THE METHODS OF THE ROMISH CHURCH.
In last week's Herald I alluded to some of the most prominent religious methods by which the Papacy aims at the accomplishment of her designs in the United States. I have now a few words to say in regard to her political policy; and lest any should think my remarks unwarranted, or the danger exaggerated, I would here state that a Society has been in existence in Europe for a number of years for the express purpose of advancing the interest of the Papacy in America. It numbers among its members kings, princes and nobles; has contributed millions of dollars to the cause, supports seminaries for the preparation of Jesuits for the work, and sends numbers of the graduates to their mission-field annually. That this Society is uncompromisingly hostile to the principles of free government and to the institutions we love, we have abundant proof in the declaration of the Pontiff under whose auspices it was founded, “that liberty of conscience is a most pestilential error,” and that “unbridled liberty of opinion is that pest of all others most to be dreaded in the State,” as well as by the promises held out to all who should contribute to its support of full indulgence and remission of all sins. Nor is the present Pope a whit behind his predecessor in this matter, but reiterates his views on the subject of liberty, and charges the Archbishop of Mexico not to tolerate heresy in his dominions. The Duke of Richmond, formerly Governor of the Canadas, in a speech made use of these words: “The government of the United States will be destroyed by subversion. The Church of Rome has a design upon that country; Popery will in time be the established religion, and will aid in the destruction of that republic. I have conversed with many of the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously expressed their opinions relative to the government of the United States and their desire to subvert it.” He went on to describe the modus operandi, viz.: to send over the surplus population of Europe, who would come amongst us with foreign views and feelings, and in the course of time be prepared to rise and overthrow the government. But I cite further evidence from the organ of the Archbishop of St. Louis, The Shepherd of the Valley, one of the most influential as well as most insolent Papist publications in this country. It says: “The church is of necessity intolerant; heresy she endures when and where she must; but she hates it, and directs all her energies to its destruction; if Catholics ever gain an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end.” I might multiply evidences of this character, but enough has been said to show that the danger is imminent. In accordance with the statement of the Governor of Canada we find the Jesuits of Europe preaching, not a crusade, but emigration to the United States; the advantages to be gained, the natural superiority of the country, as well as pecuniary assistance, are the arguments used to induce the faithful to accede to their wishes. This is one of the reasons why the preponderance of Catholic over Protestant emigration is so great; another is the sympathy of Catholic rulers with the object in view, and indifference of the Protestant to the loss of a class of subjects unreliable and dangerous to the State. Let Americans reflect upon the subject and bear in mind that from one hundred and forty millions of Romanists in Europe, enough can easily be spared to turn the balance of power in their favor, and then “religious freedom in this country is at an end.” Another link in the chain of their policy is the keeping of these emigrants from contact with Americans as far as practicable. To this end societies have been organized and agents appointed all through the country, several grand objective points have been chosen which are daily advertised in their journals whither the emigrants are urged to go by the strongest inducements, and here they find existing or are formed into, communities bearing all the distinctive features of their nationalities, and where are carefully preserved the peculiarities of language, manners and faith to which they have been accustomed. With a keen eye to the advantages of position, the Mississippi valley is especially favored, and St. Louis constituted the headquarters of that region. In Iowa, also, colonies are planted, and Irish Catholics are earnestly solicited through their journals to come and take possession of that State. New York is the great entrepot and maritime metropolis of America, hence its importance cannot be overlooked; though they prefer that not more should remain there than will suffice to sway the elections and give tone to public opinion—and but few are aware to what an extent the public mind is biased by Roman influence. This brings me to the consideration of another feature in their methods. Among the “energies” put forth by them, not the least important are lectures by eloquent and learned men. One of the most prominent and popular of these, the late Dr. Cahill, made the tour of the United States a few years ago, delivering lectures principally on the races. Thousands of Protestants attended them, the press spoke in the highest terms of them, applauded the lecturer, and endorsed his sentiments; yet the whole course pursued by the wily churchman was part and parcel of the plan for the subversion of the liberties of the country. His main arguments went to show the superiority of the Celtic and Latin races over the Anglo-Saxon. On this point he lavished his greatest efforts, colored his subject with the skill of a master, brought into play his almost inexhaustible fund of knowledge and the ready wit of an accomplished satirist, extolled in glowing and eloquent terms the races which in every age have proved to be enemies of progress and education, arrogant, despotic and intolerant; and holding up to contempt and ridicule the whole Anglo-Saxon race, the true conservators of liberty and civilization. Nor did he labor alone in this cause, but numbers of lesser stars have followed in the same course, using all their powers to awaken and foster a spirit of jealousy and hatred between the races; while the Romish press has constantly watered the seed thus sown, and endeavored to stir up still further the demon of discord by predictions of a future and not far-distant war of races. All