p. 16 | Which Is True?

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jul 16, 1896

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 22, No. 28.

Which Is True?

—Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the French Liberal leader (a Roman Catholic) in the Canadian Parliament, not long ago uttered these noble and manly sentiments:—

“While I occupy a seat in this House, while I fill the position that I hold, whenever it shall be my duty to take a stand on any question whatever, I shall take that stand, not from the standpoint of Catholicism nor from the standpoint of Protestantism, but I shall take it from motives which appeal to the consciences of all, independently of their religion, from motives which should animate all men loving justice, freedom, and toleration.”

Good, aren’t they? Who could object to them? It would seem very much like some of the sentiments recently expressed by Chancellor Yorke, of San Francisco, in oration and review. Who could find fault with such sentiments?—No one ought; and yet Roman Catholics do not believe in this liberty, if Bishop Lafleche, of Quebec, utters their sentiments. This is what he says of Laurier’s position:—

“Here is the most categorical affirmation of the liberalism condemned by the church that has ever yet been made, to my knowledge, in the legislative halls of our country. The man who spoke in this way is a rationalist liberal. He propounds a doctrine entirely opposed to the Catholic doctrines, that is to say, that a Catholic is not bound to be a Catholic in his public life. This is a fundamental error, which may lead to the most deplorable consequences. It is my duty to-day to give you a solemn warning. Under existing circumstances a Catholic can not, under pain of committing mortal sin, vote for the leader of a party who has so publicly formulated such an error; and the partisans who support him in the error, so long as they shall not have publicly disavowed that error and formally pledged themselves to vote for a remedial Manitoba school law accepted by the bishops, are equally responsible therefor.”

It would seem from this and Chancellor Yorke’s position, putting them together and believing them both, that it is all right to be liberal, patriotic, against all discrimination in political life on account of religion, unless some question affecting the interests of the church as viewed by her prelates is involved. Then it is duty to stand by the church. When the special interests of the church are not involved, when equality of all men and classes are not inimical to her interests, as seen by her spiritual advisers, it is well to say so in this very loudest way; but when it is otherwise, the church first, and all else secondary.

But is not this right? Ought not a man’s religion to be first? It doubtless has, and he ought at all times so to avow it. But the real trouble is that his religion ought to be so separate from all state or political influences that he could never take any other position from that taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That is the way it ought to be; that is the way it would be if church and state, or organized religion and the state, were forever separate. Bishop Lafleche doubtless states truly the Roman Catholic position. He is consistent, and to be consistent he could not act otherwise. It is not the true Protestant position; that is stated by Laurier, altho many so-called Protestants are following Rome.

It may be well to state that as a result of the “mandament” of Bishop Lafleche it is said that the Liberals have appealed to the pope through Satolli. Now that the Liberals have carried the election so overwhelmingly, it would be the part of policy of the Vatican to give them a favorable decision. But thus it is that the pope is becoming the “supreme arbitrator” of the world.