Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/452

 VETTER

394

VEUILLOT

defeat of the Bill of 1813. It then occurred to them that if they could get the Holy See in any way to countenance it, the mark of schism attached to it by the Irish bishops would no longer stain it. They therefore represented to Propaganda the great benefit which the Catholic religion would derive from Eman- cipation, and the harmlessness of the vetoistie condi- tions on which the Government had offered it. Dr. Milner was represented to the aged secretary of Propaganda, Mgr. Quarantotti, as one whose imcom- promising attitude would fasten the chains more painfully on the Catholics; the assent of the vicars Apostolic of England was set forth as evidence that the veto claimed in the Bill did not contain any element of danger for reUgion; the mot i ve for the opjjosit ion in Ire- land was made to appear political rather than religious.

In the hght of these representations Mgr. Quar- antotti, whilst rejecting certain conditions of the Relief Bill as not lawful, declared that securities for the loyalty of bishops which the Government claimed might be allowed. That was the famous Rescript of February, 1814. It did not contain an order, but rather a permission, its words being: "Haec cum ita sint, indulgemus" etc., thus leaving the Cathohcs free to accept or refuse Emancipation on the condition offered. It raised a storm, however, in Ireland. The Irish bishops deputed Dr. Murray and Dr. Milner to represent to the pope, who had been a prisoner when it was issued, that there was danger in the Rescript such as it was. Pius VII declared that Mgr. Quar- antotti "ought not to have written that letter without authority from the Holy See". He appointed a commission to examine the cjuestion. In the mean- time, Murat marched on Rome, and the pope fled to Genoa. On 26 April, 1815, Cardinal Litta, Pre- fect of Propaganda, in a letter set forth the only conditions under which the Cathohcs could safely accept Emancipation. It rejected aU arrangements hitherto proposed. The claim of the Government to examine communications between the Catholics and the Holy See "cannot even be taken into considera- tion". As to the appointment of bishops, it said that quite enough provision has been made for their loyalty in the Catholic oath; but for their greater satisfaction it permits "those to whom it appertains" to present to the king's ministers a list of the candi- dates they select for bishoprics; it insisted, however, that if those names were presented, the Government must, if it should think any of them "obnoxious or suspected" name him "at once"; moreover, that a sufficient number, from amongst whom the pope would appoint the bishop, mu.st always remain even after the government objection.

The Catholics of Ireland had become so mi.stnistful of the Government that they still feared danger and they sent deputies to Rome to make known their feelings to the pope. Two replies were sent, one to the bishops and the other to the laity. The pope insisted on the terms of Cardinal Litta's letter, point- ing out its reasonableness under the trying circuni- stances. According to the terms of the letter it would, in fact, be the fault of the ecclesiastics who had the selection of candidates if any undesirable person were left for papal appointment. Cardinal Litta's letter was the last i)a])al doc\mient issued on the veto question. The controversy between vetoists and anti-vetoists was, however, kept alive by the passions which it had raised. The Catholic cause grew so hopeless that in December, 1821, O'Connell submitted to Dr. Bl.ake, the Vicar-General of Dublin, a sort of veto plan, to get his opinion on it. Soon after the prospect grew brighter; O'Connell founded the Catholic Association in 1S23, through which he won Emancipation six years later for the Catholics of Ireland and England — ^without a veto.

Archives of Pro-pagandn; Orthodox Journal, files from 1813 to 1817; BuTLEB, Iliat. Memoirs of the English. Irish, and Scottish

Catholics (London, 1822); Milxer, Supplementary Memoirs of English Cathol'cs (London, 1820), written to correct Butler's work; Wtse, Hist, of the Catholic Association in Ireland (Lon- don, 1829); Fleshnq. The Catholic Veto (Dublin, 1911); Dublin Etening Post, files especially from 1S08 to 1817.

M. O'RiORDAN.

Vetter, Conr.\d, preacher and polemical writer, b. at Engen in the present Grand Duchy of Baden, 1547; d. at Munich, 11 October, 1622. He entered the priesthood and vigorously championed the Cath- ohc cause in speech and writing. While prefect of music in the collegiate church for nobles, at Hall, he became more thoroughly informed concerning the Society of Jesus. As all he learned of it agreed with his desires, he asked to be received into the Society, and in 1576 entered the novitiate at Munich. After completing his studies he was made academic preacher at ^Iunich, on account of his unusual gift for oratory. He subsequently preached for several years at Ratis- bon, where many Lutherans were brought back to the Church by his sermons. At the same time Vetter developed an extraordinarj' activity as a WTiter. It is stated that his ■nTitings, large and small, number nearly one himdred; they were chiefly polemical. Unfortunately the tone is ordinarily not very refined. Vetter used all the coarseness of which the Swabian tongue is capable to disparage Luther; so that involun- tarily Luther's similar style is recalled. In spite of this, or perhaps exactly for this reason, the httle books found a large sale and were often reprinted. Catholic contemporaries sought to defend Vetter's method of WTiting, among them was Duke MaximiK ian who defended him against the Count Palatine of Neuburg. He was highly regarded by the Dukes of Bavaria, WiUiam V, and Maximihan.

SoxiMERVooEL. BibUothiquf de la Comp. de Jesus, VIII, 617- 635: Thoelen, Menologium oder Lebensbilder aus der Gesch. der deutschen Ordenspropim, als Manuscript gedruckt (Roermond, 1901); DuHB, Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Landen deutscher Zunge (Freiburg, 1907).

N. SCHEID.

Veuillot, Louis, journalist and writer, b. at Boynes, Loiret, 11 Oct., 1813; d. in Paris, 7 April, 1883. He was the son of a poor cooper and at the age of thirteen was obliged to leave the primary school and earn his living, obtaining a modest position with a Paris attorney, the brother of the then famous poet, Casimir Delavigne. The poet's friends fre- quented the lawyer's studio, even the clerics among them being more or less engaged in literary pursuits, and in these surroundings the youtliful Veuillot became conscious of his vocation as a writer. He was encouraged by some well-informed friends, some of whom gave him advice and lessons. He devoted every free moment, especially at night, to the study of literature and history. At seventeen he was the editor of a newspaper at Rouen, and shortly after of another at Perigueux. .Attention was soon drawn to his talent as manifested in his style and wit and he was called to enter Parisian journalism, where his successes followed one another rapidly. But he was troubled to know what political party he should adoi)t definitively. Political questions under discus- sion at that time (reign of Louis-Philippe) did not seem interesting to the young writer, imbued with eagerness and strength. He did not despise religion, but he lacked almost any conception of it, and he complained that he did not know what use to make of his life and his devotion. A friend who had just turned to the practice of religion took him to Rome and there he discovered the splendours of faith. When he returned to Paris he had sworn to devote himself completely to the cau.'Je of Catholicism.

In France at that time this cause had very few re.«ohite and active parti-;ans. The Government declared itself favourable to religion, but it also feared to displease the public, still more or less animated by the prejudices and hatreds diffused by Voltaire and