§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford, speaking in St. John's Church, Waterford, on Sunday, 25th June, denounced a certain married couple as living sinful lives because, one of them being a Protestant, they had not been married in a Roman Catholic church; and whether he will consult his law officers as to whether the Roman Catholic bishop can be prosecuted for criminal libel for thus holding up to public contumely a man and woman who have been married according to the laws of the country?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry)Since the hon. Gentleman's question was put on the Paper, I have seen a newspaper report, from which it appears that the bishop did, in the course of a sermon, on the occasion mentioned, expound the views of the Catholic Church, in relation to mixed marriages. The bishop made no reference whatever to the position of the parties in such cases under the civil law, and in no way impeached the validity of such marriages under the civil law. The law of criminal libel has no application whatever to such a statement.
§ Captain CRAIGWould the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise the Government to bring in some Bill into the House which would allow all marriages to have equal validity in Ireland, and so remove the power of the ministry in Ireland to make statements in Ireland about Protestants and Roman Catholics that they are living together in open sin?
§ Mr. REDMOND BARRYThe civil validity of this marriage is in no sense in question, and the bishop's references have concern with the view that Catholics take in such cases.
§ Captain CRAIGCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the fact that in Ireland a great deal of importance 1310 is attached to this matter, and how it is that Roman Catholic clergymen are permitted over and over again to say that the contracting parties, Roman Catholic and, Protestant, are living in open sin?
§ Mr. REDMOND BARRYgave a reply which was inaudible.
§ Mr. MOOREDo I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that, although the Prelate did not denounce these people for a contravention of the civil law he continually denounced this Protestant over whom he had no control and the Roman Catholic for living in open sin according to the Church canon law; and if that is not a grievous interference with the rights of the ordinary subjects of His Majesty to be denounced by any Prelate in the country in which he lives?
§ Mr. REDMOND BARRYI cannot for the life of me see what objection there is to a Bishop of a Catholic church or any other church, stating his religious beliefs-and convictions in regard to any matter.
§ Mr. MOOREDoes it not amount to an incitement by this rev. gentleman that his congregation are to consider this Protestant and Roman Catholic are living in open sin, and will they not be treated accordingly?
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTMay I ask whether this action of the Catholic Bishops differs in any respect from the action of the. Church of England, who have "made similar denunciations with regard to persons legally married to a deceased wife's sister?
§ Mr. MOOREMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the intolerable wrong to this Protestant because he has married a Roman Catholic, whether it is the intention of the Government to place the liberties and whole interests of the Protestants at the disposal of the Roman Catholic prelates in the forthcoming legislation?
§ Mr. REDMOND BARRYIt is not all a question of the interests of Protestants; it is a question whether or not Catholics are to be entitled to claim freedom for their own religious beliefs.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not quite as well aware as everybody else 1311 in His Majesty's Government that questions like these are always agitated a week before the 12th July?
§ Captain CRAIGIt is not because of the 12th July—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a long way from the question.