CHOICE OF NEW CARDINAL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 7, 9 January 1946, Page 7

CHOICE OF NEW CARDINAL

MINISTER’S REMARKS UNPOPULAR Sydney, Dec. 31. Australia's Minister lor Information end Immigration (Mr. A. A. Calwell) dismayed even his closest adherents by his criticism of the appointment of Archbishop Gilroy, of Sydney, as a cardinal in preference to Melbourne’s 82-year-old Archbishop Mannix. Not cnly did he introduce polities into his church, but he introduced —or revealed—sectarianism in Australian politics, something that, the Labour and Liberal Parties alike had been avoiding for years, and particularly avoided in an election year. By his statement, Mr. Calwell antagonised arid offended many of his own faith, some of them high and influential Church dignitaries. He also branded himself as “dangerous,” rather than fearless, to members of his own party who may have been tempted to follow his militant lead in politics.

Archbishop Duhig, of Queensland, replied to Mr. Calwell in what might be regarded as an official Church statement, and Mr. Justice Brennan of the Queensland Supreme Court gave the Roman Catholic layman's view.

The press reply to Mr. Calwell came from the Western Australian official Roman Catholic journal, “The Record.” Thus Mr. Calwell was made to appear at variance not only with the views of New South Wales Roman Catholics, but with followers of that faith throughout Australia.

“The Record” stated: “It is pertinent to ask whether the appointment of a cardinal is a political issue involving the Australian Government, or purely a domestic question within the Church. If it is the latter, then Mr. Calwell, in addition to his highly offensive personal attacks, is guilty also of impertinence and insularity, Jealousy existing between Sydney and Melbourne is proverbial, but it will be a sorry day for the Church if that rivalry is allowed to enter seriously into ecclesiastical affairs. As the Holy Father said in his world broadcast on Christmas Eve: T n troubled times like these the Church must more than ever remain above national feelings.’ How much more so must she remain above inter-State bickerings? But it vxas not the Church or churchmen who commenced the present dissension. but a politician who is supposed to be representing the national inter-