PROHIBITION.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 15754, 28 February 1919, Page 3

PROHIBITION.

ADVOCACY BY ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST. LEADS TO HIS EXPULSION, (Per United Press CHRISTCHURCH, February 27. Action has been taken by Bishop Brodie in refusing to re-admit Father Cronin, formerly of Darfield and Ross, into the Roman Catholic Diocese of Christchurch as the direct result of the attitude of Father Cronin in visiting Christchurch without his permission and taking an active part on behalf of Prohibition in the present campaign. In addition, Bishop Brodie has stated that Father Cronin’s action has not the approval of ecclesiastical authority. The decision of the Bishop is conveyed in a circular letter, which has been sent out to all clergy in charge of various churches in the Diocese, and which is to be read before the various congregations on Sunday. In the course* of his letter, Bishop Brodie says: “I can onlv regard Father- Cronin’s conduct with pity and sadness, and must regretfully ask you, for grave reasons, not to allow him to celebrate Mass in any church or chapel of your district, or to allow him to have the hospitality of your presbytery. It is the duty of priests to refrain from any words or action which could be construed into approval of Father Cronin’s strange conduct, or which would convey the impression that his action has the approval of ecclesiastical authority.”

THE REV. FATHER CRONIN’S SPEECH. The Rev. Father Cronin was one of the speakers at a large gathering at the Colosseum in Christchurch on Monday evening in furtherance of the Prohibition campaign, Mr W, D. Bayley, the Canadian orator, being also a speaker. The Rev. Father Cronin was accorded a most hearty reception. This was, he said, the best congregation that he had seen for a long time. (Laughter.) He explained that he stood there because he lived in a free country and because he had very strong ideas on the question that had to be answered on April 10. Whose authority had he to come and speak. He had his own. He alone was responsible. He had the opportunity to know, in the towns of Lancashire, what the drink could do. That had been enough to make him a Prohibitionist. He believed that there was a common impression that Roman Catholics were against prohibition. He believed, too, that there was something in that. Why? Because of the false impressions circulated by the other side. He himself had been rather shy of this movement in the past, until he had the guarantee of the Act that wine foV sacramental purposes would not be interfered with. To a Catholic the Mass was sacred, so he had to he careful that there was no interference th<*re. But a Catholic was quite as free as any other man, beyond the one matter of sacramental wine, to vote as he pleased on this matter. Prohibition was not antiCatholic, On that he thought that he could uot do better than quote the Rev. Father O’Callaghan, who was for seven years president of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America. Father O’Callaghan had been intimately associated with the leaders in the prohibition movement for a long time,, and ho was absolutely convinced of t ] /.eir good faith. “They wish to abolish the beverage use of alcohol, and they say so,” Father 0 Callaghan said. “They do not desire to interfere with the sacramental use of wine, or with any man’s religious beliefs. This is their declaration, and they are honest men, who are to be behoved. The liquor interests of the country flatter fawn upon the Catholics, telling them that they (the Catholics) are liberal-minded as compared other religions denominations, and telling them also that it is the desire of the Prohibitionists to abolish the use of alcohol for all purposes, including the sacramental use. Many of the Catholic leaders fall victims 'to this flattery and to their fears. Others, who are in the pay of the liquor interests, use their influence to spread ' abroad false impressions of the motives and aims of the Prohibitionists. And so the falsehood is disseminated. That is why Catholics think that prohibition j s anti“And,” said Father Cronin, my opinion is that the sain© reasons hold good here.” He would challenge or defy anyone to say that a Catholic was not free to exercise his vote as he pleased when the sacramental wine was assured him.

To the Catholics Father Cronin appealed to consider the gravity of the position. They were free to vote as they liked, and if they did not vote drink out, the community would be quite justified in blaming' them for the itUlure. *