Page images
PDF
EPUB

Some managers with whom I have talked the matter over, maintained that it will sometimes happen that the evidence against a teacher may be sufficient to justify dismissal, though witnesses could not be produced in open court nor submitted to cross-examination. This, I have no doubt, is true. Nevertheless, the infliction of grave punishment ex informata conscientia-and what punishment can be more serious than the dismissal of a teacher who is father of a family?—is very liable to abuse. This is recognised by the Canon Law, which will not allow clergymen to be dismissed in that way, although it is well known that from time to time charges are made against some of them which it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to prove by evidence submitted in open court; and it is surely as important for the spiritual welfare of the people that the priest should not be a scource of contagion, as it is that a teacher should not corrupt the morals of his pupils. Let us mete out to others the measure of justice which we claim for ourselves; let us try and get our people to act as men,-in their own interests. They are not afraid to give evidence in the civil courts when temporal things are concerned. May we not hope that when they see that it depends on themselves to get justice done and to safeguard the morals of their children, they will not be either ashamed or afraid to appear in the episcopal court to give evidence against immoral teachers? That is the manly thing for them to do: is it not time to begin to govern them as men and not as children?

(2) Turning now to the formalities which are required by, or have by some commentators been read into, the Instruction Cum Magnopere, I think, in the first place, it should be made quite clear (a) that the precept therein mentioned is of itself sufficient, without canonical warnings, for the validity of the sentence. Paternal admonitions, of course, would still continue, but not as a necessary condition for the validity of any judicial procedure that might follow. The precept would take the place of a law binding under penalty ferendae sententiae; and as laws of

that kind, once promulgated, carry their own monitions, so should the precept. It is ridiculous to expect a bishop before proceeding, let us say, to suspend a priest for drunkenness, to give three canonical admonitions and again a formal precept,-and this under penalty of invalidating the whole proceedings.

(b) It seems to me, moreover, that there are casesviolations of the natural or the divine law that bring disgrace on the ecclesiastical order-in which not even the precept mentioned in the Instruction should be required as a necessary condition for the infliction of reasonable punishment. Clause XXXIV. of the Instruction provides that a condemnatory sentence must make express mention of the ecclesiastical law sanctioning the punishment which is applied to the accused.'1 No matter, therefore, how grievous or scandalous the crime may be, unless it has been expressly mentioned as punishable in the Canon Law, the bishop cannot inflict punishment, but merely impose a precept the violation of which will entail penalties in future. This seems to hamper needlessly the guardians of discipline, unless care is taken in provincial or diocesan synods to catalogue all the crimes that are likely to occur, attaching to each some clause that will empower the bishop to inflict a reasonable penalty. Another way to meet the difficulty would be to incorporate in the body of the common law some provision to the effect that in case it has been proved that any clergyman has been guilty of an offence against the natural or the divine law, especially such as is likely to bring religion into disrepute, he may be punished in proportion to the gravity of the offence. The first of these measures is the more complicated; but if it could be adopted it would, no doubt, be the more satisfactory.

(c) Next, it seems very strange that the evidence of single witnesses (testes singulares) should not suffice for conviction, especially as in some of the worst forms of crime it is unreasonable to expect any other kind of testimony.

1 Smith's Translation.

As the law stands at present, if three respectable men were to testify that they saw a particular clergyman drunk, the evidence would not be enough to convict, unless two of them at least are able to say that they saw him drunk on the same occasion. This, it seems to me, is an overscrupulous care for the accused, and imperils discipline. It might, perhaps, be well to require for full proof in cases of this kind, the evidence of more witnesses than two; but no reasonable man would contend that, apart even from presumptions, the testimony of three or four such witnesses would not be sufficient.

