Part 5

The next bishop respecting whom I wish to make some observations is Eugene or Owen Magenis, appointed in 1541, and though I am not disposed to deal uncharitably with him, I have no doubt he was a “temporiser”, though he may have been secretly “orthodox”. Dr. M’Carthy (Dr. Kelly’s _Essays_, p. 427), and Brennan, and Walsh, in their ecclesiastical histories of Ireland are compelled to come to the same conclusion; and upon the whole of his career I candidly confess I don’t know what other result they could arrive at. I ground nothing on his being present, if he were present, at Queen Elizabeth’s first parliament in 1560, which passed the Act of Uniformity, and required the oath of supremacy to be taken by all ecclesiastics; for even if he had been present, there is no documentary evidence extant showing how those in attendance voted, and those acquainted with Irish history know on the authority of Archdeacon Lynch that these acts were hurriedly and surreptitiously passed on a day when they were not expected to be brought forward, and in a thin packed house. But it appears, so far as his public acts are reported, that he submitted in matters of ecclesiastical discipline to all the rapid changes and schisms which the fertile imaginations of the pseudo-reformers introduced during the Tudor reigns. He surrendered his bulls to Henry VIII., obtained from Paul, “Bishop of Rome”, not “His Holiness”; took out pardon for accepting them, with a new grant of the see, with the archdeaconry and confirmation of the parishes of Aghaderg and Anaghlone, parishes to which _he had been_ promoted by the Primate in 1526 and 1528. It is an oversight to suppose that about 1541 and 1543 the northern chieftains who submitted to Henry VIII. were exempted from all pressure in matter of religion. Cox (_Aug. Hib._, vol. i. p. 272) writes that the king about that time caused all the Irish who submitted to him to renounce the “Pope’s usurpations, and to own the king’s supremacy by indenture”, among others, stating that O’Neill did so, January, 1542, all the indentures being registered in the Red Book of the Exchequer. The articles of Con O’Neill’s submission are printed in vol. iii. part iii. p. 353, of the _State Papers of Henry VIII_.; and by the second article, he expressly renounces obedience to the Roman Pontiff and his usurped authority, and acknowledges the king to be the supreme head of the Church in England and Ireland, immediately under Christ. Manus O’Donnell, 3rd June the preceding year, in his letter styles the king on Earth immediately under Christ supreme head of the Church of England—(_Ib._, p. 217). M’Donell, captain of the galloglasses, goes further, and promises to annihilate and relinquish the usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome; and his adherents and abettors will expel, extirp, and diminish, etc.—(_Ib._, p. 383). Redmond MacMahon, captain of the Farney, 30th December, 1543, also renounces the usurped authority of the Roman Pontiff—(Shirley’s _Farney_, p. 40). Even in the reign of Queen Mary, we find Owen Macgenis, of Iveagh, chief of his sept and captain of his country, binding himself not to admit any provisions from Rome, but oppose them all he could—(Cox, i. p. 299). No doubt these indentures were extorted by necessity from these chiefs, who scoffed at the idea that Henry had any religion or was the head of any church, and kept the articles just as long as they could not help it. Dr. M’Carthy, I presume on the ground of Bishop Magenis suing out pardon in Queen Mary’s reign, considers he afterwards “repented”, being made a privy councillor and governor of his country; but then we have two similar acts of repentance in Elizabeth’s reign, for he took out the royal pardon, 1st May and 25th October in her first year, thus atoning for his folly in her predecessor’s. If he lived till 1564, as Dr. Moran (_Archbishops of Dublin_) supposes—though I consider he was dead in 1563, from the queen’s letter, dated 6th January, 1564, naming James M’Caghwell to the see, then “destitute of an incumbent”, and also from the fact of Shane O’Neill applying for the see for his brother, 1563-4—then, knowing that the greater parts of the counties of Down and Antrim were, in the early years of Elizabeth’s reign, completely under subjection to the English, and coupling this with the solicitation of the royal pardons, the least that can be said is, that Bishop Magenis acquiesced in or tacitly submitted to the ecclesiastical changes enacted in the parliament of 1560, not forgetting that about the same time Andrew Brereton, governor of Lecale (called Britton by Anthony Bruodin, in Dr. Moran’s _Archbishops of Dublin_, p. 142), mercilessly strangled John O’Lochran and two other Franciscan friars, in Downpatrick. But I have reserved for the last the conduct of Bishop Magenis in the reign of Edward VI. On the 2nd of February, 1552-3, he assisted George Brown of Dublin in _consecrating_ Hugh Goodacre to be Archbishop of Armagh, and _John Bale_ to be Bishop of Ossory, according to a new-fangled form annexed to the second Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI., which was not even authorised by act of parliament, nor by any order of the king (Mant, vol. i. p. 219)—as an Erastian church would require—which was opposed by the Catholic clergy at the time, and afterwards, in the reign of Queen Mary, condemned by all the Catholic bishops of England as invalid, defective in matter, form, and intention. And who was this John Bale whom Bishop Magenis assisted in _consecrating_ by this vitiated rite? He, according to Pits, as quoted by Harris (Ware’s _Bishops_, p. 417), was “an English Heretick, an apostate Carmelite, and a married priest. This poor wretch, except his calumnies against men and his blasphemies against God and his saints, hath nothing in him worthy to be taken notice of”. Condemned by his brother Protestants, Vossius, Wharton, etc., for his acrimony and falsehood, it is little wonder the Catholics, on the death of Edward VI., chased him from Kilkenny. Had his “King Johan: a play, in two parts”, published by the Camden Society in 1838, been known in his lifetime, in which drama he apotheosises that merciless tyrant, alike despicable, cruel, and infamous, the murderer of his own nephew, as a great reformer, “the model of every virtue, human and divine”, it would have completed his infamy and disgrace. No earthly fears should have prevailed on an orthodox bishop to pretend to consecrate a man whose life was such a disgrace to religion. I do not lay much stress on the formal words of the Bull appointing Myler Magrath to these sees, 12th October, 1565, vacant _per obitum Eugenii Magnissae_: it simply shows he was not deposed, and it may have been with him as with his successor, that hopes were entertained for some years that he would abandon his state conformity, which I trust was the case. The astute and wily ministers of Elizabeth at this early date did not compel apostacy, nor seek for purity of morals; though apostates themselves, all they required was outward conformity, that the elect should take investiture from the crown. They bided their time.

