The

Metropolitan.

VOL. IV.

DECEMBER, 1856.

No. 11.

REFLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN REGARD TO WHAT IS CALLED THE CATHOLIC PRESS.

It is complimentary to the liberal institutions of America, where no distinction of religious creed is recognized by the government, that there are more Catholic periodicals, of one name or another, published in this country than there are among the English-speaking Catholics of the whole world besides. Now, even in this country, the date of the origin of these Catholic periodicals is within the memory of men who have hardly attained more than the meridian of human life. A growth of periodical literature so rapid, may naturally be supposed to contain the tares as well as the wheat of laborious planting, and of a prematurelyexpected reaping of the harvest.

Accordingly, there has been observable, in the mode of conducting these periodicals, a certain amount of rivalship, involving, at the same time, a very considerable amount of mutual hostility between one periodical and another, so that the benefits to religion which might have resulted from something resembling unity of purpose, and a right understanding of the principle of a Catholic press, have been so thoroughly neutralized, that it is becoming a question among its supporters, whether it has not already done more harm than good to the Catholic community.

The writer of this remembers when there was only one paper that could be classed, directly or indirectly, under the head of a Catholic journal, in the United States. It was published in New York. It professed to defend the Irish character against obloquy, which was then as abundant as it is now. It was called the Shamrock. Incidentally, it was Catholic, in so far as the Irish were assailed, principally on account of their religion. This was succeeded, if the writer mistakes not, by the Truth-Teller.

The first really Catholic paper, and which happily survives, though but feebly supported, is the Catholic Miscellany, of Charleston, founded by the eminent Bishop England. Throughout all times this paper has sustained itself amidst great trials, with a dignity and erudition such as have not been surpassed by any Catholic periodical in the country. In the mere news department, it had little to offer that would be interesting to the Catholics of the North, except what would have been a repetition of matters with which they had been previously familiar. But in its editorial department, whether as regards the purity of the English language, the dignity of style, the force and at the same time elegance of argument, VOL. IV. No. 11.

82

in dealing with an adversary, no Catholic periodical published in the United States has yet surpassed the Charleston Catholic Miscellany.

Since then we have seen the rise of many Catholic journals, and the failure of more than a few. Those that survive are before the mind and under the eye of the Catholic people of the United States. Without invidious comparison, it may be said that each has its strong phase of merit, and its sinister aspects of possible injury to the cause which it professes, and by a confiding people is supported to advocate. The only ground on which the writer of this paper would feel himself authorized to present his views in relation to the Catholic press, is a ground of zeal and interest for the universal harmony and union, not only in faith, but also in charity, of all the scattered members of the Church of God, who are to be found spread over the surface of this now great empire, extending from the southern boundaries of Canada to the northern limits of Mexico, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. These Catholics are not homogeneous in the order of natural birth, inasmuch as not all have been born in any one country; but they are homogeneous in the supernatural order, by which God has provided that they should be spiritually born into the one church, which is not the church of any nation, but of all nations without distinction-holy, Catholic, apostolical.

One of the greatest calamities that could fall on the Catholic people of the United States, would be, if allusions to variety of national origin should ever be allowed to distract their minds from that unity of hope and mutual charity which result from the communion of saints.

For some time past it has been observable that this so-called Catholic press has exhibited, especially in the North, divergencies well calculated to excite attention, if not alarm. On the one side it has been assumed that the success of religion in this country depends on the continuous influx of emigrants, especially those of Irish origin, and that religion vanishes in proportion as the Celtic feeling dies out— that the national character of the American people, and more particularly as it affects the "first and second generation of emigrants," is hostile to the Catholic religion—that the best method of perpetuating the faith in this country, so far as the Celtic race is concerned, is to keep up and perpetuate a species of Irishism in connection with the faith.

On the other hand, it has been assumed with equal confidence, but not on any better foundation, that our holy faith will labor under great disadvantages, and can hardly be expected to make much impression on our countrymen, until it can be presented under more favorable auspices than those which surround foreigners. In short, that, if it were rightly understood, its principles are in close harmony with those of our constitution and laws-that it requires only a skillful architect to dovetail the one into the other, and to show how the Catholic religion and the American Constitution would really fit each other as a key fits a lock-that without any change in regard to faith or morals, the doctrines of the Catholic Church may be, so to speak, Americanized-that is, represented in such a manner as to attract the attention and win the admiration of the American people. Now, in the opinion of the writer, the prevalence of either of these two systems would be disastrous to the cause of the Church.

