PROHIBITION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 296, 5 December 1911, Page 5

PROHIBITION.

X i'AV ]’A( TOR JXTRODI ’t ED. THE Otil IK’HES’ VIEW POINT. • [ar THi.Ei.n.vim simet.u..] i (Own Correspondent.) t Wellington. Dec. 1. 'lhe new factor in the Prohibition campaign. the declaration of war [by the Roman Catholic Church, is jevohiiig widespread discussion, j Yuiir ri-:i-ie;s will doubtless be jn- | tcreste<i in knowing what led to the I decision ol Archbishop Redwood. This definite action on the part of 'the Catholic Chtirrli is explainable ami to ti Catholic no doubt tinderst amiable.

In an address at Ashburton the Rev. Mr. Hammoml. a No-license lecturer was reported to have said in reply to questions that he, and presumably the party for vvliii-h he spoke, looked upon wine as an evil, and that he believed that within a space of ten years not only would its importation into New Zealand for general u-c be stopped but that al’,: the ban v.otild have been <-x tended to wines used for medicinal or sacramental purposes. This statement came under the notice of the editor of the "New Zealand Tablet” (the Catholic journal), who put himself in tom-fi with Mr. Hammond in order to find out. before giving it publicity, whether the report was correct. slr. Hammond’s reyly. according Io Catholic authorities, was that the report sent to the

"Tablet” was substantially correct. Then tlu- newspaper published the lenturer's statement with comments thereon. Meanwhile the matter has come under the Archbishop’s reviewami t<>..k action, a- iudicater], ft is held by the Church that wine is not an evil, and that to say i’ is is Jwirsv her sy denounced sixteen hundred years ago -therefore, argued <>ne preae’ner yesterday the No-lieen-e -idux :’!*'? are not Up to although ill--;, iriagine they aic. But it is really not so much whether wine or is no*, evil that the Catholi*Clirrch concerns itself about til the present interesting juncture. The mati'-r is one <>t much greater impoitanee involving, as the clergy iiold. the very existence of the ( imrch in New Zealand. For the Catholic the Mass is all important; tramubstantiatiou is a dogma of th*-(’hui'-b. H<- belii-ves that at the momen' of cc nsi-cration the bread and wire are ,-i--ingcd into the body and blood of Christ. A Catholic is bound ander pain of mortal sin io attend Me--- on Sundays and certain Holy Day *. Attendance a’ other service? i-. i-ot obligatory. If. therefore, in t.-n ye.-'rs time, wine for sa<-iaim-ntal purposes were not allowed to lie impoited. the Catholic would not be abb- lo participate in the sacrament of the mass, because, for the lack of wine, ma -s could not be celebrai rd. The main re; v ice— -the binding service would be a thing of the past and it--- Church mu?t languish. This is why it has suddenly become militant "!• th*- Prohibition question. It has b< i'll stated by t lie clergy that they hold no brief for the trade, and that had it not been for Mr. Hammond's statement their flocks would have been quite a! libertv io vote for Piohibit ion had they so seen lit. But

t hey i-annot <l*> so now because a dogma has been assailed. •Some of the eh’igy have aslo express"d th<> opinion that a man ci’.nrioi ! >e ru'd*- ini'ial bl Ac*, ot Parliam**;i'. There i- no intue in being good l>ci ause temptation has been li-m. ’. *-(l. Tl.e.\ admit that in some cases wine- -not evil itself has been i’imsed in Hie past, and will doubt les? lr> abiwd in the future. But that milch mon* effect i\*’ work can be dom- by icligion than bv legislation. In this particular connect ion they lively admit that many of the No license people are imbued with the idea that tlie movement, they tire associated with makes for the amelioration *■!’ the people, but *>n the other hand they assett tliat imuiy are fanatical and decidedly antagonistic to the Catholic Church. It would be interesting to know I'i.-.v, in th*- past, the Catholic vote lias gone oil the No-li*-cnse question, but that cannot be. Then- can lie no doubt, however, that hundreds of that faith have voted No-license. Those *ot<-'. at least on the Dominion Prohibit ion issue will be lost, to the Prohibition Party because in a matter of faith ever/ Catholic who desties to remain in the fold must follow the advii-*’ of the Chtni-h on matters of dogma. lhe ecclesiastic authoriti«*s lune decided that, it is the liuty of thi-ii people to record tb* ; r votes against Prohibition became dogma is in question now. and therefore it is r-'-ilsoiiable tn suppose that tl solid Catlmlii- vvili be recorded it* favour of eont lima nee. ( om- • inig on H.e position the Welling ton "Evening Post” -a;.-: “Extrava-gti-t. however, and injudicioits as