It is questionable but that Sir James Ware knew Bishop Dougan had been Bishop of Soder and Man, for in one of his MSS. in Trinity College Library, cited by Reeves, p. 177, he writes of John Duncan, Archdeacon of Down, in 1373, “Factus Episcopus Sodorensis sive Insular. Manniar, 1374”; the different spelling of the name, and the great age Dr. Dougan must have attained before his elevation to Down in 1394 (living till 1412), may have induced him to doubt the identity.

I am delighted to learn that we are to have these valuable papers with others on the succession of the Irish sees, published in a separate volume; and were I permitted to offer a suggestion, I would recommend that the succession should be brought down to the period of the Confederation of Kilkenny, when all the sees, with the exception of Derry and Dromore, were, I think, full. Enriched with a few biographical notes, such a work would be a valuable accession to Irish ecclesiastical history, and would, besides, utterly shatter the vain and fanciful theories of Mant, Palmer, etc., as to apostolical succession through the puritanical Adam Loftus, the apostate rector of Outwell, in Norfolk, to which he had been appointed in 1556—(Cotton’s _Fasti_, v. p. 197).

I omitted to ask if it can be explained why Myler Magrath, in his letter of 24th June, 1592, given _in extenso_ by Father Meehan in Duffy’s _Hib. Magazine_, March, 1864, calls, “Darby Creagh”, Bishop of Cloyne, his cousin. Dermot or Darby Creagh, or Gragh, or MacGragh, or M’Grath—for by these various names he is called, is stated in the paper on Cork and Cloyne in your last number to be a native of Munster; whereas Myler Magrath was eldest son of Donogh, otherwise Gillagmagna Magrath, of Termon Magrath, county of Fermanagh, of which the family had been erenachs. He married Anne O’Meara, by whom he had five sons—Terence, alias Tirlagh, Redmond, Barnaby, _alias_ Brien, Mark, and James, besides two daughters, Cecily or Sheelagh, married to Philip O’Dwyer, and Eliza or Ellis, married to Sir John Bowen. How came the relationship? I don’t understand why Myler is named as the foster-brother of the great Shane O’Neill. The latter was fostered by the O’Donnellys of Tyrone, and hence frequently styled Shane Donnellagh. Terence Donnelly, alias Daniel, Dean of Armagh, was his foster-brother.

