THE PROTESTANT POLITICAL ASSOCIATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 163, 10 July 1918, Page 3

THE PROTESTANT POLITICAL ASSOCIATION.

I (Published by Arrangement.)

£700 FOR THE RED (ROSS FUNDS. OPEN. LETTER NO. 3. ( TO the Revs. HOWARD ELLIOTT G ALDRIDGE, and H. KXOWLES l KEMPTOX, representing the DOMINION EXECUTIVE OF THE P.P.A. Rev. Sirs.— Your Association published a propaganda leaflet containing what purported to be "a summary of the chief tenets of Rome's Canon Law, by Dr. G. V. yon Sehiiltc, Professor of Canonical Law at Prague."' The alleged "summary" consisted of J.) assertions or "tPnete." These contained travesties of Catholic teaching and foolish or dishonouring charges against the Catholic Church, including a permission to commit murder. (Canon Law is the collection of the laws of the Catholic Church, whim vary with place, time. etc.). THE CHALLENGE. i challenged you to make 2ood your '■nummary ■' and what it involved. That challenge (..villi another nrisin-r out of it) was published on .lime 2fi. It was i not accepted .within the time limit— i namely. 11 a.m. on July .">. The time I was extended in another "challenge. And now (July 0) you have PUBLICLY DECLINED THE CHALLENGE, thereby depriving the RED (ROSS FUND of the" second and extended chance of! securing SIX HUNDRED POUNDS— IF ■ I ONLY YOU COULD MAKE YOUU CHALLENGED STATEMENTS ()(JOD in tin- Auckland Town Hall or elsewhere. before a. jointly appointed tribunal. YOUR REPLY amply indicates WHY YOU UKCLIXED Till. CHAI.I.KSCK. You cannot prove /your ,;,-,.. Yon niniint trust your \-'V.\\\)Y.\.(V.r You vny W ,\ Wvust vow- . \ selves to CROSS. EN AMI NATION' ON ■ i yon; C.I.VOX LAW. on whir), you so 'i freely cfoifinatise. Your -authorities" \ would CUU.AVSV: LIKE A UOISF. OV ■ CAUIX i:inlcr :i Half-hour's eross--1 I examination in tin- TOWS. HALL, in th/> conditions named in mv challenge. .MEN I •.CONSCIOUS of A sTuoNi; CASK would! ■ i have SPRUNG AT srcil A SPLENDID , 1 OFFER TO I'KOVK THEIR (ASK ATI INO COST TO THEMSELVES AND I WITH GREVI" BENEFIT TO A MOST DESERVING WAR WORK. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR? You varioilsh describe the alleged i author of your' "siinuiinry ,, as G. F., E. 0.. and .1. E. Yon Selinite. And you ■idd now, what you ought to have stated at first, that "HE LEFT THE CHURCH .OF ROME." (1) No member of the . Catholic and Roman Church could have concocted a "summary" so un-Catholic an.l even iinti-Cntholii , in some of its . doctrines. c>) There is no serious evidence that <;. I-'., or X.1.'., or .1. F. Yon Schulte composed that "summary even ■ after lie had abandoned and turned I against his faith. (3) Even if. as a i I Catholic, he had penned that, strange ■ medley, it would represent ONLY HIS PRIVATE VIEW 01! LEGAL OPINION., And :. I.E".AL OPINTO'N IS NOT L\W,| : whether canon or civil. Catholic Church lawyers may (and often do) make mis- ; takes in their les»I opinions on the law I' of the Church, ju-t as even the ablest j i I civilian lawyers make mistake:; in connec-i I tion with the law of the land. And the ■ errors of the Church lawyers no more : involve the Church than the errors of the other lawyers compromise Parliament or ' the Supreme Court. You ha.l FIFTEEN ASSERTIONS or "tenet* of Rome's Canon. Law" to • I prove in the terms in which you stated I them. YOl' HAVE NOT SERIOUSLY ! ATTEMPTED TO PROVE EVEN ONE. (The live systems or period* of the rcla- ' lions of the Church to the State are not . directly in issue hero.) THOSE "ROMANIST" EXTRACTS. You declare to mc that, in your reply of that day (.Inly '•>) you are publishing j ' I "extracts from your own writers": and, ■a~ain: "We proceed to quote your own '. ■ authorities—or. as you commonly dcci . cribe them. "Romanist" authorities. ; 1. Your "Romanist" authorities ■would '. not (even if correctly quoted* prove i even one of the 15 assertions which you have to establish. • ■» You profess to quote a number of ; alleged PRIVATE OPINIONS OK ' PRIVATE PERSONS, inchlding those of '. -a. named theologian. Rut, as already ■ stated, such private opinions—even if ' tihey were the private opinions of learned '. canonists— not make Canon Law: and i the question here is a question of Canon I Law. The theologian named ie XOT A CANONIST; he is not writing; on a point of Canon Law: he is simply dealing with 1 a speculative question of abstract right, and in a manner which you have misrepresented. You evidently do not even know the technical meaning attached to the word "heretic" in this find allied connections. IN THE WIDE RANGE OF FREE OPINIONS. Catholic theologians 1 enjoy and practice A GREAT LIBERTY OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION. And ; they sometimes do so to an extent which « makes ' the judicious grieve. P.P.A. j orators have no monopoly of extreme views, extremely expressed. And the • approval' of the book in question was ; given, not for these extreme speculative t opinions, but for a quite different thing. ,an ttbly treated examination of • modernism. The private views and ' opinions of private writers are NOT ' CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OR CANON LAW. any more than the private views . and opinions of our secular lawyers are Statute Law. ' :t. In every instance that has been examined, your alleged "'Romanist" . authorities arc cither MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISQUOTED, ) or both. In some cases the misquota- . lions are flagrant. Herein—l say it r ' with deep regret —you, reverend representatives of the P.P.A.. have been MlSt LEADING YOUR READERS in one or other of these two ways: (a) Either you have, personally, GARBLED, OR MTJTIt. LATED. OR INTERPOLATED come of S your alleged "Romanist" authorities; or f (b) you have misled your readers by STATING THAT YOU WERE QUOTING "ROMANIST" WRITERS WHEN YOU WERE REALLY QUOTING FROM XON- '• "ROMANIST" SOURCES, controversial „ or otherwise. Personally. 1 cannot bring (1 j myself to entertain the terribly gravel 11; alternative, marked (a). As the. less! 3; odious alternative, I take it that you; Jj I have really quoted, in good faith and! a i too trustingly. non-Catholic COXTROI YERSIAL OR OTHER WRITERS, who h ' have, herein, misled you. But in this '" ease. IT WAS DUE BOTH TO YOURI SELVES AND THE PUBLIC TO STATE j FRANKLY THE ACTUAL SOURCE » I FROM WHICH YOU DIRECTLY QUOTED. 1 now put this matter to the C 1 test of

