ROMAN CATHOLICS AND LIQUOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 3395, 9 April 1919, Page 5

ROMAN CATHOLICS AND LIQUOR.

OPPOSITION TO NATIONAL PROHIBITION. ARCHBISHOP REDWOOD'S LETTER. The following letter, signed by Archbishop ; Redwood, was read from the altars of all the Roman Catholio churches in the diocese on Sunday:— j The clergy and people of this archdiocese and of the other dioceses in New Zealand naturally look to their metropolitan for right guidance on the matter of prohibition—National Prohibition —with which this dominion is threatened. I hope such a calamity will never befall it. For what is the altogether untenable position of the prohibition advocates? It is this: If they argue that wine (alcoholio drinks) is an evil in itself, then absolute prohibition, oven for sacramental purposes, should emphatically follow; but this argument transfers responsibility from the agent to the instrument, and so destroys morality; moreover, it is contrary to Scripture and the emphatic teaching and example of Christ, who used wine Himself, and in instituting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, made it part of the essential matter. If they argue that wine, or aifcoholio ■ drink, is not an evil in itself, then regulation of its traffic is surely the moral course to adopt. But if prohibition is urged on account, : of the misuse which some make of it, then, to be morally consistent, the same people should demand that, because tho sexual instinct is abused by some to the extreme of impurity, thereforo all union of the sexes should be forbidden On the same principle printing, the theatre, dancing, should be prohibited. All this would, of course, bo absurd, and is almost blasphemy against marriage, which is a holy ordinance of God and is honoured by all men. The position of the prohibitionist is accordingly against logio and common sense. Reform is needed—not prohibition —reform wise and moderate and patient in the light of experience, education, and true morality; in the interests of tho great body of the public, and especially of moderate men who constitute the majority of the people. To brand New Zealanders, who are generally a sober sommunity. as a drink-sodden people, demanding drastic legislation, is a vile and monstrous calumny. The whole scheme of National Prohibition is a great step backward; it would bo an odious and inquisitorial tyranny, foreign to tho basic principle and spirit of British law. As the archbishops last October, .aptly stated in their important pronouncement, "Wo view with misgiving and alarm the crude proposals of those prohibitionists who demand drastio legislation which would be an unwarrantable infringement on the reasonable liberty of the mass of tho people; which would most probably be inefficacious for the purpose in view, and which, in the end, would produce more evil than it would remove." Prohibition is indeed fatal to liberty, because it involves a serious outrage against the natural rights and liberties of individuals and contemptuously disregards tho claims of dissenting minorities.. It is also fatal to temperance, though not a few sophistically confound temperance with prohibition. Temperance is a growth, like all moral laws, in the individual and the community. Prohibition proposes to establish temperance according to tho criminal code. Temperance is positive and appeals toman's sense of self-control, to his reason and conscience. Prohibition is negative, and appeals to the sense of fear, to pains and penalties, and utterly ignores man's habits and education. Temperance is the development of man's righteousness and self-con-trol. Prohibition is the reduction of man to a position of compulsory national total abstinence by the criminal law: Temperance is the heritage and blessing of a free people. Prohibition is the yoke which a oountry constructs for itself when it oonfesse* its inability to self-control, and from which it will take long years to free itself. Temperance is the badge of self-respeot ana orderliness. Prohibition i» the *7 m - | bol for hypoorisy and deception.

All the secret encouragement to sly drinking, the utter lack of control, the absence of all authority, tho vile decoctions served, are sure to generate a low moral atmosphere of gpreat mischief. And such places of sly drinking greatly appeal to the young. Once let a young man beoome contaminated by the moral tone of tho "sly grogs," ho will be damaged morally, if not utterly ruined. Prohibition will undoubtedly generate lawlessness. Its extreme character, its far-reaching measures, its enormous penalties, stamp it as grinding despotism—the, fruitful parent of disorder. Prohibition is as despotic as any law of the worst despot. It utterly disregards and tramples under foot the 'undoubted rights of minorities, whom it grossly insults by the way it flaunts their wishes and destroys thoir privileges. , The minority under it would 'obey, or suffer outrageous penalties. Wherever it prevails it is monstrous in every way and grossly insulting to the intelligence of the large minority. If it is carried in New Zealand we may expect that shortly the land will be filled with dens, all of which will be schools of _ hypocrisy, evasion, lawlessness, and deception. One extreme begets another. Prohibition would plungo us into a course of folly bringing turmoil into the politics of the country, perjury and evasion into the oourts, and deception into the people. Let it not be argued that "sly grog" would become an impossiblity when throughout # the whole 3 dominion there, would be no liquor to bo procured. And what oould prevent the manufacture of sly-grog in the country and its introduction by a widespread system of smuggling? But in any case this plea is no excuse for its inherent and rampant tyranny. In a recent publication regarded as authoritative by the No-license Party these words occur: "I recollect on on© occasion, in conversation, one of the brewers said to a prohibitionist, 'I hate the drunkard as much as you.' The Prohibitionist replied: •That remark defines the difference between us. You hate the drunkard, I hate the drunkard-maker.' " It is this very externation in teaching which is sure to add to the list of the drunken. Nay, it destroys all morality. This teaching would render morality impossible. Anarchy and lawlessness would be rampant. "I hate the drun-kard-maker." In terms of logic, he hates the hotelkeeper who sells wine, the barman who serves it, the commercial traveller .who represents wholesale houses which stock wine. A ntep further: He would hate the wine-grower, the labourer in the vineyard, and the carter who carries the wine, and so on. In large drapery establishments certain persons practise shop-lifting. Prohibitionist teaching would exonerate them and blame the drapers. "I hate not the thief, but the thief-maker." Such a doctrine would abolish the Ten Commandments. To shift the responsibility from the man who drinks to excess to other persons is to encourage sympathy with the drunken, and still more is this wrought by absolutely stopping the supply, not only to the few lawless, but to the whole community. This remedy is fatal to morals. It is fatal to set up a compulsory and ascetio total abstinence society for the people and to enforce its rules by a drastic criminal code. A truo educational development undoubtedly means that the whole of man's attributes are to be brought into true harmony. Here lies the worth of the individual and the true greatness of tho State. A mere negation such as prohibition would never accomplish this; in fact, a greater violation of its principles can hardly be conceived.