J. W. H.

April 8, 1865.

II.

_To the Editors of the Record_.

GENTLEMEN,

The following remarks on a subject of great importance to the priests of the mission may not be uninteresting to the readers of the _Record_. My attention was directed to the matter on reading the erudite work of Dr. Feye, of Louvain, on Matrimony.

The opinions of St. Liguori are looked upon as possessing high authority, and, as every one knows, very justly so. Hence it is that he is copied even in the casual mistakes he made; and all the casuistical works recently published have inserted in their pages those mistakes. Take, for example, the works on moral theology most in circulation at present, such as the works of Gousset, Gury, Scavini, and it will be found that in the very latest editions of these works those errors are left untouched.

At page 591, n. 876, of Gury, 13a ed., it is remarked regarding the _gradus inaequalis consanguinitatis, vel affinitatis_, that for the validity of the dispensation it is not required to mention in the petition the _gradus remotior_ “nisi sint conjuncti secundo gradu attingente primum”. In the “Casus Conscientiae” he makes the very same observation. If the reader refer to Scavini he will find the same opinion adopted. It will appear from the remarks of Card. Gousset, t. 2, n. 1136, that he adheres to the opinion of St. Liguori.

At page 118, l. 6, t. 6, n. 1136, St. Liguori treats of the question, and cites the Breve of Benedict XIV., “Etsi Matr.”, of 27th September, 1755, upon which he remarks, “_Matrimonium esse quidem illicitum sed non invalidum modo propinquitas non sit 1__mi__ aut 2__di__ gradus consanguinitatis_”.

Now it is certain that Benedict XIV. held no such opinion, for in sec. 6 he expressly states, after St. Pius V., that the omission of the first grade _alone_, in the petition for dispensation, _invalidates_ the dispensation. Again, Benedict XIV. in that Breve is speaking _de duplici_ gradu consanguinitatis, not _de secundo gradu_, and states that a dispensation would be null, in the petition for which only one vinculum was expressed, whereas there existed two—duplex vinculum.

I believe St. Liguori was led into the mistake either by confounding the word _duplex_ with _secundum_, or by the remarks made by Benedict _de tertio_ gradu propinquiore, etc., of which there was question.

Gury’s opinion also is wrong; for it is certain, from the decree of St. Pius V., as cited and confirmed by Benedict XIV., that the suppression of the mention of the first grade in the petition for dispensation in _gradu inaequali consang. off._, will equally annul the dispensation, whether the first grade concur with the second, third, or fourth.

In order then that St. Liguori’s opinion be correct, it is necessary to erase the words “aut secundi” from the sentence.

Expecting you will give insertion to the foregoing observations, which are made through a desire to serve the _Record_, and give a hint to fellow-labourers in the vineyard,

I remain, Gentlemen, respectfully yours,

W. Rice, C.C., Coachford.

DOCUMENTS.

I. Letter Of The Cardinal Prefect Of Propaganda To Dr. Troy, 1782.

Illustrissimo e Reverendissimo Monsignore Come Fratello.

Essendosi prese in matura considerazione le risoluzioni emanate dall’Assemblea de’ Vescovi Suffraganei di cod. Provincia Armacana radunata in Drogheda il di 8. e 9. Agosto dell’anno scorso; questa S. Cong. di Propaganda dopo un lungo esame hà finalmente coll’oracolo di Nostro Sig. PP. Pio VI. pronunziato il suo guidizio sù le medesime e ne communica specialmente a V S. come amministratore di cod. Metropolitana le sue determinazoni, perchè le faccia ben tosto partecipi ai Prelati sudetti. Si è in primo luogo pertanto riconosciuto, che a quest’assemblea non può darsi il nome di Sinodo Provinciale, essendo essa mancante di tutte quelle solennità, e forme che ai sinodi convengono, e specialmente dell’intervento del Capitolo della Chiesa Metropolitana, che dee sempre ai sinodi invitarsi, quando un immemorabile consuetudine non abbia a questo privilegio del Capitolo derogato. Mà quantunque non si possa dare a quest’adunanza de’ Vescovi il carattere, e il vigore di sinodo provinciale, contuttociò la pubblicazione delle risoluzioni prese nella med. non potea farci senza il consenso, e approvazione della Sede Apostolica, poichè per i Decreti eziandio de’ sinodi provinciali legittimamente convocati, e canonicamente tenuti, si chiede sempre, e si preserva l’approvazione della S. Sede prima di esiggerne l’esservanza. L’esempio solo di S. Carlo Borromeo in tutti i sei Sinodi Provinciali di Milano può dar norma ai Vescovi come debbano regolarsi sù questo punto.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

