CHURCH AND STATE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6089, 22 December 1906, Page 3

CHURCH AND STATE

l.\ X’RAXCJi AXL* KLSEWHEEE. (To the Editor "X'.Z. Times.") Sir,—l am not a ‘•Catholic" (Roman or Anglican), and yet i can say that X 1 entertain nothing but vi-upt'ct lor all who arc concerned in the noble and arduous work of helping humanity to a tullcr and clearer appreciation of truth. I amonto lied that neither Catholics nor 1 rotretant are xioste-ecd of any ' divine right or divine monopoly, yet that both mean well for humanity. it they work (too often) ogUnst what many regard as tno best interests of humanity, I honestly believe it is because of the accumulated superstitions of the race, which constUnted the dietary of so many of U 0 in childhood, and which we find it so difficult to get rid of in manhood. Ail sympathise in those enlightened day® with the victims ot intolerance and persecution. it does not follow that what aro called “intolerance’' and "persecution" *are really such, if we consider the experiences of Catholics at the hands of .Protestants in days long gone by, and contrast these experiences with those of tho French Catholics to-day, we find considerable difficulty in discovering any tning approacning or resembling the intolerance or persecution of other days in Hm intvdera.uc© or Dersecution of to-

in Reformation times tho property of tho Church was openly and unceremoniously confiscated. The “victims, it such *wo can call them, had no option. They lost their all. and often their lives to boot. In tho case- of Franco to-day, nothing that can bo justly called theirs is lost to Catholic:, if they recognise the fact, once for all, that no Governmentcan in these days tolerate interference in its civil affairs on the part of a. foreign potentate. It cannot be denied that tho Churches have been, almost uniformly, during the past few centuries at least—ono might almost ray, all through the Christian centuries —identified with all that made against religious liberty. J3y claiming everything, the Pope is likely to lose everything. >t . , It is a curious fact that those who declaim most eloquently in these parts acrain't the evils of landlordism and the aggregation of large estates—as also against millionairedom “et hoc genus cmue " 3'et shout "spoliation” and confiscation" till they are hoarse when the accumulated property (acquired largely from exploiting or designedly) of a religious “combine" is in jeopardy! What would tho future of humanity be like if Protestantism or Catholicism became tho “landlord" of our planet! I suppose we could get at them by on the unimproved value,” or by the single tax" ! "We hear a great deal about human rights." "natural rights," etc., etc... when considering the claims of landlordism and tho appropriation of land or property, but these “rights" are ordinarily ignored by our most enthusiastic

1 reformers when tho ‘ appropriation is ecclesiastical! hatever wealth - tho Churches have accumulated, they havo accumulnt-rl it "in truft” for the people (not necessarily the people wh o constitute their members). State-aided Churchco hold th-ir property m trust for their respective notions. It is for the "nation” to lay whether the I Church

is doing "national work. x When it ceases to do "national work'* the State i,-n amply justified in re-possessing of its own. There is. too, for churches, ns for individuals, an "unearned increment/' The State may justly claim it. In the cnt?e of France there if, most people think, ample evidence or the -tact that the Homan Catholic Church Imbed! busily engaged for many years in "diplomatic dealing” 1 against the French Republic. We know what diP'otnanc d-aling moans with saintly ecclesiastics who really* believe that they derive vher spiritual "virtues" directly from God himself ! To such the end justifies—yea, sanctifies —the means 1 I would recommend no a useful popular exposition of the "diplomatic dealing” of modern saints Walsh's "Secret History of tho Oxford Movement.” Why should a church that seeks to undo "national work" have claims upon ouv sympathy ? Jf tho French Catholics are to lose their honestly-acquired private Property,” we greatly regret it lm f it will come about through their tacit or express recognition of a "foreign potentate and foreign conclave as supreme authority" in the country to which they (the French Catholics) owe their property and their wealth. They have fed fat on France, and yet thev would deny France her natural rights by recognising i:..civil, as well as the purely spiritrm l claims of the Pope. The State gave and the State can take away. If we in these Southern part© would escape an ecclesiastical tyranny, let us "tax” all church property as we do other property. Let us deal with it as with landlordism. Let it have justice—hare justice. Let us reserve our right to the unearned increment. Let the property of aCh«rr>’ceases to do honest and useful social and "national” work, be "appropriated" or confiscated for the common weal.

it is largely by the sufferance of a nation or people that any Church requires property. Here is what is said to bo a Lateran Council decree, part of the Roman Canon Law;—"Let the secular powers, whatever offices they may exercise, . . . exterminate from the territories under their jusicdiction heretics of all kinds marked out by the Church. ... But if any temporal ruler, being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge hi, land from this heretical filth, let him be bound in the chain of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. And. if he shall disdain to make satisfaction within one year, let this be signified to the Supreme Pontiff, that he may declare the vassals of that ruler henceforth released from their allegiance, and may offer the land to occupation by Catholics, who having exterminated the heretics may possess it in peace and preserve it steadfast in the Faith.” Glorious Faith! Noble "instrument” of (what Mr J. Godfrey Raupert, your kindly "bird-of-passage” correspondent would call) "an authorised body of men!” Glorious "authority”! Those who ignore its claims are truly guilty of "a grave philosophical error”! Let me close with the beautiful "Remonstrance” of a departed young New Zealand (Catholic) poet;— Tell/me no more .‘‘Some must be serfs, For so the Lord ordains." God set not Freedom-in bur souls And meant our limbs for chains. I am, etc., NATURAL EIGHT. December 2()th.