ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 63, 24 February 1911, Page 11

ROM AN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

(To the Editor.) Sir. —I resent indignant Ij y»mr insinuation as to using the blue pencil, as if some things m my letter were unfair. There was nothing personal in my letter, nor anything different in spirit from what you did publish. I challenge you to show this statement is wrong by publishing the rest of the letter, and let the public judge between us. This kind of insinuation is hitting below the belt. You do not play the game. Again, you err not knowing the Scriptures nor the Master of the Scriptures. The Master was for peace and was for strife.” Even so. But is Mr. Rampeace on earth, but a sword.” To get peace worth having, you must oppose error and bondage. This education question is one of the most serious and vital, not only in our country but in every country.

The Church of Rome is the chief disturbing factor, Are we to meet them in a milk and water fashion, as you did in your leader, or are we to stand up and speak frankly our minds 1 It is far from my wish to do harm to Roman Catholics. They must have equal justice with the rest of us, but no more, and in the present demand they want more. They are asking for a distinct sectarian privilege. lam sorry that you played low down.— Yours, etc.,

P. RAMSAY.

{Acting as moderator, we have brought upon ourselves the wrath of a red-hot divine. Even in the above letter he proves himself an intemperate man, and one who would do well to follow the teachings of the Apostles. He accuses ns of not knowing the Scriptures nor tike Master. Perhaps we may have forgotten much that Mr. Ramsay should have a little knowledge of. "Who knows! He says, “The Master was for peace, and for strife. Even so. But is Mr. Ramsay tile Master that he has the right to preach strife gnd to judge 1 We refer him to James iv, 11 and Ml “Speak not against one another. He that qpeaketh against Ids brother or judgeth his brother, apeaketh against the law and judges the law; but if thou judg«st the law thou art not a doer of the law but a judge. One only is the lawgiver and judge,'even He wW is able to save and destroy; but who art thou that thou judgest thy neighbour!” Mr. Ramsay says that in our censorship we are “hitting below the belt,” we do “not play the game”; “he is sorry we played low down.” These expressions savour more of the prizefighter’s ring than the church pulpit. Why does he not follow the teachings of St. Paul, who told j Christians to “walk in wisdom to- i

ward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let their speech

foe always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how to answer each one.” Where is the Brace in Mr. Ramsay’s epistles? Reluctantly, we accept his challenge—reluctantly, for Mr. Ramnay’s sake, for we would fain save him against himself—and publish those portions of his letter which we censored because* in our opinion, they contained intolerant and

offensive words. Want ot space formds the reprinting of the complete letter, yet to avoid obscuring Mr. Ramsay's meaning we republish those sentences affected by our previous censorship; the part deleted in the first publication being now printed in black type for purpose of identification. He says: “Let the public judge between us,” but what other verdict than one of condemnation can the public give to him who uses the following insulting language towards a -creed which is revered by a large section of our own people, and included in which is one holding the high office of Premier of New Zealand. The following sentences supply the censored portions of the letter: ■“The Romish Church is not at home even in Rome. Is it at home in JFrance or Spain 1 It is not at home in any country, but is an alien everywhere, a thorn in the side of every Government, an ulcer in every nation. The reason is plain, it is the sworn enemy of liberty of thought and conscience. . . . Rome says, they (the children), must believe, must be made to believe all the medieval superstitions (we deleted these two words and substituted ’teachings”) of the Church. This is the prime thing, all the rest is incidental. If you give a child the bias of Romish teaching! you dwarf its powers and ogle its Vision. The papal encyclical of 1907 demands that every priest shall be a blind unquestioning slave (we substituted ‘‘servant”) of the curia. . . Read the Programme of Modernism,' and vou 4

will see the anguish of mind and | heart with which the most enlight-I ened Catholics of our day com-! I lain against the despotism of the I curia. These who are devoted •* Catholics are crying tor freedom to think. They say ‘through a series o' causes into which we need not. enter. Catholics seem to have lost every elemental sense of resp.on-; sibility and personal dignity.* The ’ acts of their supreme rulers are received with the unconscious ac-, quiescence of irresponsible beings. ; That is how Catholics describe the ! condition. And the demand for' | their own schools rests back on the > ; determination that the children ; shall be irresponsible beings, bending before a priest, who bends beIfore a bishop, who bends before <the curia, all irresponsible alike. 1 * Mr. Ramsay is allowed the quiet t enjoyment of his own religion. By what right can he claim authority f !to interfere with others in the quiet ■ f enjoyment of theirs? In the words of James, the Lord’s Brother;; “Who is he that he judges his, ; neighbour i"’ —Ed H.B.T.] ! ’ - . I