the Rev. Hammond s statement is. it is ’<> In- noted that i vt-ii h<’ does suggest that the exemption i-I.t.im-s --i-oiibl be rvin-aled until doctors. chut elii-s. ami men of

sei* nee have eeased to mak'.- tiny use >f th:"tn. Why. in that ivetil. even the most fanatical of Prohibitionists sh' tild ih’sir*’ their repeal at all. passe* oar comprehension. That the repeal «>! the saerentcnlal exemption would be of tiie nature ot religi-

ous persecution is conclusively n'-.>v d bv Ar*hbi?hop Redwood’s declaration that it would render the

.-■■l* i.i a* :•■;’ *>t mass im;i-. : * *|ilie. l liir Roman Catimlic friends may regard themselves as rbsolut i- ly secure aeait st tiie possibility of any such i*i* - **titi*ai and we regret that the Archbishop should have based his a-ivice to them iip*ui an apprehension wi;i'.-F: wc are *-'»!ivirice*l is without fotii’.'tatb’ii.” .'.!’* HBI>H< ’l’ RI I’V I-- ’D 1\ i’ERVIEV EC. ! I’f.K rRK.'S ASSO* I.VTI--N. ' VodiWi). He*'. 5 In • ,-v :• ■'*. • *’ I.*. Ever-ma P..*t " r* p.-i - a tin o’.jrc; of t!. •’ Re-.. Mr. Hr.mmmi’s t< levram. H:> (...I, - i '.. A !*.*■. I* :* ll' "1 ’ 1 * ’ ' I V- ' ' J • 'til': . "‘M*’.. tf.il’mld : ' U 11 — G'. ! D ’ '* ' fU’’ ' - - -. . - • „ ii ■ * i' '. i ’ n ■«' <‘ ‘

count of the interview which he had with the editor »f the "Tablet,’ which .■■■• count the said editor declares to be scrupulously accurate, and fo’ this I s,y that Catholics bate a natural and divine right to the nnf. tiered po:-:-ession ami o tlm necessary matt; r of the great Catholic eiiclmrist i<- sacrifice. ’ hcrefore it would i>i- ;i;i insult to their reason and tin ir faith to accept it on the pri < a: i;.e;s tenure of pie crust political i>r.’’iiises. or of a clause in an Act of Parliament which might be ami cm tam'y would be repealed il ]»!', liiln i >n '-a;ne to prevail tn tlie Domm; -n.”

ARt li BISHOP REDWOOD AND PROHIBITION.

Archbishop Redwood in a circular i< it, r* asserts that it has been public!; state*! tha if p-rohibiion is earrie*l then in 10 vears the use of wine nay not be allowed for any purpose wb.atevcr, am! he wains ’he people lo vote against prohibition. Now tl • re is a perfect rush from all quart e. s t<> deny. To deny what? Nc. t'. deny that tl:e statment was mad'?, ina-.-k you. Ob no? Merely to de:’', that sm-li is the intention. Now what is that denial worth .' N'-tl’ing. less tli.-in nothing.

Look at these examples X’ot very long ago the No-license party was oft; red the no liquor danse or prohibition. They said. No:

The laic T. E. Taylor said pul»l;. - ly. am! it was never questioned ; ’Vi e do not wan; no liquor. Prohibit ion would l.e a most iniquitous interference v. ith the liberty of the subject.” Where arc they to-day .’ What was tliat. s' atcment worth ? Some two or three years ago there was a eonfcri iwe. The prohibitionist repre s: ntat in s were asked if they mid authority to brill the party. They gave an assurance that they had, ami m, doubt ! hey bail. A con-i.ra'-I w-is nri'le. It was signed. The •>ri Ld it ionisipassed their word. What -.’a.? the i< suit 1 They put the

atrm-l aside easily as yor would b'ow ihiSi ledown aside Tlip.t'c th**r Oi liO’iojr.

Would you call these actions honourable ? AVculd yon accept the word of those responsible for them ?

I Archbishop Redwood knows them and hr d< : s v ell to warn his people. He is an honourable man an-l i.<hat--. !•.. j'•;< ri.and iliq’lioi’y ami hi wlm is guide <1 I y sui-Ii o:i'! e > i.'-.r