E incominciando dalla terza risoluzione emanata dai Vescovi sudetti questa è sembrata assai ambigua, ed oscura. La dispensa de’ proclami per celebrare un matrimonio secreto può concedersi cosi dall’Ordinario dell’uomo, che della donna, e si concede di fatti da quello, nella di cui Diocesi si contrae il matrimonio, siasi Ordinario dell’uno, o dell’altro de contraenti. Se dunque si è preteso di limitare questa facoltà al solo Ordinario dell’uomo, privandone l’Ordinario della donna, questa risoluzione non dee osservarsi, poichè è contraria ad ogni ragione canonica, e all’osservanza. Se poi si è voluto soitanto intendere, che dopo essersi ottenuto questa dispensa dall’Ordinario dell’uomo, non faccia d’uopo di riportarla ancora da quello della donna allora la risoluzione potrà eseguirsi, e non merita riprensione.

La quarta però non ammette interpretazione, e debbe essere per ogni conto proscritta. Si è risoluto, che ogni dispensa dai gradi proibiti di parentela sia concessa dall’Ordinario di ciascuna parte contraente. Dovevano pur i Vescovi riflettere, che essendo la parentela un vincolo, che lega due persone, e impedisce, che trà loro si possa contrarre il matrimonio; subito che una di esse èsciolta da questo vincolo, ne viene in conseguenza, che ne sia prosciolta anche l’altra, non potendo restarne avvinta una, e libera l’altra. Se dunque per autorità legittima, o della Sede Apostolica, o di uno degli Ordinarj è tolto il vincolo di parentela trà un uomo, e una Donna, non vi è più bisogno di altra dispensa, ne fà, mestieri ricorrere all’altro Ordinario per ottenerla. . . . . . . Prego il Signore che La conservi e feliciti.

Roma 30 Marzo 1782.

D. V. S.

Come Fratello, L. CARD. ANTONELLI, Prefetto, Stefano Borgia, _Segretario_.

Mons. Troy, Vescovo Ossoriense.

Amministretore di Armach.

[TRANSLATION.]

Having taken into its careful consideration the resolutions adopted at a meeting of the Suffragan Bishops of the Province of Armagh, held last year at Drogheda, on the 8th and 9th of August, this S. Congregation of Propaganda, by authority of our Lord Pope Pius VI., after a protracted examination, has finally given judgment thereupon. This judgment it now signifies to your lordship, as Administrator of that Metropolitan See, in order that you may speedily communicate to the above-mentioned Prelates the decision which it has been led to take. First of all, however, it has been established that the meeting cannot be called a provincial synod, seeing that it wanted all the formalities prescribed for the holding of synods, and especially the presence of the Metropolitan Chapter, which, when immemorial usage to the contrary has not interfered with its right, ought always to be invited to synods. But although this meeting of bishops may not claim the character or the authority of a provincial synod, nevertheless its resolutions could not be published without the consent and approbation of the Apostolic See, since the decrees even of provincial synods, lawfully convened and celebrated in canonical form, require at all times the approbation of the Holy See before their observance can be made obligatory. The example of St. Charles Borromeo in the Six Provincial Synods of Milan, is of itself a sufficient guide for Bishops in this matter.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

In the first place, then, the third resolution passed by the above-mentioned Bishops appears very ambiguous and obscure. In case of a private marriage, both the Ordinary of the man and the Ordinary of the woman have power to dispense with the publication of the banns, and as a matter of fact this dispensation is granted by the Bishop in whose diocese the marriage is celebrated, whether he be the Ordinary of the one or of the other of the contracting parties. If, then, the sense of the resolution be to limit this power to the Ordinary of the man, to the exclusion of the Ordinary of the woman, the resolution ought not to be carried out, as being contrary to the canons and to custom. But if, on the other hand, the meaning be, that when once the dispensation has been obtained from the Ordinary of the man, there is no need to obtain it also from the Ordinary of the woman, the resolution thus interpreted may be put into practice, and is not deserving of censure.

