THE remaining portion of that remarkable letter of the Washington correspondent of the Baltimore Daily American—October 15, 1898, is as follows:—
“The administration fully realizes the objections that will arise in this country, from certain sources, against even a temporary sustenance of the Catholic Church in Cuba. But it has been given ample assurance by the Catholic authorities that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis as soon as it is possible to establish the new order that has been brought about by the Spanish evacuation.
“Archbishop Chappelle will be entrusted with liberal powers to institute such of the reforms as demand immediate introduction. It is likely that the responsibility of supporting the church in Cuba will eventually be assumed by the Catholics in this country.
“In determining to support the Catholic priests in Cuba until their church can take care of them, President [743] McKinley has acted wisely from other points of view than mere humanity. The Cuban priests, as in all countries whose population is densely ignorant, exercise complete control over their parishioners. Apart from the cruelty of withdrawing all aid from these priests, it is easy to believe that the new American government in Cuba would have at its very inception built up a dangerous set of enemies if the priesthood of Cuba were given reason to regret the present of the American flag on the island. The Spanish government at Madrid could easily give the American government some dearly-bought information as to the malign influence that is in the power of a hostile clergy to exercise. Ever since the first Carlist uprising in 1833, every movement directed against the government of Spain has found its principal support in the clergy of Spain, who almost to a man are Carlists.”
Is it true that objection will arise only “from certain sources” against governmental “sustenance of the Catholic Church” and “the vast number of priests and high church dignitaries” in Cuba? Is it true that the whole people of the United States have so far forgotten the fundamental principles of the nation, or else have so far fallen under the influence of the Catholic Church, that against the Government undertaking “the entire responsibility” for the support of the Catholic Church in Cuba, objection will arise only “from certain sources”? Why will not objection arise from the whole people everywhere?
All money given by the United States Government for keeping open the Catholic churches, and providing for public worship in those churches in Cuba; all money paid by the United States Government to “the vast number of Catholic priests and high church dignitaries” in Cuba; must be obtained by taxation, must be raised in revenue, laid upon all the people. Of the money now being paid by all the people for revenue—stamps on drafts, deeds, mortgages, and what not, a portion must go to the “support of the Catholic Church,” and “the vast number of priests and high church dignitaries” in Cuba. For is it not published by this Washington correspondent that “it is the determination of President McKinley,” coached by Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland, that “sufficient money shall be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church” in Cuba? Will all the people of the United States allow this thing to be carried on at their expense without protest? Our fathers who made this nation, said that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.” They therefore abolished the practice and repudiated the principle. Will the people now sanction the revival of the practice and the reëstablishment of the principle?
The second time in this letter we are told that assurance is given “by the Catholic authorities that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis as soon as it is possible to establish the new order.” And again we inquire, What confidence can be placed in any such assurance in presence of the fact that this governmental support is of the same identical priests and high church dignitaries, and the same identical system, that, though having had “complete control over their parishioners” for four hundred years, yet, have never taught them to support their church and clergy, but have kept them “densely ignorant” as this correspondent declares them to be to-day? When this is the record for four hundred years of governmental support, what is the value of “ample assurance by the Catholic authorities that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis” while governmental support is continued? In view of such a record, no assurance, by the Catholic authorities nor by anybody else, can be ample, that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis, while governmental support is continued.
Another, and the final consideration, which shows that no such thing as the self-support of the Catholic Church in Cuba can ever be expected, is, that while it is promised by the Catholic authorities that “when law and order are fully re-established on the distracted island the Catholic Church will be expected to support itself,” yet, at the same time, there is presented the abominable fact, which amounts in effect to a threat, that “the Cuban priests exercise complete control over their parishioners,” who are “densely ignorant,” and would prove “a dangerous set of enemies if the priesthood of Cuba were given reason to regret the presence of the American flag on the island”!!
That is to say: The government of Spain has always supported the Catholic clergy and the Catholic churches in Cuba. And now, the United States having supplanted the government of Spain in Cuba, if this Government does not “Undertake the entire responsibility for their support” “the priesthood of Cuba” will be “given reason to regret the presence of the American flag on the island.” Then, having such “reason to regret the presence of the American flag on the island;” and having “complete control” of their “densely ignorant” parishioners, “the new American Government in Cuba would have at its very inception built up a dangerous set of enemies.” Therefore, to placate this “dangerous set of enemies” the Government of the United States must “undertake the entire responsibility for their support.” And accordingly “President McKinley has acted wisely” in determining that “sufficient money” shall “be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church!” And if anybody does not believe that it is wise thus to placate these “dangerous enemies” then “the Spanish government at Madrid could easily give” him pointers in “some dearly-bought information as the malign influence that is in the power of a hostile clergy to exercise”!!!
Then with “the vast number of priests and high church dignitaries” composing a clergy of such a “dangerous” and “malign” disposition as that, having “complete control” of their “densely ignorant” parishioners, and, upon such considerations as this, demanding [744] governmental support until “law and order are fully re-established,” what prospect can there be that governmental support would ever cease? because what prospect can there be that law and order would ever be fully re-established while the cessation of the governmental support of such a priesthood must be the sure consequence of the full re-establishment of law and order, and the prevention of the full re-establishment of law and order rests completely with the “dangerous” and “malign” priesthood who receive the governmental support which is to continue only until law and order are fully re-established?
Again we must remark that this argument in behalf of governmental support of the Catholic priesthood of Cuba, based upon the “dangerous” and “malign” disposition of that same priesthood, is, for cool and essential iniquity, surely entitled to the palm.
But are the people of the United States ready for all this? Will they all bear it all without protest?
A. T. J.