SINN FEIN AND RELIGION.

Evening Star, Issue 17932, 30 March 1922, Page 7

SINN FEIN AND RELIGION.

TO THE KD7TOH.

Sir, —As the powers of comprehension of certain of your correspondents seems to be' at a low ebb, allow me to recapitulate a little. On Monday night I mentioned the Auckland Hibernians in referring to those who did not agree with Dr Liston as “so-called Catholics’',- thereby inferred that the cherishing of Sinn Fein views was an essential mark of Catholicity. I objected. I object.

To-night’s ‘Star’ brings two replies (?). One by Mr Barlow admits my objection. To him, then, I have nought to cay, save this; Deliberate falsification of an opponent’s arguments is unpardonable. Ho states: “ ‘ Coqnelicot ’ declares that tho priests seek to bind their docks in things political.” IVhere did lie find that? If tho misrepresentations be intentional. .. . ! “C.” (the abbreviation is pardoned) bar. rwrsucd the hilarious garrulity of Mr M'Evov. lie found it as diverting as it was pleasing to its author. He picked his way among the shreds of his letter {alack !) to find some reply to his objections. Twas weary seeking. An orgy of words and quotations—a smoke screen to hide the subject proposed ; a series of attempts to tread on my cures ihaven’t any !): elaborate misrepresentation —no more. T note with infinite cnnipreliensnui that he infers that England stands in the sumo relation to Now Zealand as Germany stood to Belgium. I wonder at his suggestion that it is tho inalienable right of a citizen to speak sedition and to insult our soldiers. I am moved at his interest in mv spiritual welfare. I am grateful for Iris concern in the slats of my “ tnmrnv.” But of what use is it- all?

Sir, ‘I wrote for tlio non-Catholic. These two replies are for ilie Catholic. Mr M'Evoy’s T lake as -an attempt to blacken mo in the eyes of fcllow-Catholics, to suggest that I am an inferior Catholic, a defaraor of the priesthood and hierarchy of my church. Both letters state or imply' that I attack Bishop Liston, or Father Ro-and-so. Mo justification for that can be found in my letter. I can tliu! therein no whisper against tho priesthood of Dr Liston—no slur cast upon his spiritual character. That wore sacrilegious indeed. Such thoughts are attributed to me by misrepresentation. If tho authors expect mo to take them seriously' they are Jatcd to disappointment. Dear “C.’’ seems to have provoked an amusing display, but in such he is not interested. Unices he is called upon to deal with a reply_ having some connection with his objections as stated on Monday, further correspondence on the subject 'is closed (I foresee- Mr M'Evoy’p retort!) in’so far as it may bo tho concern of CoQTJEMCOT. March 29.