WHAT DOES THE CARDINAL MEAN?
By M. C. W.
THE Independent quotes from Cardinal Gibbons' first Lenten sermon as follows:— "But we must be familiar with the Bible to have the scriptures in our hearts, and we can only know it by reading it carefully and prayerfully. I exhort you strongly to sanctify this season of Lent by studying the Bible at least ten or fifteen minutes every day, especially the New Testament and the Psalms. The Bible is the best and most entertaining companion in the world. . . . No other agency has produced such a revolution in society as the Bible. St. Augustine, the greatest mind in eighteen centuries, was led to be converted by the casual reading of a few words from one of St. Paul's epistles. . . . The Scriptures ought to be the garden of a priest, as St. Charles Borromeo said, and of the laity as well. What is good for the one, is good for the other. The clergy has no monopoly of sanctity. I see the Bible lying on your tables, but I fear, in many cases, it is there more for ornament than for use. Cultivate the Scriptures, and your soul will be enlightened and nourished." That is excellent advice as far as it goes, but we query as to whether the cardinal meant it or not; or is it a sop to Protestants? Why we query is this: The Council of Trent declared that the indiscriminate use of the Bible would be productive of "more evil than good." In 1816 Pius VII. condemned Bible societies, and this was followed by another bill from Leo XII. in 1824; another by Pius VIII. in 1829, two more by Gregory XVI. in 1832 and 1844. The one by Gregory XVI., dated May 8, 1844, after referring to preceding decrees, says:— "Moreover, we confirm and renew the decrees recited above, delivered in former times by apostolic authority, against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the Holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."—History of Rome by Dowling. Now if the Roman Catholic Church does not change, one of two things is true: Either Cardinal Gibbons is acting contrary to ecclesiastical law, or else it is a Jesuitic trick to blind Protestant minds to the real intents of the Catholic Church. We suggest to all good Catholics the reading of the seventh chapter of Daniel and the second chapter of 2 Thessalonians, and the thirteenth to the eighteenth chapters of the Revelation. But we apprehend that there will be no more reading of the Bible than heretofore. But what extravagant ideas the cardinal has—"ten or fifteen minutes every day," for the period of Lent! If they should study it more time than that, the cardinal apprehends, perhaps, another revolution. Yes; the Bible has produced a revolution—the Reformation of the sixteenth century, for instance. But although these are not the kind that Rome fancies, it is the kind which the Bible always produces. M. C. W.