DR. BAKEWELL AGAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11579, 18 February 1901, Page 3

DR. BAKEWELL AGAIN.

TO THE editor. Sir,ln reference to Dr. Bakewell' letter in this morning's issue, replying in some sort of fashion to " Justitia's," it amused me to read in another part of the same papei a London cablegram informing us (Dr. Bakewell included) that the new King, Edward VII., had just taken his oath against the doctrine of transubstantiation—that is, against the peculiarly distinctive Catholic doctrine. Nov, that being so, it proves, of course, the correctness of " Justitia's" real contention, and at the same time the historical ignorance, if not worse than ignorance, not of " Justitia," but of Dr. Bakawell. That Dr. Bakewell has jauntily dragged into his letter the name of Bishop Lenihan is, to my mind, very reprehensible: and still more reprehensible the assertion that the Bishop committed a dereliction of duty, " a great blunder," as a "concession to the Irish party." Tlio latter statement is. I feel sure, nothing else than an utterly baseless and unwarranted assumption. Can Dr. Bakewell say it is anything else? That Bishop Lenihan will do, and does, his duty, irrespective of party or person, whether English or Irish, Dr. Bakewell himself must know. Dr. Bakewell is, as he has often informed your readers, a neophyte Catholic; yet neophyte though he is, he does not hesitate to dictate, unasked, to the Catholic laity and clergy, not omitting his Bishop, as to how they should comport themselves and discharge _ their duties. Such dictation seems to me impertinent, arrogant, and presumptuous.—l am, etc., A Catholic Layman, but not a Neophyte. Saturday, February 16. ,