Document Information

Date: 1865-02-10
By: True Witness
Citation: “Non Possumus”, True Witness (10 February, 1865)
Other formats: TBA

“NON POSSUMUS.”

Marriage and Divorce.—When in treating of the great Constitutional échanges now before the country, and for or against which Catholic legislators are called upon to declare themselves—we discuss the question of the creation of a new civil tribunal, and of the expressly giving to that civil tribunal the right of legislating upon Marriage and of legalising Divorce—we leave the region of secular politics altogether, and enter upon that of “Faith and Morals,” the exclusive domain of the Church. We must tread warily therefore, for the spot whereon we stand is holy ground; not to be approached in an irreverent or secular spirit, but in the fear of the Lord, and consequently with a perfect disregard of all human considerations, or what the French call “respect humain.”

Or, if at all we think of man, and of his judgment upon the decision which on the all important questions now forced upon us, we shall pronounce—let it be our great object not to give scandal to our separated brethren, not to furnish occasion to our adversaries to blaspheme. We may be assured that in the present crisis, and on the question of “Marriage and Divorce” now before the Canadian Legislature, every word, every act of the Catholic publicist will be keenly watched, noted down, and sharply criticised by our Protestant neighbors. Keensighted are they, and ever on the look out to detect us in some fault; and if they, with their lynx-eyes, detect, or fancy even that they can detect any inconsistency in our conduct, any incoherency betwixt our professions as Catholics and our practice as politicians—betwixt the positive dogmas of our Church, and our votes as legislators—great will be the rejoicings in the anti-Catholic camp, loud their shouts of derision, and incalculable the disgrace and injury to the cause of our religion. We know how Protestants think and talk amongst themselves on such occasions; we know that though they will gladly avail themselves of the services of the timorous time-serving Kawtholic to promote their objects—they despise the coward and the traitor, more even than they dislike the stern uncompromising, bigoted, if you will, upholder of Catholic truth. We know well what effect amongst Protestants honestly searching after truth, and ready to embrace that truth wherever found, has that sad indifference to, or laxity of principle which Catholic “politicians” so often manifest in the pursuit of personal or party ends; and knowing how Protestants feel, think and argue, and how apt they are to transfer to the Church, the reproach which should rest upon the timorous time-serving individual alone, we say it advisedly, that one Catholic vote cast for the measure which expressly gives to a civil tribunal the right to legislate upon Marriage, and to legalise Divorce, will do more to bring Catholicity itself into contempt amongst intelligent and honest Protestants, than all the obscene calumnies that Mr. George Brown has uttered against the Church during his career—than all the diatribes of all the Swaddling Societies in Canada, during the course of the XIX. century.

The primary charge of Protestants against the Romish Church is that she encourages, or at all events, tolerates a tampering with truth; that she connives at a certain laxity of practice amongst her children; that she quibbles, and teaches others to quibble; that, for the sake of expediency, she will sacrifice principle, and holds the maxim that it is lawful to do evil that good may come. These are the reproaches constantly urged against our Holy Mother, and which reiterated by a Kingsley provoked the noble and touching reply given by Dr. Newman in his Apologia pro Vita Sua. In this work the writer vindicates, not his own honor alone, but the honor of his spiritual mother; and though her children may oft have done, and may no doubt oft do again, many mean and dishonorable things, he shows that she at least has never sanctioned them, that she is not responsible for them, and that the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, are to the minutest particular, in harmony with the code of honor, and that “hault courage” which the apostle of “muscular Christianity” can admire, though he cannot practise it. The true Catholic fears God, and therefore has no other fear; and who should in all respects conform his life to the precepts of the Catholic Church would, no matter what his position or his calling, be indeed “le preux chevalier sans peur et sans reproche.” The perfect Catholic would, in short, be the perfect gentleman, the beau ideal of the gentleman, whom no one could suspect even of a cowardly, a mercenary, or even of a doubtful action. Therefore is it incumbent on the Catholic legislator, on the Catholic publicist above all other men, to keep himself unspotted from the world; and never in any emergency to yield in appearance even, or make the slightest concession or approach towards concession, when a Catholic principle is at stake—lest by his timid, pliant, time-serving attitude he should endorse the calumnies urged by prejudiced Protestants against his spiritual mother—calumnies which it must be confessed, the conduct of our Catholic public men only too often confirms.

