I am not denying that Catesby fancied he was doing right; but whether that fancy was arrived at by right means or wrong is another question. He seems to have argued to himself that Pope, Priests, and Jesuits were not equal to the occasion; that there were times, of which his own was one, at which papal, spiritual, and even biblical teaching must for the moment be set on one side whilst the secular arm struck a violent blow for the relief of God's suffering people; that, _ante factum_, the ecclesiastical powers could not consent to such a measure, but that, _post factum_, they would not only tolerate it, but approve of and rejoice at it. It came, therefore, to this, that on a most important point of morals--faith and morals, be it remembered, are the two chief provinces over which the Catholic Church claims power--a private individual, and not the Church, was to decide what was best; in short, Catesby was to protest against the teaching of the Church. Luther protested in matters of faith; Catesby protested in matters of morals. Both men seem to have believed that the time would come when the Church would see that what they did was for its welfare. It has been said that in Father Garnet we have one of the most remarkable instances in history of the secresy of the confessional. On this point I venture no opinion; but I am bold enough to say that in Robert Catesby we have one of the most remarkable instances in history of the abuse of the confessional. Perhaps no man ever did more to foster that superstitious horror of "auricular confession" which has so long prevailed, and still prevails in this country. In passing, I may meet a possible inquiry as to how it came about that so much should be known concerning what Catesby had told Greenway in confession, and what Greenway had told Garnet under the same sacred seal. The explanation is simple. Catesby had not only given Father Greenway permission to inform Father Garnet of the plot, under seal of confession, but had[185] "arranged that neither should be bound by that seal when lawfully examined by their superiors." Another question naturally presents itself, much more connected with the man whose life I am writing, which I confess I do not find it so easy to answer. It is the following:--When Father Garnet noticed the sudden and suspicious confidences which had arisen between Catesby and Sir Everard Digby,[186] after their ride from Harrowden to Gothurst, did he, though tongue-tied as to what he knew of Catesby's designs under seal of confession, know enough _out_ of the confessional to warn Sir Everard against consenting to, or joining in, any illicit schemes which Catesby might propose to him and had he an extra-confessional _causa loquendi_? [185] _Father Garnet and the G. P._, Pollen, p. 11. [186] _Ib._, pp. 21, 22.