the dignitary in question had not discharged any public function for some years, hence his disappearance was unnoticed. I elicited the fact with some difficulty, and was earnestly begged not to divulge it further. On another occasion, at Forest Gate, I was asked to accompany a canon who was giving a mission there at the time to a certain address in the district. Noticing an air of secrecy about the visit, and a desire on the part of the good canon that I should remain outside, I entered the house with him, and found that it was occupied by an 'apostate' priest. So much I learned by accident, but neither the canon nor my own colleagues would give me the slightest information about him. I never heard of him before or since, and know nothing of his character: I merely mention the incident as an illustration of the concealment of secessions.
And not only is silence enjoined, but deliberate falsehoods[1] are told with regard to seceders. One of
- ↑ It has been already explained that these are not looked upon as falsehoods by Catholic theologians. The case here given is a more direct deception than usual; generally they are quibbles and equivocations which are covered by their remarkably elastic principles of mental reserve and of the necessity of avoiding scandal. Here is another illustration:—
I was gently informed one day at Forest Gate that one of my students had lodged a serious complaint against me with certain higher superiors. The accusation was entirely erroneous; the student had been deceived by another, and I desired to undeceive him by explaining. I accosted him immediately, and asked him if he had been complaining about me. He not only emphatically denied it, but endeavoured, by his manner, to give me the impression that
