“Unfortunately, yes.”
“Then you have rebellion within the camp. And was there any ground for these statements?”
“There was no ground whatever for the insinuation that we habitually misuse our trusteeship. The man had a grievance. His agitation was merely a means to compel us to solace him. He trusted, by making himself unpleasant to us, to make us pleasant to him. So he attacked our financial arrangements. It was a wicked stroke: for, you know, Holy Father, that we cannot be expected to account to any Tom-Dick-and-Harry for bequests and endowments which we administer.”
“Your accounts are properly audited, no doubt?”
“To a great extent, yes.”
“But not invariably? You trust much to the honesty and the financial ability of individual clerks? We do not presume for a moment that there is any systematic malversation of trust. You have had a lesson on that subject.”
“Lesson?”
“Yes: in 1886: after the notorious Carvale Case, when the infatuated imbecility of the Gaelic and Pictish bishops was shown to render them undesirable as trustees, the clergy simply dare not stray into illegal paths. Oh no. But are the clergy actually capable of financial administration?”
“As capable, I suppose, as other men.”
“Priests are not ‘as other men.’ However, We take it that you all believe yourselves to have acted conscientiously. We also take it that, in view of the power and influence which the position of trustee affords, your clergy eagerly become trustees and are unwilling to submit to supervision or to criticism. That is quite human. We entirely disapprove of it.”
“But what would your Holiness have?”
“We cannot say it in one sentence. You must collect Our mind from Our conduct as well as from our words. We entirely disapprove of the clergy competing for or using any secular power or dominance whatever, especially such power as inheres in the command of money. The clergy are ministers—ministers—not masters. And as to the other charge—‘the gross injustices which are of daily occurrence’?”
“That, of course, is simply the scream of an opponent. It is spite.”
“Does Your Eminency mean that there are no injustices? Don’t you know of gross injustices?”
“ ‘It needs must that offences come.’ ”
“ ‘But woe to him by whom the offence cometh.’ Eminency, why not frankly face the predicament? The clergy are more than less human; and they certainly are not even the pick of humanity. Now, don’t they attempt too much in the first instance; and, in the second, don’t they invariably refuse to admit or amend their blunders? Listen to this. The Pall Mall Gazette states, on the authority of the Missiones Catholicae that, in Australia, during the last five years, we have increased our numbers from 3,008,399 to 4,507,980. But the government census taken last year gives the total population of Australia at 4,555,803. That leaves only 47,823 for the other religious and irreligious bodies. As a matter of fact, the latest Roman Catholic record is 916,880. Therefore an overstatement of 3,591,100 has been made. Which is absurd. And perpetuated. Which is damnable.”
“I do not precisely see Your Holiness’s point.”
“No? Well, let us go to another.” The Pope produced a small green ticket on which was printed,
“Church of the Sacred Heart—Quest Road—Admit Bearer to—Midnight Service—New Year’s Eve 1900—Middle Seat 6d.”
“This comes from Your Eminency’s archdiocese,” he said.
The cardinal looked at the thing, as one looks at the grass of the field. There it is. One has seen it all before.
“We disapprove of that,” said the Pope.
“What would Your Holiness suggest then to prevent improper persons from attending these services?”
“Improper persons should be encouraged to attend. No obstacle should be placed in their way.”
The cardinal was irritated. “Then we should have scenes of disorder, to say nothing of profanation.”
“That is where Your Eminency and all the aboriginals err. Your opinion is formed upon the apprehensive sentimentality of pious old-ladies-of-both-sexes whose ideal of Right is the Not-obviously Wrong. When a thing is unpleasant, they go up a turning: wipe their mouths; and mistake evasion for annihilation. They don’t annihilate the evil: they avoid it. Now, we are here to seek and to save that which was lost: and our churches must be more free to the lost than to the saved—if any be saved. Experience proves that your pious fears have no sure warranty. Wesleyan schismatics have performed Watch-night services for more than a century. Anglican schismatics have done the same: and, in later years, they have celebrated their mysteries at midnight on Christmas Eve. We Ourself have assisted at these functions. The temples were open and free: and We never saw or heard a sign of the profanation of which you speak. Sots and harlots undoubtedly were present: but they were not disorderly: they were cowed, they were sleepy, they were curious, but they made no noise. Even though they had shouted, it only would have been in protest against some human ordinance; and a human ordinance must give way the moment it becomes a barrier between one soul and that soul’s Creator. Supposing means of grace to be obtainable in a church, who durst deny them to those who chiefly need them? The position which you clergy take up is an essentially false one. We are not here to establish conventions, or to enforce conformity. We are here to serve—only to serve. We especially disapprove of any system which bars access to the church, or which makes it difficult;—this admission-fee, for example.”
“Holy Father, the clergy must live.”
“You lead Us to infer that they cannot live without these sixpences?”
“We are so poor: we have no endowments: the fee is no more than a pew-rent for a single service—”
“Lord Cardinal, be accurate. You have endowments: not equal to those of which you are thinking, the ‘stolen property’ enjoyed by the Church-of-England-as-by-Law-Established: but you have endowments. You mean that they are meagre. But pew-rents are abominable: so are pews, for that matter. Abolish them both.”
“I am bound to obey Your Holiness: but
