Storia do Mogor 361.2
Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 361.2
- Language
- English
361.2.1
But supposing, gentlemen, what cannot be admitted — that is, that the Lord Bishop could excommunicate for publishing the decrees of the Sacred Congregation and citing an opponent to Rome ; how, even then, can his Lordship excommunicate or declare excommunicated a friar of the Order of St. Francis in face of the Bulls, Decrees, and Privileges conceded to friars of that Order ? Here is the Brief of Martin V., which states in express terms that no ordinary or prelate can deliver a sentence of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, nor openly promulgate such against the said friars : 'Ordinarii et praelati alii, sive quaevis alia [258] persona generaliter, vel specialiter, aut communiter aut divisim, non possunt quavis authoritate excommunicationis, suspensionis, et interdicti sententias promulgare.' [Neither ordinaries nor other prelates, or other persons whatsoever, acting either generally or specially, or in common or singly, are authorized in any way to publish sentences of excommunication, suspension, and interdict.]
361.2.2
These words are to be read in the book entitled 'Monumenta Ordinum,' under the name of Eugenius IV. There is also what Clement IV. says : 'Concessit fratribus minoribus ne ab aliquo legato, nisi de Latere Sedis Apostolicae misso, vel delegato, vel subdelegato authoritate litterarum Sedis praedictae, possint excommunicari suspendi vel interdici nisi litterae ipsae plenam et expressam de ordine praefato et indulto hujusmodi facerent mentionem.' [He granted to the Friars Minor that no legate, except a legate commissioned de latere of the Apostolic See, and no delegate or sub-delegate, by virtue of letters of the aforesaid See, should have the power of excommunication, suspension, or interdict over them, unless the letters themselves made full and explicit mention of these powers concerning the aforesaid Order enjoying this indulgence.]
361.2.3
The same thing has been laid down by Sixtus IV.: 'Ne locorum diocesani vel alii ordinarii vel alii quicumque in personas aut [et] loca fratrum minorum contra privilegia exemptionis sibi quamcumque jurisdictionem aut superioritatem vindicare praesumant, et districte inhibuit ne quispiam absque Sedis Apostolicae speciali concessione aut auctoritate, in personas, domos, et loca dicti Ordinis Minorum (ut pote prorsus exempta) aliquas censuras vel sententias, specialiter vel generaliter audeat promulgare.' [That the local diocesans or other ordinaries, or any others whosoever, should not presume to arrogate to themselves any kind of jurisdiction or lordship over the persons or estates (lit. ' places ') of the Friars Minor contrary to their privileges of exemption ; and he strictly enjoined that no one without the special permission or authority of the Apostolic See should dare to publish, either specially or generally, any censures or sentences against the persons, houses, and estates of the said order of Minor Friars, seeing that they are entirely exempt.] Further, let us admit, gentlemen, that the Lord Bishop of San Thome possessed the power of excommunicating, or declaring excommunicated, the friars of the Order of St. Francis, notwithstanding the Privileges and Bulls of Martin V., Eugenius IV., Clement IV., and Sixtus IV. ;
361.2.4
still, his Lordship could not exercise this power without having called upon the friar to put in an appearance, without having taken legal steps against him, without having heard the case, without having found him guilty [259] on untainted evidence. My Lord Bishop took the deposition of the reverend Jesuit fathers, who are our adversaries, who would like to see us lost without hope of recovery. Upon these depositions (at the very time, too, when his Lordship had discovered the foulest calumny ever uttered), without any other foundation or process, without summoning the Reverend Father Esprit, and without passing sentence, my lord declares him accursed, and doubly accursed of God Omnipotent, the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the other saints in the quire celestial. He prohibits, under penalty of the greater excommunication, all intercourse with him; and directs that he be not given water, fire, et cetera. He orders this wonderful Declaration to be affixed to the door of the church of the reverend fathers of the Society of Jesus, and that, too, in the sight of the heathen and of the Christians who have been but lately born into the faith. Gentlemen, does not this seem to you a fine sort of zeal for the glory of God? Does it not seem to you a fine observance of the Church's rules? Does it not seem to you a curiously judicious course of action? Does it not strike you as an excommunication launched in the very nick of time?
