THE RUNAGA INCIDENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18679, 8 April 1924, Page 5

THE RUNAGA INCIDENT.

—While by do means ■wishing to keep open a controversy that has already received too much attention, I would nevertheless like, to receive a little enlightenment from Mr. N. E. Bourke. He distinctly says "to pat the saddle on the right horse for once, and' so free the Catholics from all blame for the Runanga incident." Very well then, this being a school for and run by Catholics, who else are we to blame ? _ Perhaps Mr. Bonrke considers Lord Jellicoo is responsible for being so out-spoken in strongly denouncing such gross disloyalty. His statement, that the correspondence published pertaining to this matter "is trash we have been getting from warped-minded bigots'' is hardly worthy of comment, as the remark itself ably demonstrates that the bigotry is by no means one sided. Lest. V. Winks.

Sir,-The reasoning in my letter of the ■s7th ult. 'has been challenged by your two correspondents, "Britisher" and Native Born," but at the same time it has received the kind support of Mr. ■N. E. Bourke, to whom I would give my sincere thanks, though a perfect stranger to me. I do not find much in the letters of my two critics that I have not alreadv answered m my previous letters, which 1 would ask them to be good enough to read again. Yet to "Britisher" I would say a lew things HI) I yield to him in familiarity with "current Catholic Church publications;" even the NewZealand Tablet. But if these publications teach disloyalty, then the authorities ought to deal with them. (2) He says "tolerance is a very necessarv and estimable virtue at all times," but is sure that, if I were a reader of the abovementioned publications, I should find another weapon, or tool, than tolerance. Is not that a good reason whv literature of the kind ought not to be read? (3) He tells us that there are many loyal Roman Catholic citizens who are" "not wanted to be so by their religious leaders," but he does not tell us 'how he knows this. (4) For his .information let me say that during the war I had the pleasure and privilege of residing in Melbourne for 18 months, when I was a regular and constant reader of the Melbourne Argus, and, if "Britisher" knows anything !i]j.e what be would lead your readers to think he knows. he will understand that I am by no means unaware of the public utterances of a certain ecclesiastic, whose bitterest enemies never accused him of over-stating his loyalty. To "Native Born" let me say that he writes as if he knows, or at least is convinced, that the Roman Catholic Church is disloyal, both in its official attitude and in the organised teaching it gives m its schools. Yet, strange to say, in spite of this position takyn up by the priests and nuns, "Native Born" is able to tell us that "the loyalty of the Catholic laity is a thing without question," and that it would be "sheer madness, and wore*, to question it." I fail to see how these two positions fit each other, but. I am willing to let that go if only he will take his friend "Britisher" in hand and convince him of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic laity, for he seems to seriously doubt. it. ,

To tho general question, and particularly as it is set forth by my two critics, let me state the following points:—(J) Both seem to confuse the disgruntled section 1 {of Irish • Catholics (not generally given to silence) with the whole body of their co-religionists, who are numerically many times larger than they. (2) When these Irish were disloyal they were so. not because they were Roman Catholics, but for racial and political reasons, as there was no lack of Protestant Sinn Feiners in Ireland at the same time. (3) Did "Britisher" and "Native Born" never hear of the English Catholics ? I do not mean the Irish importations, but the old section of the Roman Catholic Church in England that did not change at tho Reformation, and among whom the Duke of Norfolk may be honourably mentioned as a leading layman. The English Catholics are as much a part of the "Roman Catholic Church as are tho ifrish Catholics, and yet their loyalty is faxabove suspicion. It may be mentioned as showing where they stand in tin: matter that as a party in British politics they determinedly opposed the granting of Home Rule to Ireland. |4) A point, aptly raised by Mr. Bourke in his letter, is that disloyalty is not' peculiar to Roman Catholics, for there are ■ also disloyal non-Catholics, and I hope no one will allege Protestantism as the reason of their disloyalty. Let me thank you for Jiving my letters a place in your columns, ut would also say that I do not propose to continue this correspondence unless my critics put forward some new arguments thai are worth}* of reply. Lam glad to say that the Roman Catholics I have known have all been loyal, and I think it is very unjust to them, as well as poor encouragement to their loyalty, to accuse them of being traitors to their king and country, openly or otherwise"; and I thank you for the opportunity you have given me of using my pen in "the cause of justice and fair-play. April 4, 1924. Presbyterian.