THE CHURCH AND LABOR.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIII, Issue 118, 17 May 1909, Page 6

THE CHURCH AND LABOR.

Further clerical opinion upon the recent utterances of the Australian Prime Minister upon the above subject appear in the N.Z. Herald. "We make the following extracts: — The Roman Catholic Bishop, Dr. Lenihan, said that if he wanted to refute Mr Fisher's arguments by giving a statement as-, to what the Roman Catholic Church had,done for the poor, he need only point to'the many institutions, which anybody Avho had travelled! would know of, that that Church had established various parts of the world \ to cope with all the needs of humanity and alleviate misery. He instanced the Little Sisters of the Poor. • Surely they represented an attempt to house the poor. They had about 120 old people under their care in Auckland alone. Then the Church had its orphanages and its hospitals, the Magdalen Home at Christchurch, the Home for Incurables at Wellington, and so on. "The Church is doing v/hat it can," asserted the Bishop. "Our Church is known as the 'poor church,' and it is ever at work amongst the poor. If it is magnificent institutions that men like Mr Fisher are looking for, then we can-

not produce them. Whatever we are doing is being done in an unostentatious way. Take, for instance, our St. Vincent do Paul Society. It is not a congregation or a religious body, but a collection of lay people, who gather together after their day's work and find out the most distressing cases. Then, out of their own pockets, or perhaps assisted by friends, they show practical sympathy, and alleviate the distress^ they have discovered. Our Church is always engaged in such work. "I think the Presbyterian Assembly," continued Bishop Leniham, "made the greatest mistake in asking such, a man as Mr Fisher to address their meeting. You do not, as a rule, invite a man to insult you. It is easy to bring up all sorts of objections to the Church upon which it is simply impossible to argue, because, do- what we can, we shall always have distress. As for the Church's influence upon millionaires you.dojnot look to the very rich for help. My experience is that if such j people give help they want a 'fad.' If they are asked to join in a legitimate work of charity or benevolence, they may give a donation occasionally. If you want success in obtaining assistance it is to be got;from the moderately rich down to the poor themselves. They are ever ready to assist, and because it accumulates1 what they give in donations amounts to a large sum every year. "Personally," said the Bishop in conclusion, "I should like to ask Mr Fisher what he has done for the poor, to warrant him in making such a diatribe against the Presbyterian Church?" "As a matter of fact the Church is doing far more philanthropic work than all other institutions together," said the Rev. W. Gray Dixon, when asked to -express his views on the relation of the-Church to social problems. The philanthropy of the Church, as such, was probably best seen in heathen lands, for the simple reason that in Christian countries there were to be found numbers of men who had imbibed the teachings of Christianity, even though opposed to it, and were philanthropists outside the pale of the Church. The Church must not be held to be a failure because she had, not converted, oven a majority of a community to Christianity. There never had been in the history of Christendom a community thoroughly leavened in every member with the principles of Christian brotherhood, though over limited areas, and for short periods, something approaching this ideal state of affairs had been, realised. The Church, however, had been the leavening element in society, and it was idle to blame- her for the vice and misery to be found" in civilised countries. .No institution had done anything comparable to the work done by the Church for the amelioration of society. Take away the Church from the world, and where was an organisation for promoting Christian brotherhood, and apart from the Church's message, where was a^ rational basis for Christian brotherhood ? Continuing, Mr Dixon said-that Mr Fisher took an entirely wrong view of the Church's duty to the world. He seemed to think that its duty was to provide bread for the starving, and in other ways contribute to the material well-being' iof the' pepple. The Church had , done this, but in supposing this the primary duty of the Church Mr Fisher had made the same mistake as; Mr Blatchford. This was the view of the Church's duty that Christ rejected" in. His first temptation when He refused to turn stones into bread. The first duty of the Church was to preach Christianity^ and in doing:this she imbued her members with the working which found its expression in political, and social efforts for the wellbeing of mankind. The Church was in the world, not to preach equality, liberty, and. fraternity, but to preach righteousness, peace, and joy in the spirit. "To advocate that the Church should become v a political organisation, that it should, for instance, identify itself with the Labour, party, is quite wrong*' said Mr Dixon. "To do so would be to assume that the Church is only, for the poor man, whereas she* has a duty to .all men*, to' the rich as well as the.poor." The Presbyterian Church, which with the Roman Catholic Church-had assumed a bolder attitude towards politics than the others, had, Mr Dixon concluded, a very high view ,of the duty of the Church to the State, and while he deprecated, the Church taking any partisanship, it was certainly her duty to speak out fearlessly when there was any unrighteousness ' to' be condemned, or any great moral issue came up for decision.