361.2.5
Is not this a splendid device for rendering us odious to every lover of justice? But who is aware that Monsignor and the reverend Jesuit fathers have followed rules which are directly opposed to the prescriptions of the Church? We find their pretended excommunication to be null and void, as even you can see, gentlemen, from the following words: 'Judex declarans aliquem excommunicatum vel incidisse in excommunicationem' — [If a judge declares anyone excommunicated or fallen under excommunication, although he has not been cited to appear, the declaration is absolutely null and without any effect] — 'ipso jure sine citatione illius, qui declarandus est, declaratio est nulla:' Glossa in Clementina 'Praesenti' in versu 'Constiterit' 'De Censibus,' and in the Clementine Constitutions, second vers., 'De poenis,' and Navar. 'Con.' 4 et 9, nunc 4, 'De Sententia Excommunicationis.' You cannot deny, gentlemen, that we fall under this rule, and I can never believe that you can approve those who act entirely contrary to the above ordinance of the Church. Yet this is what the Lord Bishop and also the reverend Jesuit fathers have done, for where is the citation issued to the Reverend Father Esprit of Tours ? You know very well, gentlemen, that he was never cited. Where are the proceedings that ought to have been held in the case against him ? Where are the depositions of the witnesses to be found ? Where is the official record of the case ?
361.2.6
No one has seen it, and they decline to show it in spite of an express demand for its inspection. Apparently they desire so passionately to see us lost and defamed in reputation that they have not complied with either the one or the other of the above conditions, and as an inevitable consequence of their having sinned against principles, their so-called excommunication falls rather upon them than upon the Reverend Father Esprit of Tours.
361.2.7
Let us farther assume, gentlemen, since I do not wish merely to prove the innocence of the Reverend Father Esprit, but also to display to the whole world the estimable conduct of our adversaries — let us assume, I say, that the Lord Bishop of San Thomé had the power of excommunicating or declaring excommunicated the friars of St. Francis. Let us also assume that his Lordship had permission to act without any rules or formalities. Let us assume plainly that the Reverend Father Esprit was really excommunicated, the which he most decidedly is not ; yet even then who has ever heard it said [261] that a judge could forbid a culprit to appear before him, when he has come for the express purpose of expounding to him his arguments, and submitting himself to punishment if it is decided that he has earned it? Nobody. I could never believe, gentlemen, that you would be so cruel that you would deny an audience to an innocent though calumniated man, who had come a distance of thirty leagues to demand from you as a favour that you would kindly listen to his arguments, and after hearing them, pass such orders as you pleased. Yet this was what Monsignor has done; he sent his secretary to Monsieur Guety's house, praying him to tell us not to go to his palace. If you decline to believe a statement which does not seem credible, Monsieur Guety is present at San Thomé: write to him if you like, and see whether what I say is true or false.
361.2.8
Although the Lord Bishop had caused this prohibition against us to be issued, nevertheless, after reflection over a mode of action as extraordinary as it is unjust, we determined to go and see his Lordship, and as an auspicious opening to the excellent feast of St. Thomas the Apostle of India [December 21], meant to urge him, to conjure him, with all tenderness and good feeling, to be graciously pleased to listen to the arguments of the Reverend Father Esprit; we also intended to present a petition in case of refusal. Hardly had we entered when we were asked what we wanted, and what we had come for. Immediately we answered that we had come to congratulate his Lordship upon the feast-day. When he learnt that the Reverend Father Esprit was with us, he sent word that we could come in, with the exception of the Reverend Father Esprit. We went in then, but in a sad mood, having had such a [262] compliment as we had hardly expected from a bishop. After having congratulated his Lordship on the festival, he asked us how we were. Our Reverend Father Guardian and Vice-Provincial in India replied: 'Monsignor, we are all well, through God's grace, but most deeply afflicted and pained at seeing the Reverend Father Esprit in the very pitiable state to which your Lordship has reduced him; and if as an effect WAX. Dakhin Women of your fatherly goodness you would deign to remedy it, we should express the greatest possible gratitude.'