Now in the particular question before us what is the principle at stake? This:—”That under no circumstances can a Catholic recognise—in much less vote for giving to—any civil tribunal whatsoever, whether in esse or in posse, the right of legislating upon Marriage, and of legalising Divorce.” This principle is either true or it is false. If true, no Catholic can, without dereliction of principle. vote for, or in any manner be accessory to, the adoption of the proposed Constitutional Changes; because they give to the central government the right of legislating upon Marriage and Divorce. If false, then did the Fathers of the Council of Trent err, then also has the Holy Father in his late Encyclical greatly erred. But whether this principle be true or false, whether we accept or reject it, let us be consistent with our principle. For the credit of our holy religion amongst Protestants, do not let us be seen as giving to the world the humiliating spectacle of men acting in contempt of principles which they profess. If it be lawful for the Catholic to vote for attributing to a civil tribunal the right of legislating upon Marriage and of legalising Divorce, for God’s sake let us say so, and proclaim this principle from the housetops and to the whole world; but if it be not lawful, then again, for God’s sake, let us make our acts to harmonise with our principles—no matter what the consequences. Consequences! forsooth—what has man to do with consequences? These are God’s business—not to say it profanely, these are His look out. Enough for us that we do our duty, and leave all consequences to God. If asked to vote contrary to principle, or to do any other dirty action, the Catholic should make answer with the Holy Father in analogous circumstances, “Non possumus.”

All shuffling, all quibbling, all attempts to prove that two and two are either five or three, are, as Carlyle would say, the prima materia of the devil, of him who was a liar from the beginning. They are not weapons with which the battle of Catholic truth against heresy can be fought, or brought to a happy issue: and even if it be doomed that we be beaten, that the hosts of the enemy be too many for us, let us at least fall with honor, and with such weapons in our hands as the honest man can use without a blush. We may perhaps be unable to enforce our views on a legislature in which Protestant principles are in the ascendant; but this we can do if we please,—we can enforce the respect of Protestants, we can compel them to recognise our consistency and our disinterestedness; and therefore to yield homage to that religion, to that Church, which not only arms her children with sound principles, but which animates and strengthens them in the combat. This we can do; and having done this, having exhausted every legitimate means within our reach for opposing the pernicious and demoralising system of legislation sought to be imposed upon us, we shall still be able, even if defeated, to console ourselves with the proud reflection that we have done our duty, and fought that good fight of faith which, no matter how the day goes, assures to the brave soldier a crown of justice which the Lord, the just Judge, will render to him on the great and terrible day of His coming. What in comparison with this bright crown, has “Jack-in-Office” to offer us, that we should sacrifice to him our principles, and prostitute to him our honor and our conscience? Non Possumus.

At all events we have the right to expect that amongst our Catholic representatives one at least, honest, brave and faithful will be found, who will force the question of principle on the House; by moving an amendment for leaving out that clause of the proposed Union of the British North American Provinces which gives to the central government the right of legislating upon Marriage and Divorce; and upon the grounds that—to accord such right to any civil tribunal would be injurious to morals, and repugnant to Catholic faith. Upon this question a vote should be forced, so as to compel our representatives to show themselves in their true colors, and to commit themselves to the assertion of one or the other of the two principles—to wit:—the competency, or the incompetency, of any civil tribunal to legalise Divorce. From such a vote, which should of course be published—(those who voted for the competency carefully distinguished from those who voted for the incompetency of any civil tribunal to legislate on Marriage and Divorce; with a prominent place of infamy assigned to those who should have sneaked away to avoid voting at all)—we should be able to appreciate at their actual-worth those professions of good principles — bons principes — of which some are so fond of making ostentatious parades when some material advantage to themselves is likely to accrue from so doing.

We have limited ourselves to the discussion of the great principle at issue in this question of “Marriage and Divorce;” in our next we propose to discuss the question from a lower standpoint, that of expediency.