The fourth resolution, however, cannot be softened by any interpretation. That resolution prescribed that every dispensation in prohibited degrees of relationship should be granted by the Ordinary of each of the contracting parties. And yet the Bishops ought to have reflected that relationship being a bond which affects two persons, and prevents them from contracting matrimony one with the other, the moment one of these persons becomes free from this bond, the other, by a necessary consequence, is also set at liberty, it being impossible that one can be free whilst the other remains bound. Whenever, therefore, the bond of relationship between a man and a woman has been removed by lawful authority, either of the Holy See or of one of the Ordinaries, no second dispensation is required, nor is it necessary to have recourse to the other Ordinary to obtain such dispensation....

II. Decrees Granting An Indulgence To A Prayer To Be Said Before Hearing Confessions, And To A Prayer For A Happy Death.

_Oratio recitanda ante sacramentales confessiones excipiendas._

Da mihi Domine, sedium tuarum assistricem Sapientiam, ut sciam judicare populum tuum in justitia, et pauperes tuos in judicio. Fac me ita tractare Claves Regni Coelorum, ut nulli aperiam cui claudendum sit, nulli claudam cui aperiendum sit. Sit intentio mea pura, zelus meus sincerus, charitas mea patiens, labor meus fructuosus. Sit in me lenitas non remissa, asperitas non severa, pauperem ne despiciam, diviti ne aduler. Fac me ad alliciendos peccatores suavem, ad interrogandos prudentem, ad instruendos peritum. Tribue, quaeso, ad retrahendos a malo solertiam, ad confirmandos in bone sedulitatem, ad promovendos ad meliora industriam: in responsis maturitatem, in consiliis rectitudinem, in obscuris lumen, in implexis sagacitatem, in arduis victoriam, inutilibus colloquiis no detinear, pravis ne contaminer, alios salvem, meipsum non perdam. Amen.

_Urbis et Orbis. Decretum._

Ex Audientia Sanctissimi. Die 27 martii 1854.—Ad preces humillimas Reverendissimi Patris Jacobi Pignone del Carretto Clericorum Regularium Theatinorum Praepositi Generalis, Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius PP. IX. benigne inclinatus omnibus et singulis Confessariis in Universo Orbe Catholico existentibus supraenunciatam Orationem, antequam ad Sacramentales excipiendas Confessiones assideant, corde saltem contrito, et devote recitantibus centum dierum Indulgentiam semel tantum in die acquirendam, clementer est elargitus. Praesenti perpetuis futuris temporibus valituro absque ulla Brevis expeditione.

Datum Romae ex Secretaria S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum. F. Card. ASQUINIUS praefectus—Loco ϯ Sigilli.—A. Colombo secretarius.

_Oratio Caroli Episcopi Cracoviensis pro impetranda bona morte_.

O Maria sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis, qui confugimus ad Te, o refugium peccatorum, mater agonizantium, noli nos derelinquere in hora exitus nostri, sed impetra nobis dolorem perfectum, sinceram contritionem, remissionem peccatorum nostrorum, Sanctissimi Viatici dignam receptionem, extremae unctionis Sacramenti corroborationem, quatenus securi presentari valeamus ante thronum justi sed et misericordis Judicis, Dei, et Redemptoris nostri. Amen.

_Ex audientia Sanctissimi die 11 martii 1856_.

Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius PP. IX. omnibus et singulis utriusque sexus Christi fidelibus, qui corde saltem contriti, ac devote supradictas pias preces, jam adprobatas, ab bonam mortem impetrandam recitaverint, centum dierum Indulgentiam semel in die lucrifaciendam, clementer est elargitus. Praesentibus, perpetuis futuris temporibus valituris.

Datum Romae ex Secretaria Brevium.—L. ϯ S. Pro D. Cardinali MACCHI.—Jo. B. Brancaloni Castellani _Sub._

III. Decree Concerning The Prayer _Sacrosanctae Et Individuae Trinitati, Etc._