THE CHURCH AND REFORM.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 15 September 1926, Page 10

THE CHURCH AND REFORM.

(To the Editor). Sir, —Noticing that your voluminous correspondent “Sceptic” singles out the Catholic Church, and more especially her Spanish followers, for censure in regard to the slavery point of ,discussion. it has occurred to me that yV>ur prolific contributor lias relied more on tlie expressed opinions of opponents of Christianity than' >oii’ tlie recorded facts of history. He quotes Brecht as saying: ‘“The majority of Spanish eccdteyiatios, from tlie highest bishop to the lowest monk, was either directly concerned in slave-hold in g or publicly defended it.” When tlie exceedingly abk 1 !. hilt stern and! ruthless, Hernando Cortez overthrew the _ great. Aztec- empire of Mexico in 1519 he found the bulk of the population bound in hopeless slavery to their overlords, whose terrible altars wen? often steeped with the blood of the '.serfs. Cortez, strong in the faith, but intolerant of idolat-ory, offered the conquered the Cross or tlie sword,” but his hand was stayed- bv the chapl'lain of the expedition. the mild and gentle Fray Oirnedo, who prevailed on the conqueror- to mitigate tire ardour of his prosletysing - and- allow the people to assimilate by degrees' the strange new doctrine of the invaders. (See Prescott; “Conquestof Mexico.”) Also, wherever ho passed, -the chains of the captives were loosened, and the temples no longer reeked with the blood of the - victims. After Fray Otonecto came -the .illustrious Fray Bartholome de la. Casas, “Toe Protector of the: Indians,” who crossed' the ocean back to .Spain no (ess' ' rha.n tv.o've times to intercede at the Court of Madrid for his beilbved chftraes, and spent his long life-time of 92 yeans in pans uadi n;g hii-s countrymen to treat the aboriginie's of the Indies, Mexico and Peru with humanity and- leniency. Says Prescott, no friend of Catholicity, _ but fair and liberal withal: “At all times the courageous ecclesiastic has been ready t»:> lift lvls voice against the cruelty of the conqueror and the no !Vss wasting cupidity of the colon ist; and when his remonstrances, ns was too often the case, have proved, unavailing, he has still followed tk» bind up the broken-hearted, tb teach the poor Indian resignation under his lot, and light up his dark inteD’lect with the revelation of a holier and haippier existence. In reviewing the blood-stained records of Spanish colonial .history, it is but fair and at the same time cheering, to reflect that the same nation which sent forth the hard-hearted conqueror from its bosom sent forth the missionary to do the work *>f beneficence and .spread the light of Christian eiviil’lteation over the farthest regions of the New World.” In. 1542 the. unwearying lias Casas published his celebrated treatise on-the “Destruction of the Indians,” and pressed the Spanish monarch, Charles the Fifth, to* grant what was -practically complete freedom to the native inhabitant® of the Spanish colonial', empire. Ordinances were drawn up, which, says Prescott, “broke up v the very foundations of property, and by a. stroke, of the pen. as it were, converted a nation of slaves into freemen. The code was signed by the Emperor s*.nd published at Madrid, in November. 1543. A viceroy was sent out to Peru to enforce the new laws, but found stern .opposition from the colonists, who rose in rebellion against. the Crown, and the viceroy was sllaln. in bathe. Who then, would ‘“Sceptic” )think, was able to enforce the new regulations that loosened the bonds of tlie Inca tribes? Providence supplied a man in the person of a humble ecclesiastic. Fray Pedro de la Gasca, “a, name.” says Prescott. “which, brighter bv contrast with the gloomy times in which .it first appeared, stil'.i shines with undiminished splendour after the lapse of ages.”' Prescott, 'indeed. likens Frav Gasca to Washington, in a remarkable passage in'his “History itsf the. Conquest of Peru.” “There ‘ are men,” says he, “whose characters hate been so wonderfully adapted to tlie peculiar crisis in which they appeared that they seem. to. have been specially designed for it by Providence'. ■ Such was Washington in our own country, and Gasca in Peru. . .

After the chirk and turbulent .spirits with which we have been hitherto occupied. it is refreshing Ho -dwell on a character like that of GascA.' In the long procession which has passed in review before ns. we have .seen only the mail-chad cavalier, brandishing his bloody Ip nee. and mounted on h:!s. wa.r T horse, aiding over the helpless natives, or battling with his .own friends and brCsthors. .j. . At the close of this lonia' array- of iron warriors, we tiehohcl the poor and humble missionary coming into the land on an errand of mercy, and everywhere proclaiming the glad tidings of peace. Nb war-like trumpet heralds his approach, nor is his course, to be tracked by the groans of the wounded and the dying. The means he employs are in perfect liArmony with his end. His weapons are argument -and mild persuasion, It is th f . reason ho would conquer, not the body. He wins hiis way by conviction, not by violence. It is a .moral victory to which he aspires, more p-otenb And happily more permanent than that of the h’Wod-stained conqueror. The banners *■ impended over Gasca’s tomb at Vail ado' 'd have long since mouldered into dust, with the remains ' of him who slept beneath them] but the memory of his good deeds wiiU endure for over.” H'h.is veiry handsome tribute fui-.ni a. non-Gatlioliie to the manumitter of the Inca slaves, as well as the general esteem .in whli'ch the illustrious Bishop las Casas, “The Protector of .the Indians.” is he’d by all hiistor-itans, is enough, to make us suspect that your correspondent lias not- studied solid histmry as much as a genuine investigator could wish. No doubt that when heaving an ink-splashed brick against Spain he thought lie was on safe ground, with the May no Reids and other picturesque romancers whose thrilling tales beguiled over boyhood’s days. But an charging the- Spanish Church with fettering the slaves whereas her great representatives did precisely otherwise, he appears tU be sinaolv placing his own prejudices Against the recorded facts of -history. — I am, etc., CTVIS ROMA NITS SUM. ila.vern, Sept. 13.