Finally (d), the rule of Canon Law whereby laymen are incompetent to bear witness against clergymen in criminal cases, should be reformed. The testimony of laymen, it is true, is occasionally admissible; as, for instance, 'when, owing to time and place, ecclesiastics cannot be had as witnesses.' But even then laymen, no matter how respectable in character, 'are not regarded as witnesses who are above all objection;' so that, no matter how many of them may come forward to testify to the crime of a priest, their evidence 'will not suffice for conviction, unless it is corroborated by an ecclesiastic of good fame or by other legal evidence" If this be a correct statement of the law as its stands,—and I have no reason to doubt its correctness-there is real need of reform.

(3) The want of properly equipped courts of appeal to which clergy and laity may have recourse whenever they feel aggrieved, is almost, if not quite, as serious a grievance as the rough-and-ready methods whereby punishments are inflicted in what should be the courts of first instance. The Instruction Cum Magnopere provides (Clause XLI.) that in case of an appeal from the sentence of the episcopal court to that of the metropolitan, the archbishop will, in hearing and deciding the case, use the same mode of procedure that is outlined in this Instruction.'

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

If in Ireland courts are erected in each diocese on the lines thus laid down, metropolitans will be in a position to take up appeals and deal with them judicially, and a great part of the grievance now existing will be thereby removed. There will, however, still remain the four metropolitan courts, from whose decisions, whenever they serve as courts of first instance to adjudicate on cases that come up from the archbishop's own diocese, no appeal can be taken except to Rome; and every one knows how inexpedient it is to have any but the most serious cases taken before that remote tribunal. It is, moreover, very important to have in our own land a supreme court to which in civil cases a further appeal may be taken, if the decision of the metropolitan should be adverse to the finding of the court of first instance.

I am well aware of the difficulties that are likely to beset the creation of any national tribunal competent to deal with appeals of all kinds. Ireland is hardly large enough for an Apostolic Delegation such as they have in the United States; nor are we likely to accept willingly the jurisdiction of a court whose powers would extend over Great Britain. It only remains to sink petty jealousies and be content to be judged in the last instance, saving an occasional appeal to Rome, by one of our own tribunals. Otherwise we must be content to drag on in a state of semi-adolescence; divided among ourselves and incapable of the sacrifice of diocesan and provincial interests that national unity demands. We expect laymen to sink their differences in political matters; let us, who should be better disciplined, show them the good example.

W. MCDONALD, D.D.

'It is interesting to note that an appeal from a decision of a Metropolitan to one of the suffragans is not unknown to the Canon Law.

AN IRISH VINCENTIAN MARTYR IN THE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

a paper entitled 'Hibernia Vincentiana '1 the present writer gave an account of the labours of the Vincentians in Ireland during the life time of their founder. In the hour of her deepest affliction, the early Irish Vincentians had the privilege of labouring for Ireland, and of sharing her sufferings; and one of their number, Brother Thaddeus Lye, had the honour of suffering death at the hands of the enemies of the Catholic faith.1

The object of the present paper is to collect all that is known of the life and death of this servant of God, in the hope that as he was an associate in suffering of the Irish martyrs of the seventeenth century, he may also be their associate in the honours of which, it is hoped, the Church will at no distant date declare them worthy.

I.

The details which have come down to us of the life and sufferings of Brother Lye (Lee), are scanty; but they are sufficient to show that he lived and died for God. The first mention of him is found in the Register of those who became members of the Congregation of the Mission, which is preserved at the Archives Nationales in Paris, and is quoted M.M. 519A and bears the following title :

'Catalogue of the priests and clerics who have been received into the Congregation of the Mission since the commencement of its institution, and who lived therein more than two years, or who died in it before the end of the first two years, 1625-1764.'2

II. E. RECORD, October, 1903.

21

Catalogue des Prestres et clercs qui ont ésté reçeus en la Congregation de la Mission depuis le commencement de son institution, et y ont veçu plus de deux ans, ou bien y sont morts devant la fin des deux premières années, 1625-1764.' Arch. Nationales M.M. 519 A. The continuation of the Catalogue from 1764 to 1790 is quoted M.M. 519 B.

« PreviousContinue »