This national prohibition craze is mainly the work of a handful of fanatics, while somo honest people, oven some Catholics, owing to what they have suffered from drunken fathers or mothers, husbands or wives, relatives or friends, put sentiment before reason, and yield to the temptation of resorting to a remedy worse than the disease. But let Catholics and all good Christians be timely warned. We knowthat there are in the ranks of tho prohibitionists, though not, perhaps, amongst the present leaders in this country, bitter enemies of the Catholio Church and of tho Mass. There is a real danger that these people would later on try here, as they have done' in at least one important State of America, to render the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass impossible. Listen to what one of their leaders , in tho United States has said. Sidney Catts, Governor of tho State of Florida, at tho annual convention of the Anti-Saloon League held in Washington as recently as December, 1917, made the following declaration: "Liquor may not be imported into the State of Florida (after I get through with tho prohibition measure and after the Bill has been passed by the people) for any purpose whatsoever, arid the man who needs liquor for his religion had better prepare to take his religion out of Florida." But 1 shall be told that we run no such danger in New Zealand, as we have the assurance of tho leaders of the No-license League, together with the Government, that satisfactory regulations will bo made to allow wine to be prooured for sacramental purposes. I am not at all convinced that these regula-

tions will be satisfactory. First of all, what are they? Nobody has seen them, and are not to be made, I understand, until after the poll is taken. Is it reasonable t* ask Catholics-to vote for national prohibition on the strength of regulations not yet made, and about which we know nothing—•■ whether they will be Batisfactory or otherwise? But even though the present pro* hibition leaders and the present Government may be perfectly sincere in their avowed purpose, to make regulations that will be entirely satisfactory, what guarantee have we that in a few years, once national prohibition is the law of the land, other prohibition leaders and another Government-* on the ground, say, that the exemption* are being abused—may not insert, an amendment in the Act doing away with all exemptions, even for the Mass, or recasting the regulations in such fashion as to practically prevent the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice ? We have had too much expert* ence of recent *' rush" legislation on the part of; our Parliament not to fear similar " rush" legislation in regard to sacramental wine, especially, I repeat, as the no-license movement numbers amongst its most, prominent advocates 'men who publicly donounce the Mass as "an unchristian superstition," and make no secret of their determination, if they had the power, to prevent its celebration in,New Zealand. I consider, therefore, than I would bo failing in my duty did I not warn out people of the dangerous possibilities that are before them. Is the great Cathollo Church, in this pretended free land, to dgj pend for the exercise of a natural right on any fallible and fallacious Government or set of politicians ? Such a thing is an insult, an otrag'e, and an indignity. It implies a prying and inquisitorial interference with every altar and every priest it) tho dominion. I call, therefore, on all Catholics in the dominion to vote dead against national prohibition, as they valuo common sense, liberty, and the sacred claims of their holy faith. Let them band with the best men of the dominion, the majority of good and moderate men, to stamp out this noxious thing, national prohibition, for ever. ' Let such inquisitorial and grinding tyranny never curse this free land. Tho Catholio who votes for national prohibition in the present condition of this dominion — whatever other exceptional case might bo conceived in other countries to make prohibition tolerable —is true neither to his common sense nor his love of freedom, nor his loyalty to his holy religion. Let .him cast his vote - '-rally and religiously against it, in th ' every other election. Let him not be. the slave of a false system inspired by narrow-mindedness ana fanaticism.