[This letter was held, over from yesterday on account of pressure on our space.—l A: I. Star.]

(To the Editor.;

Sir, —When a correspondent _in a newspaper controversy becomes - rude and nasty you may take it for granted that he is receiving a sound drubbing. That is the plight of yuur correspondent ‘‘To Alethes” in to-night’s Star. Using coarse and offensive epithets like “stupid” and “dishonest” to his opponent serves only to accentuate the evidence of his discomfiture. The burden of his swan-song, when lie does descend to argument, is that the Church while “recognising” slavery did not “approve” of it. The evidenceadduced in my last letter is overwhelming that the'Church did “approve” of it Bone Paul 111 decreed slavery to all Englishmen who supported Henry VTIf against the Pope. Is this “approving” of slavery, or is it only “recognising” it St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest doctor of the Church,

taught that- “slavery was a natural institution,” and that all Jews were “slaves to the Church.” Is this; “ap-proving”-of slavery? “The majority of Spanish ecclesiastics, from the highest bishop to the lowest monk, were either directly concerned in the negro slave trade' or publicly defended it,” says Brecht, and he has never been contradicted. Is this “approving” of slavery? Pope Gregory had thousands of slaves tilling his huge estates. Is this “approval” of slavery? The Church Council of Orleans expressly decreed the perpetuity of servitude among the descendants of slaves (Westermarcb: “Origin and Development of Moral 'ldeas”). The Church Council of Agatho considered it unfair to enfranchise the slaves of monasteries, seeing that the monks themselves laboured. The Council of Toledo .stignatized as robbers all those who set free the slaves of the Church without giving an equivalent. Tlie Council of Epaone prohibited abbots from emancipating the slaves of their monasteries. Is all this “approving” of slavery, or is it merely “recognising” it? The Church held on to its slaves to the very end. In France in his day Voltaire estimated that the Church held between 50,0(10 and 60,000 slaves (see article “Slavery” in Philosophical Dictionary). Is not this practical “approval” of slavery ? The wlioIe ; history of the Christian Church shows that- it has never felt itself called upon to fight (any social institution, no matter what its character,“ so long as

it favoured the Church. * Slavery and serfdom, war, piracy, child labour, have all been in turn sanctioned and sanctified. “The relation of the Church to slavery is in fact an epitome of its attitude towards social problems in general” (Cohen: “Christianity and Slavery”;. Pope Nicholas IV, in his bulls of 1452 and 1454, granted the King of Portugal the right of slavery over all heathens whom he captured. My authority is Boissonnade. Similarly' Pope Alexander VI gave the South Americans in slavery to the Spaniards in 1403. Shall we call this ‘‘approving” slavery, or shall we put our tongues to our cheeks and euphemistically call it merely “recognising” slavery ? I hate all hypocrisy and humbug, and I say that the distinction which Church casuists try to draw in so plain a dealing is just simply hypocrisy. The task that apologists set themselves of trying to make any/and every act of their Church look sweet and clean is beyond their powers. The Chuneh, like most other institutions in this mundane universe, is a. human instituion, and as such it must have perpetrated many wrongs and injustices, and no whitewashing will ever make such deeds white and clean. Why not frankly admit- it and save such an exposure of their’Church as this correspondence lias called forthH Your correspondent, who quite evidently has never read Coulton, says he has been “the cause of mirth to*the educated in England for the past ten years.” Such a statement is simply not true. Dr Coulton is what I called him, the world’s leading authority on medieval Church history. 1 take the review in “Nature,” which is England’s recognised authority as a scientific and literary review. This review stated that Coulton’s works were preeminent in their field to-day. Or take the review of his latest book, “The Medieval Village,” in the Law Quarterly Review tor April, 1926, where the writer. Sir Frederick Pollock, whose pie-eminence in his special sphere no one will gainsay, speaks of “this very learned and interesting work.” To

oppose to this -learned authority a writer like Cardinal Gasquet is de scendiug from the ■ sublime to the ridiculous. Naturally, the Cardinal doesn’t like Coulton. Coulton has punctured the Church fiction of the “Golden” Middle Ages, although, as Pollock says in the review I have quoted, “the present writer must confess to amazement at. any one taking ,a roseate view of that period who lias read a- moderate number of judicial and manorial documents.” And, naturally enough, the Cardinal will throw a brick at Coulton if it is only because he didn’t dot his “i’s” and cross his “t’s”. The trouble with your correspondent is that he reads only one side of his case. He reads only what the ecclesiastical reviews may say, or what he may read in Belloc and Chesterton, discredited writers- whom no serious .student would take seriously to-day. Let him, as I try to do, read not one side, but all sides, and: we shall not have again the spectacle which he has made on this occasion.—l am. etc., SCEPTIC. Hawera, Sept. 14.