CATHOLICS AND PROHIBITION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18674, 2 October 1922, Page 8

CATHOLICS AND PROHIBITION

TO THE EDITOR. SiH. —“Roman Catholic” returns to the charge and humiliates decent Catholics by endeavouring to hitch tho Catholic Chinch to the beer wagon. I again reiterate that this is not, a doctrinal question. God help any church that has to depend for its existence on the wretched liquor traffic, with Us attendant misery, degradation, and crime. Tho theology imbibed by some of our Catholics has not taught them to make seme sacrifice for their neighbours and the saving of 1 souls. ‘‘Roman Catholic ’ quotes me as referring to “Dr” Cleary. I. know enough theology to acknowledge episcopal prerogatives, and to refer to the good proliibilion Bishop of Auckland as "Bishop Cleary. No doubt -many Roman Catholic theological props of tho "trade” would like to rob Bishop Cleary of his episcopal authority. His heresy consists in his statement that "the Catholic Church is built on a rock, not on a, vat. ’ I have had the privilege of tho friendship of many worthy priests, and know much more about Catholic theology than your correspondents give mo credit for. On tho subject, of prohibition I claim to he as reliable an authority as an ecclesiastical supporter of “the trade” and a safer guide. “Roman Catholics” learned writings concorning heresy are beside the mark. Tho man who mistook the zebra for a donkey in football attire made a pardonable mistake compared with that of the metaphysicians who confound Manielicism and prohibition. Bigotry and persecution are not relevant to the discussion. Altar wine is specially exempt in the Act, and no bigoted person can alter tho fact. Here is a. statement of fact. A Catholic prohibitionist candidate stood against a P.P.A. for an Auckland constituency. _ The Catholic-chairman of the Licensed Victuallers Association worked for the P.P.A. This proves that it. is not the sacraments of tho church that “the trade” is concerned about. It. is tho lucrative liquor traffic first, last, and all the time. “Roman Catholic” refuses to accept, the Rev. R. B. S. Hammond’s disclaimer with reference to altar wine. In fact, *he won’t accept anything that docs not agree with his prejudices. He says I confound temperance and prohibition, because I quote Cardinal Manning as a prohibitionist. Cardinal Manning presided at, the annual meetings of (he United Kingdom Alliance in 1878 and 1879, and Father Coffey, of Mayworth College. Dublin, stales be was a, prohibitionist,. and quotes many of his writings and speeches in proof thereof. lather Zurchor knows definitely that Archbishop Ireland was also a strong supporter of prohibition, and Father Zurcher enjoyed his personal friendship. Regarding crime and drunkenness in America, the only true lest is _ whether there is n decrease under prohibition. Reliable and abundant, records prove a doorcase of over 50 per cent. You, Sir. can bear me out when I state that tho letter published 1 ” - “Face the Facts” was not written by Father Zurcher or by me. The first, wo saw or heard of it was on reading the letter in your paper. “Wet” corrcsnondcnts evidently think onfi more lie won’t do ns_ any harm. I am not ashamed of my opinions, and always sign my name. It would be move to the. point if your correspondents, instead of attacking me would fell us of the advantages to the community that will bo gained hv continuing this traffic, and sign (heir letters so that wo might, judge if they are disinterested.—l am. etc., Charles Todd. Christchurch, September 29. Sin, —Father Zurcher begins bis letter, which appeared in your Saturday’s issue, with a mistake. The contributor did not ask why, but- pointed out that bis reverence was only allowed to celebrate Mass privately. The reference to the days of persecution in Ireland is unfortunate, as it recalls that the Irish priests wore forced by the enemies of the to celebrate secretly; while the prohibitionist priests are compelled to privacy because '''ey associate with tho enemies of the luass in New Zealand. The admission that the much-ropea*"-' prohibition statement of Dr Ireland wm never put in writing by him and was only taken in a “brief "report” of a speech is -very interesting and will not be forgotten in/future. Wo thank Father Zurcher for this frank confession. _ People capable of summing up and weighing evidence will know now its value compared with a reasoned statement over the Archbishop’s name (published to show the mind of the Church on groat questions), which asserts that motives of religion and right, reason prevented him from siding with extremists. Father Zurcher’s Alsatian mind is hurt by “Celtic” humour. May I remind him that even a Soot will find amusement in his farewell paragraph, which leaves us Mr Ovaries Todd as a stalwart defender of the Mass against the desecrations of the trade! When ho speaks of the “destructive wrath of the people next December” he again starts an unfortunate train of thought. Catholic prohibitionists will learn something of it if they ever succeed, by their cooperation with the enemies of our Church, in putting into the hands of the latter a. weapon which will surely be used as a means of attack on the Mass and the sacraments by people who have already made it a criminal offence to apply the doctrine of the Church concerning one sacrament. —I am, etc., Rohan Catholic. October 1.