ORPHAN HOME APPEAL

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 281, 25 November 1921, Page 7

ORPHAN HOME APPEAL

ITS NON-EXTENSION TO CATHOLICS. FATHER HOLBROOK PROTESTS. Father H. F. Horbrook, in a lengthy letter addressed to Mr. E. Yates, Secretary of the Appeal for funds for Orphan Homes, traverses the position wifh regard to the launching of the fund and the subsequent refusal to include . Catholic orphanages. He pointe out that it was a publicly called meeting with no suggestion of denominational limitation, and his request that the Roman Catholic orphanages be included recpived an attentive and courteous hearing. On the motion that a campaign be launched Father Holbrook's appeal was referred to the Executive with power to act. Coming to the point where the Executive declined to extend the appeal to Catholic orphanag-es, Father Holbrook writes: — You state: '"This committee is of the opinion that its obvious duty is to carry out the project for which it was constitutionally appointed." With this I quite agree. Further: "Thie duty was denned by the representative meeting of Auckland citzens." Exactly, and was it not two-fold? (a) To organise and give effect to the general scheme; (b) to consider my appeal for inclusion in the scheme with full power to act. How then in all sincerity could you write "your regret under the circumstances that (the exclusion and rejection of my appeal) was the only course open to you" since your committee was fully empowered by the representative meeting of Auckland citizens to grant the appeal of 240 poor children. Catholic and nonCatholic, in our homes, if your committee were so disposed? You have chosen the other course. You had the power, if you had the will. Of this I am confident, that quite a large number o.f those present at the meeting in the Chamber of Commerce of different denominations understood that the power and the will would be exercised in our favour. Many assured mc personally of their sympathy and support for the cause I espoused. Contrast your action in this matter with such non-religious bodies as the Commercial Travellers' Association, the Auckland Rugby Union, and Rugby League—in their occasional efforts for all local homes and charities—irrespective of class or creed. They find no insuperable difficulty in helping Catholic and non-Catholic children alike. The selffsh policy of your executive reflects no credit on its members. This is a matter of charity to little children, aiJji-iJr do not think the big-hearted public will appreciate this distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic children. No such distinction was drawn when the Catholic and non-Catholic fathers equally went to the war. No such distinction was drawn during the epidemic—our Catholic hospitals were open to all. our Catholic Sisters nursed all, and many a non-Catholic patient in Auckland to-day must owe his life to them. I myself nursed an Anglican vicar in my own home. Vo ~such distinction 5s drawn in our orphanages, for we care for ma?i7 non-Catholic children. Tt is reserved for your executive to appeal to the public in the cause of charity, and in doing so to say: "Your charitable money will sro to non-Catholic children, but certainly not to Catholic children." Oh, charity! What deeds are done in thy name!