MR. ISITT AND CLERICS

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 67, 17 September 1917, Page 2

MR. ISITT AND CLERICS

TO THE EDITOR. <' Sir, —If you will kindly grant me space ia your paper to reply to the statement made by Mr. Isitt re Marist Brothers and exemption-, I shall be much obliged. Of this I am quits sure, that many people who have • held the gentleman in question in high esteem must have looked with consternation on the report of the statement I have referred to. The member for Christ-church North asserts that Marist Brothers are clerics in every sense of the word. The report did not state that Mr. Isitt substantiated his assertion by argument, and I cannot see that argument can be foiind to bear out the assertion. If Mr. Isitt is right, then ho himself is a cleric. If a. parson finds teaching in a.State school more congenial to his nature and duly becomes a teacher {and, for the sake- of argument, I will say remains a single man),, that man is still a cleric and deserves the same consideration as.the Marist Brothers. But, Mr. Editor, I cannot see Mr. Isitt's contention.. When such a vital point' as exemption is being considered, a man's profession should not •be determined" by what he has'been but what lie now is.. Mr. ■ Isitt gives as his reason for becom. ing a champion of the Marist cause:— "The Catholics were building and paying for their own schools, thereby freeing the Government of a large responsibility." Sir, the Government never asked to be freed of that responsibility Indeed, I will go further.and say that all tlie argument I have seen in print from leading-; politicians showed they believed that the.primary schools?.of the country ought'to .belong to the", State. Is the member for Christchurch North going to ! advocate sectarian schools ? Mr. Isitt is altogether too ludicrous when..he exclaimed: "If they exemptedl the ..clergy. and took the Marist. Brothers, he would not- allow the House to do anything so unjust and narrow and sectarian." If the Government says it is to be so—well, I don't want to belittle my friend from |;Christchurch, but I'm afraid all ha might 1 say Wouldn't amount to, a row of pins. |

[ But, Mr. Editor, a great deal said re- : garding exemption of clergy has been j grossly misleading. Allow me in conclusion to quote from the monthly maga- j i zinc of one of ibe Free Churches. "Free Cnn/ches everywhere decline to regard their ministers as -apart from or above the ordinary obligations of citizenship. The Coalition Government is, however, going to' ask Pai-liament to treat all clerics as sacrosanct. We shall be very interested to see what Parliament will say. There ought to be some frank talk on this medieval proposition." I contend that that paragraph is the embodiment of true religion and true patriotism. —I am, etc., ! ■ JAS. G. BURT. • 15th September. TO THE EDITOR. , Sir,-^-Are priests the only single, ablebodied young men who are being exempted from military service? For the three or four priests in every to\vn there are a dozen policemen—splendid specimens of manhood—walking the streets of that town.' One cannot help being struck with the strong anti-clerical bias of Prof. Mackenzie's letters, the latest of which appears in your issue of 13th. The pro- .'■ fessor evidently regards the priest in , i much the same light'as a prohibitionist j ! regards liquor—something which the war ! provides 1 a golden opportunity for getting rid ofi But aro the feelings and needs of a large: section of the people who have performed their duty to the Empire willingly , and well, to be set at naughtnay, contemptuously ignored—in this matter? Germany does not make her priests (or other clergy) serve, and what is too low for the enemy is surely unthinkable for. us. The loss to Catnolics would be out of all proportion to the Empire's gain from sending this puny handful of men to the front. Catholics absolutely need the priests here—a point which the professor should respect, even ■if he cannot sympathise with—and are willing to make sacrifices to keep them here. It is self-denial and devotion to duty as well as the, necessities of his calling which put a priest in the First Division. On the other hand, if a young Protestant clergyman remains unmarried it is an accident, for his work and traditions make a partner desirable. And in any case the latter holds no conscientious or traditional objection .to fighting for the Empire which circumsoribes his church. The professor's threat to avoid churches which claim exemption is certainly serious, but afc^the same time it may be suggested to him that his efforts to provoke intolerance of a law-abiding and ancient creed at a time when harmony between the different sections of the community was novel" more desirable is not justified, by the best interests of the people.—l am. etc., , i LIVE AND LET LIVE. 15th September. ;