LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1204, 12 August 1911, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

"ROMANISM." AND TIIE REV. J. J. NOETH. Sir,—There is exposed for public salo in this city a pamphlet by the Rev. J. J. North, entitled "Romanism." Mr. North commences by a re-hash of tho enormities of monasteries in mediaeval times. In the samo breath he informs us that, "While Luther fasted and scourged himself and frequently confessed in his monastery, the light broke." May we venture to suggest that a course of fasting and self-denial might cause a light—perhaps a ray of Christian tolerance—to break on Mr. North. Tho reverend gentleman then proceeds to attack our Catholic doctrines seriatim, under such headings as "Pick-Purse Purgatory." Of confessions ho says: "The Church teaches that forgiveness of sins (in confession) does not lie in contrition." This alono proves that Mr. North has not acquired tho knowledgo that'every' Catholic child has gained through the penny catechism. This is a fair sample of Mr. North's thunder. He describes our priests as men of Mvusual faces, manifestly overfed, allies of bookmakers, singers of lewd songs, even as fanciers of greyhounds. We know that the mere thought of bookmakers and greyhounds is distressing to Mr. North's doctrine of "wowserisra." Tho doctrine of trans-substantiation is dismissed as a scientific impossibility. Thus reasoning logically.on the same grounds as we may presume that Tie lias likewise convinced himself (but we trust not his followers) that the resurrection is a mytli of tho same calibre. This attack on our doctrine of purgatory is one of simple negation. To Mr. North tho issue can bo but heaven (for the Baptists) or hell (for tho .Catholics). Tho Mother of Christ he describes as an ordinary woman with a largo family, and asserts that her claims to virginity are fables. Even so, one cannot present a case—from the standpoint of the nationalist—even for tho divinity of Christ that is not liablo to bo attacked on tho samu grounds. So it appears that Mr. North, in Ins "Romanism," intends to overthrow (if he can) the Roman Catholic Church. Now, when anyone tries to overthrow a doctrine that has been engraved on the minds of tho Western World for 1900 odd years, as Christianity has been, two things are absolutely necessary. I'irstly, ho must be iu a position to compel thinking men and women to agree with him; and, - secondly, he must be prepared to replace tho demolished doctrine with another and n better one than tho old. As far as can be seen the. Eev. Mr. North is doing more harm than good in writing such booklets as "Romanism." He is trying tp damn a religion that has stood the test of centuries, and against which brains a great deal more learned and. cultured than Mr. North's liave failed—although 'we do not wish to reflect on that gentleman's brains —much less on his culture. But Jet us simply put the question "Cui Bono,". to whom is it a good? Mr. North seems to have thrown away ten valuable Sundays, when he might have been preaching faith, hopuand charity to his parish ami thereby, doing good, in crying down the oldest" Christian religion. This in itself appears to the casual observer to be rather a waste of Christian time. Either Mr. North is afraid that his own flock will go over to the Catholic Church, in which case he could better h:»ve used his time in proving his own the only true Church, or he hopes that Catholics on perusal' of his booklet will forsake nil and come to him, which 'is highly improbable. ' ',",.',

It is a pity that Mr.. North .should, have fallen into the error of building up a rule on a few isolated cases. can build up a rule from individual.cases, and everyone but the fool knows that a few individual cases do not make a nrte based on the majority. Thus by decrying a few priests he does.nothing but show that they are the exception to the general average. We feel that Mr. North has judged Catholicism hastily, from a stray priest whom .ho. hn3.,mct and disliked and from a" bad Pope whom-he has read about, because in no other manner can such an unprovoked attack on another church be accounted for. "With the moral welfare not only of tho Baptists, but of the whole community so much at heart, Mr. North, unable to contain his.feelings any longer, gave rent, to them'in "Romanism," and "More Romanism," which looks like an afterthought; or as we might call them "Novthism" and "More Northism." So let us implore him that if his feelings again become unmanageable, ho will think what- will 'be the outcome of his expressing them—in short, if they are not gcing to do the community any good, then it were better if he confine them to his friends, who understand him, remembering at time that because ho,is convinced by his ideas, as to religion and other things, that is no reason why other people should bo burdened with them. , As a critic of the theatre and the. picture postcard wo bow to Mr: North's wellmeant interference, but as a critic of Roman doctrines-wo suggest, that he is somewhat biased and this renders his opinion valueless. Headers of Kipling remember his lines: "They are raising their heads in the stillness to yelp at the English flag. y So Mr.'North is raising his head in the stillness of Newtown to yell at the Roman Church.—Wo. are, etc., J. T. JOHNSTON. 0. P. JOHNSTON. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Sir.-Your leading article of to-day's issue deals with the great Constitutional Crisis in Great Britain in a manner which may be termed by many, impartial and "unbiased." Perhaps it is. That depends, indeed, to a great extent through what "glasses" wo look at it—whether they bo those of the Dominant Hereditary Party at Home or those of tho Democracy. Now, ona <point in tho contention regarding tho Parliament or Veto Bill is this: thai particular stress is laid at tho assumption that this Bill is primarily brought forward in order to pass Heine Rule for Ireland; and, of course, if such a great "calamity" was allowed to eventuate, disaster would inevitably follow, and the great British Empire would "crumble to pieces'"—to use a colloquial expression. And so Mr. Asquith is howled down as a "traitor" by that scion of aristocracy, Lord Hugh Cecil, and his brother "stalwarts." I take it that Mr. Asquith is just as loyal as the "lordly Cecil" and his followers, and they know it, too; but it suits their present policy to lay hold of any argument or party cry, any "stick" with which to ward off the impending doom of the "Hereditary Mantle" of power and domination being torn off their shoulders. Their natural conservative in- ' stincts are a standing menaco and a "stumbling block" to modern Liberal reforms, apart from the question of Home Rule altogether.

. I will ,not just now trespass on yonr spaco to'go mors fully into that question, beyond saying that, it is undoubtedly better for auy nation or empire to have all its component parts—peoptes—contented and without a grievance than otherwise-; indeed, much more conducivo in the hour of danger to the safety of the Empire. Tho history of the nations of the past goes to show this. No. This ererlasling dragging in of tho Homo Eulo question, and Mr. Redmond in forcing jlr. Asquith's. hand in asking tho King to exercise tho lioyal Prerogative is .getting a little wearisome to fair-minded men. Tho Lords rejected the Money Bill of Mr. Asquith twice. I think, and now they are howling- and crying out because ho has taken tho only course left open to him after the decision of the electors last December. The Lords am beginning to conio to reason now;, not of their own "generous" accord, it must bo said. Mr. As(|uith and his colleagues have forced thorn. Ho that in future all liberal and progressive reforms promulgated for tho good of the British people will have' a chance of being placed upon the Statute Book. Homo Rule need not be made the "shuttlecock" of the question. AU great liberal issues arc indeed involved, I tako it, in tho present Constitutional crisis.—l am, etc., P.M.T. ■Wellington, August 10, 1011.