The Church is not a foreigner on any continent or island of this globe. The Church is of all nations, and for all nations, as much as the sunbeams of heaven, which are not repudiated as foreign under any sky. In fact, truth, no matter by whom represented, is at home in all climes; and this not simply in matters of religion, but in matters of history, arts, and sciences.

It may be admitted that if the twelve Apostles, when they carried the faith of Christ to the different nations, had been natives of the several countries in which they propagated Christianity, the success of their mission, according to the limited range of earthly wisdom, might have been greater than it was. But, on the other hand, their success, the constancy of their testimony, and for the most part their martyrdom, gave evidence that they were men sent of God, and not sent by other men merely like themselves.

And so it has been. Those who had received the faith, carried it forth in their hearts and on their lips, under a divine commission to those of other nations who had not as yet received it; bearing, at the same time, as became witnesses for Christ, their lives in their hands. The Apostles were, by national origin, Jews— they became Christians by the grace of divine faith. They did not carry their Judaism to be established in other countries, but only their faith. And throughout the whole tenor of ecclesiastical history, this same order has prevailed. The faith, once established became, to a certain extent, indigenous in the several countries which had been the theatre of their labors.

But in the annals of Church history, there has never been a country which, in its civil and social relations, has exhibited so fair an opportunity for developing the practical harmonies of Catholic faith, and of Catholic charity, as the United States. Whoever would take the pains to examine how, under the influence of the Catholic principle, representatives of all nations have been blended into a unity, unexampled in the history of the world, need only trace the order of succession among the bishops and priests of the United States. Not to speak of the priesthood, if we confine our remarks to the episcopacy, the highest test under which nationalities could be profanely brought into comparison with Catholic sentiment and order, we may cite a few instances of the sees that have been longest established. The first bishop of Baltimore was an American. His coadjutor, who survived him but a short time, was also an American. The next bishop of that see was a Frenchman. His successor was an Englishman, and was succeeded by an American again, who in turn has been succeeded by an Irishman. The first bishop who lived to preside in the see of New York, was an Irishman. His successor was a Frenchman, and his successor is again an Irishman. The first bishop of Richmond was an Irishman; his successor is an American. The first bishop of Cincinnati was an American, the second is an Irishman. The first bishop of St. Louis was a Frenchman, the second an Italian, the third is an Irishman. The first bishop of Natchez was an American, the second a Belgian. The first bishop of Charleston was an Irishman, the second an American. The first bishop of Louisville (formerly Bardstown) was a Frenchman, the second an American. The first bishop of Boston was a Frenchman-second and third, Americans.

This is quite enough to show that the Church of God, in feeling as well as in faith, selects, as vacancies occur, the prelate most likely to advance the kingdom of Christ, utterly regardless of such contemptible things, when they are foisted into the spiritual order, as nationalities. The first bishop of Nashville, of Wheeling, of Covington, of Erie, of Buffalo, of Albany, of Portland, of Newark, are all Americans by birth, and all of them, we may say, appointed by the unanimous suffrages of their seniors in the episcopacy, who forgot their own several' birthplaces in determining the most suitable prelates for these different sees.

If we turn our attention to the priesthood, it will be seen that neither pains nor expenses have been spared to train up and introduce into the sanctuary of the

Church, such young men, natives of the country, as may have exhibited, from time to time, apparent evidences of vocation to the sacred ministry. The bishops of foreign birth are precisely those who held this great purpose nearest to their hearts. The venerable bishop of Bardstown was very successful in his efforts to accomplish this object. The bishops of St. Louis were equally zealous, but perhaps not quite so successful. Indeed, the prelates of all parts of this country have labored with equal industry and zeal, to encourage vocations to the ecclesiastical state among the promising young men of the country.

Now, supposing that Catholics of foreign birth, the "first and second generation of emigrants" should or could go forth, following the course of the sun in search of the el dorado of independent agricultural life, where every man might repose under his own vine and fig tree (that is, in case he should ever have a vine or a fig tree to repose under), as poetically imagined in the organ of the Buffalo Convention, in its original thema, not in its discordant variations;—supposing all this, what then? Why, this: The Bishops and Priests of the Eastern, North Eastern, and North Western Dioceses, whether of native or foreign birth, will have, among other considerations, hardly Catholics enough left to keep the grass from growing green in the vestibules of the churches built by the departed “first neglected and second lost generation of emigrants." But then, on the other hand, the presence of foreigners having been removed, the Bishops and Priests will have ample time to address their ministry to those who are to the "manor born."

