himself under our words, and the chronological
relation between our own article and those of _The Patrie_ was easily
forgotten, or made nugatory by the supposition of their both being
derived from the same sources of information.
But this will be made clearer by the following narrative of facts: A
Commission was appointed to draw up the address of the bishops; Cardinal
Wiseman, its president, proposed a draft address, which was not
obnoxious to any of the criticisms made on any other draft, and is, in
substance, the basis of the address as it was ultimately settled. It was
favourably received by the Commission; but, after some deliberation, its
final adoption was postponed.
Subsequently, a prelate who had been absent from the previous discussion
presented another draft, not in competition with that proposed by the
president, nor as an amendment to it, but simply as a basis for
discussion. This second draft was also favourably received; and the
Commission, rather out of consideration for the great services and
reputation of its author than from any dissatisfaction with the address
proposed by the president, resolved to amalgamate the two drafts. All
other projects were set aside; and, in particular, two proposals were
deliberately rejected. One of these proposals was, to pay a tribute of
acknowledgment for the services of the French nation to the Holy See;
the other was, to denounce the perfidious and oppressive policy of the
Court of Turin in terms which we certainly should not think either
exaggerated or undeserved. We have neither right nor inclination to
complain of the ardent patriotism which has been exhibited by the
illustrious Bishop of Orleans in the two publications he has put forth
since his return to his See, or of the indignation which the system
prevailing at Turin must excite in every man who in his heart loves the
Church, or whose intelligence can appreciate the first principles of
government. Whatever may have been the censure proposed, it certainly
did not surpass the measure of the offence. Nevertheless, the impolicy
of a violent course, which could not fail to cause irritation, and to
aggravate the difficulties of the Church, appears to have been fully
recognised by the Commission; and we believe that no one was more prompt
in exposing the inutility of such a measure than the Cardinal himself.
The idea that anything imprudent or aggressive was to be found in his
draft is contradicted by all the facts of the case, and has not a shadow
of foundation in anything that is contained in the address as adopted.
We need say no more to explain what has been very erroneously called our
covert insinuation. From this narrative of facts our statement comes
out, no longer as a mere report, but as a substantially accurate summary
of events, questioned only on one point,--the extent of the censure
which was proposed. So that in the account which the Cardinal quoted
from our pages there was no substantial statement to correct, as in fact
no correction of any definite point but one has been attempted.
How this innocent statement has come to be suspected of a hostile
intent, and to be classed with the calumnies of _The Patrie_, is another
question. The disposition with which the Cardinal sat in judgment upon
our words was founded, not on anything they contained, but, as he
declares, on the antecedents of the conductors of _The Home and Foreign
Review_, and on the character of a journal which no longer exists. That
character he declares to consist in "the absence for years of all
reserve or reverence in its treatment of persons or of things deemed
sacred, its grazing over the very edges of the most perilous abysses of
error, and its habitual preferences of uncatholic to catholic instincts,
tendencies, and motives." In publishing this charge, which amounts to a
declaration that we hold opinions and display a spirit not compatible
with an entire attachment and submission of intellect and will to the
doctrine and authority of the Catholic Church, the Cardinal adds, "I am
only obeying a higher direction than my own impulses, and acting under
much more solemn sanctions. Nor shall I stand alone in this unhappily
necessary correction."
There can be little doubt of the nature of the circumstances to which
this announcement points. It is said that certain papers or
propositions, which the report does not specify, have been extracted
from the journal which the Cardinal identifies with this Review, and
forwarded to Rome for examination; that the Prefect of Propaganda has
characterised these extracts, or some of them, in terms which correspond
to the Cardinal's language; and that the English bishops have
deliberated whether they should issue similar declarations. We have no
reason to doubt that the majority of them share the Cardinal's view,
which is also that of a large portion both of the rest of the clergy and
also of the laity; and, whatever may be the precise action which has
been taken in the matter, it is unquestionable that a very formidable
mass of ecclesiastical authority and popular feeling is united against
certain principles or opinions which, whether rightly or wrongly, are
attributed to us. No one will suppose that an impression so general can
be entirely founded on a mistake. Those who admit the bare orthodoxy of
our doctrine will, under the circumstances, naturally conclude that in
our way of holding or expounding it there must be something new and
strange, unfamiliar and bewildering, to those who are accustomed to the
prevalent spirit of Catholic literature; something which our
fellow-Catholics are not prepared to admit; something which can
sufficiently explain misgivings so commonly and so sincerely
entertained. Others may perhaps imagine that we are unconsciously
drifting away from the Church, or that we only professedly and
hypocritically remain with her. But the Catholic critic will not forget
that charity is a fruit of our religion, and that his anxiety to do
justice to those from whom he must differ ought always to be in equal
proportion with his zeal. Relying, then, upon this spirit of fairness,
convinced of the sincerity of the opposition we encounter, and in order
that there may remain a distinct and intelligible record of the aim to
which we dedicate our labours, we proceed to make that declaration which
may be justly asked of nameless writers, as a testimony of the purpose
which has inspired our undertaking, and an abiding pledge of our
consistency.