this has not been without effect; it has given to the American mind a decided leaning toward the Latin race, as is evidenced daily by the press at large and by the outspoken sympathies of the people. How otherwise can American admiration for the perjured despot and betrayer of liberty who sways the destinies of France be accounted for, and whom his admirers a few months since fain would have us believe held the fate of Europe in his hands. In these Jesuitical agencies you will find a true solution of the regard for France, as well as the intense desire for a war with England which pervades a large portion of our citizens. The cool, unprejudiced observer of current events must admit that had the English government given half the provocation manifested by Spain, France or Austria, for the last twelve or fifteen years, war would have been the inevitable consequence long ere this. These apostles of discord stop not at the most glaring falsehoods; for years they have awakened the sympathy and indignation of Americans by passionate declamation on the subject of Irish oppression and “British misrule;” while the fact stands out in bold relief, attested by our own tourists and authors, and by the unvarying evidence of Irish Protestants, that Ireland's degradation and down-trodden condition lies at the door of the church of Rome. Why do Americans reject the evidence of unbiased and intelligent men, and accord credence only to that of the sworn foes of Protestantism; the foul-mouthed traducers of everything that dares to assert independence of Papal authority? Is it not because the public ear is rankly abused by these Romanizing lecturers, the public mind poisoned by their foul slander, and to such an extent that anything uttered by them prejudicial to England is eagerly caught up and adopted without proper consideration? Many of these lecturers are sent here at the expense and under the auspices of the Society before alluded to. There was a noteworthy coincidence in one of the reasons urged by Louis Napoleon for the invasion of Mexico; that he desired to protect the interests of the Latin race in America. Was Dr. Cahill the pioneer of the French Emperor, or had each his portion of the work assigned to him? Probably Archbishops Spaulding, Lynch, or McCloskey could enlighten us. That the whole Romish church, clergy and laity, are hostile to American institutions needs no further proof, and that all their efforts here have invariably and persistently been to involve the nation in difficulty, embarrass and paralyze the arm of the government, divide that they might the more easily rule, distract the councils and prevent the restoration of harmony, is equally susceptible of the clearest proof. Foremost in the battle-cry and loudest in the demand for annexation in the time of the Mexican troubles, as well as in the Lopez, Kinney and Walker filibustering schemes; persistent advocates of the right of secession, and open foes or thinly disguised traitors to the government during our late fearful struggle for life, and even now actively endeavoring to involve us in a war with England. Does any one ask what they would gain by these ends? They would hinder the progress of the nation, gain at one swoop millions of fellow-laborers in the same cause instead of waiting the slower process of immigration, more speedily obtain ascendancy in the South, especially as the interests of slavery and Catholicism would be identical on the subject of annexation, and gratify their hatred of Protestantism by seeing its champions engaged in deadly strife, while they stood ready for either alternative—to take advantage of the exhausted powers of the nation, or gain by the annexation of British America large accessions to their ranks. One more point I will notice before closing this article, viz., the influence of the priesthood upon the ballot-box. In the exercise of the elective franchise the communicants of the Romish church are completely and thoroughly under control. The strongest presumptive evidence of this is given by the unanimity with which they select the same party and the tenacity with which they adhere to it. Any one familiar with the feelings of the laity toward their clergy and church would expect nothing less of them. The Universe may challenge us to show an electioneering priest—the rank and file of their adherents are too well drilled to require solicitation by their officers; a hint that the priest favors this or that party, a nod, a beck, even the slightest intimation, bears with it the weight of an imperative mandate. Nay, further still, any public man who is on terms of intimacy with the clergy, or a regular attendant at their places of worship, is regarded with a veneration little less than that accorded to the priest himself. They follow his leadership as sheep the bell-wether; vote as he directs, favor the candidate or party he favors; while those who may be in any way inimical to the clergy or church are certain of receiving expressions of the most bitter hatred. Nor are these feelings confined to the strict observers of their religion, but all share them alike, the vilest and most depraved; they who are under the ban of their priest, who neglect their religious duties and seldom or never attend their worship, are as zealous in these particulars, as forward to show their acknowledgment of pastoral authority and as expressive in their loyalty as the most faithful. If any one supposes that because the Romish priests go not to the polls to publicly electioneer for their favorite party, they are therefore neutral or indifferent as to the result, they are awfully mistaken. I could name Judges and Senators in New York city who owe their election to their intimacy with priests, although their hands were not seen in the matter. If time and space permitted I could relate some interesting electioneering incidents of which I was an eye-witness, but at some future time I may return to this subject. Of one thing be assured, no man, even though a Catholic, could secure either nomination or election at the hands of the Catholic party unless he was in good standing with the priests. Is it reasonable to suppose that a people who openly disavow any right to the exercise of their judgment in religious matters would not also accord to their leaders and teachers the right of judging for them in political?—Zon's Herald.