A PUBLIC CHALLENGE. 1. Submit to my inspection THE PUB- I LIGATIONS FROM WHICH YOU ACTUALLY AND DIRECTLY TOOK THE QUOTATIONS numbered la. c, d. c, f, and sill the quotations under the figure 2. (I relieve you of tJbe burden of submitting newspapers.) (2) If the writers of the publications so submitted to my inspection (as above) are, as you state, '"Romanists" or Roman Catholics, the 6um of ONE HUNDRED POUNDS will be paid to the RED CROSS FUNDS, J as a fine or penalty for having, in this - matter, impugned your methods. This c money is supplied, as before, by friends. v The time-limit for aci-eptam-.e of this v challenge is 10 a.m. on next Saturday, -Tuly 13. " Please bear in mind: THIS SUM OF t ONE HUNDRED POUNDS TS PAYABLE ON THE MERE PRODUCTION , OF PUBLICATIONS BY "ROMANIST" ] WRITERS CONTAINING THE QUOTA- t TIONS IN QUESTION. I There are now before the public TWO '*■ CHALLENGES OF MINK. The other c relates to the allegations of iinehastity. burial in lime pits. etc.. in an IN- ( NAMED AUCKLAND CONVENT. These J challenges will benefit the RED CROSS ( FUNDS to the extent, of SEVEN HUNDRED POINDS ! if the P.P.A. can only prove its cs-.-c. ' WAR AGAINST WOMEN. < Further challenges on your alleged ( quotations will be issued as soon as we i have finished dealing with a number of ■ the more shocking phases of the P.P.A. 1 WAR AGAINST WOMEN. JOHN BRENNAN. .' Late (hi pin in N.Z. Expeditionary Forces. Administrator St. Patrick's Cathedral. • | Auckland. 1 /.