"THE ROMAN CHURCH AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS."

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VII, Issue 382, 13 August 1880, Page 7

"THE ROMAN CHURCH AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS."

Rev. Dr. George E. Ellis in the Unitarian Review for May treats of the above theme, and his essay has been lauded as a valuable contribution to current thought, yet, save as warning the Catholic clergy to comply with the humour of our time, we fail to detect its value. His first sentence recognizes virgin America as a fair field for the competition without fear or favour of all Christian denominations, the best to triumph at last purely by its merits ; his last sentence utters the following dire threat : — " In case of any embittered opening of a deplorable strife, in which the Roman priesthood should be held to threaten our institutions, the fiercest element of the struggle would come into it with a party larger than the discipleship of the Roman communion, composed of those who are outside of all religious folds. Nothing would so intensify the scorn and hate and the power of mischief of these ■ outsiders as a rallying cry to defend American institutions against priestcraft." Dr. Ellis is an efficient and amiable representative of our Unitarian fellow-citizens, and from such a source such a threat might Burprise us ; yet, coming from whatever source it may, it is of no consequence, for Catholics are not to be frightened by Chinese tactics. That the Catholic clergy were held to "threaten our institutions" has always been the legend of numskulls too indolent or to timid to learn any truth about the Church, down to the last outburst, that of Know-Nothingism, in 1856, when Massachusetts awoke after an election to find herself clothed in motley, her State House filled by nobodies oath-bound to put down the Catholic Church. In that crisis true Americans from all sides sprang to our defence, and by sheer contempt and ridicule disarmed the boor-legislators and stung them back to their native obscurity. Can Dr. Ellis calmly predict another similar outbreak of rancour ? We think he does Massachusetts injustice. If it shall come perchance we may again be defended ; if not, why, we are numerous enough to defend ourselves. Dr. Ellis's main quarrel with the Church is, it seems, on the school question, and his delivery upon it is curious enough. He pays it was always supposed the Church would become, by the influence cf ! "our institutions," changed, liberalised ; and Protestants have waited trustfully for that result, only to be disappointed, however, save in the great loss of children of Catholic parents through the influences of the common schools. These loses have been indeed consoling, but the provoking Catholic clergy have become determined to arrest and resist them, so that, "We are now called to face the alternative, whether what represents a foreign and uncongenial, ecclesiastical system, presenting itself amonp us in its priestly and lay organisations, shall adapt itself to our established etatutary institutions, or shall change and subvert them." Then, unless the Catholic clergy are content to see Catholic children perverted by means of common schools they may resign themselves to be mobbed ! Aud this thieat is politely offered them by an eminent Unitarian minister. We have called Dr. Ellis's effort curious. He first sayp, " sime Protestants have incautiovsly averred their belief that our school f-ysteni would subvert Romanism," then himself immediately announces the glad tidings that that happy effect is being realised, but cries woe to our clergy if they should object to the subversion. Dr. Ellis then proceeds to arraign these very effectual schools, and wants them changed ever so much. He adds that most of thoseamong us who can afford it, send their children to private schools, and this not from sectarian motives, but, chiefly, " because so many parents of our native stock are unwilling to have their children subjected to the proximity of companions often uncouth, unwholesome, and rough in manners of a foreign stock." Thus, although the sacied public schools are abandoned to the children of foreigners and of such poor native trash as cannot afford better, and although their influence is so effectual to pervert the former from the religion of their parents, yet we Catholics are to object to them only on our peril ! Really, it is difficiilt to reply calmly to such effrontery as this. Dr. Ellis surely pays our patience and good nature a profound tribute.— Pilot.

The last days of May were filled up in the Prussian Parliament by the discussion on the first leading of the new May Law. The Conservatives and National Liberals spoke in fuvoui of it, but Dr. Windthorst, the leader of the Catholic party, took a very different view of the case. Handing over to the executive the power of carrying existing laws into execution or leaviug them in abeyance is, on his showing, a constitutional monstrosity. Permissive laws are one thing, but laws that may be complied with or made fools of at the option of any individual minipter are quite another. The following words summarise his argument : — Assuming this new law to be passed, the Government might at any time, if the Catholic party in the Parliament vote against them, wreak their vengeance on the Catholic Church and its pastors, turn our bishops out of their sees and our priests out of their livings. We demand just laws, and no arbitrary power. This is precisely the same thing that we said in our issue of last week, and which has been echoed and re-echoed by all the Catholic journals of Europe. For the present the bill has been referred to a select committee, and when it cornea out we shall see what Bismarck really means.— Universe,

•' Atticus," in the leader; pays :— The real hero of the Glenrowan tragedy, in my opinion, is Father Gibney. That plucky priest marched straight into the blazing hoase, not knowing but that he might be shot dead at any instant, in the mere hope of administering the last rites of his church to the dying criminals. That is where the Catholics have the advantage of other folks. I cannot imagine the Keverend Mr. Howler, or the pious prig who bangs the pulpit of a dissenting meeting-house, doing anything of the kind. It appears that Father Gibney was on his way to solicit subscriptions for a charity. If the people ©f Victoria — Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics — do not make that subscription list a good one, lam mistaken in them. If ever the ruin of a nation was effected by a dynasty, Italy has certainly been ruined by the House of Savoy. Even the Daily Nerrt speaks now of " the keen misery which oppresses the people of Italy." It goes on to say : " In Florence the men and women have a starved 100k — their faces are sallow and livid — they have subsisted too long on black bread (and little of that) with water." It concludes thus : " But Tuscany is prosperous compared with the north, where starvation has produced a new disease. . . . Taxes are wrung from peasants who are literally starving." The Daily Newt unmistakably hints at a revolution, and before the end comes some such convulsion must visit this unhappy land. The ills under which Italy is Buffering are so terrible that a much less excitable people would be driven by them into all the horrors of civil strife. A. disappointed looker-on is inclined to ask why should Florentines and' Sicilians starve in order that a Savoyard and a crowd of brigands fiom Piedmont should feast sumptuously and live liotously in the dominions of the Sovereign Pontiff ?—? — Universe,