Now, in view of these facts, neither clergy nor laity can afford, as Catholics, to have any distinction drawn among them in our periodicals, as among natives and foreigners. In the Catholic Church there are no natives. There is the nativity of baptism subsequent to the natural birth. There is the adoption by grace of every soul, whether introduced into her communion during the period of infancy or in adult life. Neither are there foreigners in the Church of God-it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

It may be added that something analogous happens in relation to the country itself. There is a civil or political nativity provided for by the laws, by complying with the conditions of which, those who wish to make this country their perpetual abode, are recognized before the law as citizens; and the stigma, or calamity, if such it be, of having been born on foreign soil is thenceforward removed and wiped away.

If, therefore, the law of the land has blotted out the distinction between a nativeborn and a nationalized citizen, why should it be kept up in periodicals professing to be guided by the spirit and charity of the Catholic Church?

This is unbecoming. This is not Catholic. This ought to be left to our enemies. We shall still be weak enough when we shall be most intimately united for the pupose of resisting the hostile pressure from without.

The Catholics of the United States have been sorely tried within the last few years, by the assaults made upon them on account of their religion. True, the sword of hostility seemed directed against foreigners, but when the occasion required, it was found double-edged. It has been said, that previous to the late outbreak of this feeling, what was considered to be, at least, a portion of the Catholic press, had given great offence to our Protestant fellow-citizens by its arrogant and sometimes insolent tone and invective. Here there is a mistake. The papers, though advocating Irishism, to which this reproach would apply, were never recognized by the legitimate authorities of the Church as Catholic papers. But the Protestant community could not understand any such distinc

tion. And whilst the conductors of such papers may have merited such a reproach in their imprudent and improper course, it conveys an indirect compliment, to the effect that Irish and Catholic must be one and the same. Within the last eight or ten years no small portion of this supposed Catholic press has been under the special guidance of editors born on the soil, but who had entered into the Church at a matured period of life. In dealing with their fellow-citizens on topics of religious controversy, dogmas of faith, doctrines, and even discipline, they have claimed the right and exercised it of speaking with a plainness, a frankness, a boldness in the ear of their countrymen which few persons trained from infancy in the Catholic Church would have felt warranted to employ. The spirit of the Catholic Church, is indeed, a spirit of strength and energy-neither of which is impaired by the use of the most charitable language.

The divergency of views presented in some of these periodicals, and to which allusion has been made in a foregoing portion of this article, requires some little development. The actual condition of the Catholic Church in this country is a problem of deep interest not only to ourselves, but also to our co-religionists in Europe. Sometimes exaggerated views of the progress of religion in the United States are conveyed in our periodicals, so that our brethren in Europe become almost elated in view of the Church's anticipated triumph. Then, again, other accounts suggest only discouragement, and almost despair. We may take the following as a specimen of this latter misrepresentation. A paper, which is supposed to have considerable circulation both here and in Ireland, has recently published the following deceptive, if not malicious, statement:

(From the American Cell, of September 27.)

"We have concluded to transfer to our fifth page, the particulars of the late abominable prize fight, or manslaughter, in the neighborhood of this city. We do so with feelings of deep disgust and humiliation. The names of nearly all the actors in that brutal conflict suggest only too plainly their paternity. In New York, as in San Francisco, Ireland, where sheriffs of counties are this year wearing white gloves, to commemorate calendars without criminals-this same Ireland has here and on the Pacific the discredit of swarming the great cities with a horde of hardy, vulgar ruflians, unmatched in any former state of society. Most of these wretches are young men born here or in the English manufacturing towns, of Irish parents. Such was the notorious Sullivan, such was the Kelly in this last tragedy. Surely, surely, some one has a terrible account to give of our neglected first and lost second generation, in the English and American cities."

The author of the above remarks, which are at the same time insolent and untrue, seems disposed to whine over moral results which he himself had contributed in no small degree to bring about. If he had chosen, he might have selected many names, of the first and second generation, against whom there is no reproach, but who, on the contrary, do honor both to religion and to the country which gave them birth. But the editor in question is a theorist; and he is in the habit of subordinating the facts of a case to the fancies of his mind. In statistics he will never boggle at a mistake of two or three millions in estimating the Celtic race on this continent. So, also, it suits his absurd idea to exaggerate, if, indeed, that were possible, the miseries of the Irish emigrants, as they may be found in the cellars and garrets of New York. Now, the truth is best on all questions of this kind. That many of these emigrants have to undergo a certain amount of hardship and trial after their arrival in this country is unquestionable. But this is incident to their transition from one country to another. And it is but truth to say, that their abode in the cellars and garrets of New York is not more deplorable nor more squalid than the Irish hovels from which many of them