DR. BAKEWELL IN CONTRADICTION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 32, 7 December 1883, Page 25

DR. BAKEWELL IN CONTRADICTION.

TO THE EDITOE OF THE N.Z. TABLET.

Sir, — In your papor of yesterday you published under the heading of " Canterbury Catholic Literary Society," the following paragraph :— " Dr. Bakewell proposed a resolution censuring the Council of the Society because they let the rooms to a non-Catholic body — the National League, — his contention being that the League was condemned by the Holy See, in support of which statement he read numerous extracts from English papers, and from the Dublin Mail and Express" I am a little surprised that even -with your prejudices against England and Englishmen, you did not suspect that this paragraph must contain some gross misstatement. Was it in the least likely that an educated English Catholic would contend that the National Irish League had been condemned by the Holy See 1 Would he have reft^i" extracts from English papers "to prove that it was 7 The staAnent is simply a falsehood. I never " contended " for any such at^- 1 proposition. 1 may surely be credited with sufficient intelligence and education, to prevent me from going before an assembly of Catholics and "'contending that the National Irish League was condemned by the Holy See." Fortunately, anticipating some possibility of falsehoods like this being published, I carefully wrote out what I intended to say, and read from the manuscript my speech in support of my resolution. I send you an exact copy of the speech as read. It was met by a cataract of vulgar personality and abuse, but not by a word of argument, so that I had no need to reply. You can publish it if you like, but I don't suppose that you will like. — I am, etc., R. H. Bakewell, M.D. Cashel street, Christchurch, Dec. 1, 1883. Mr. President, — The importance of the subject which I have to bring before the Society, and the necessity of carefully guarding the language I shall employ, has induced me to put into writing what I am about to say, so that there may be no mistake about the words I shall use, and also that I may not be hurried into expressions which I might afterwards regret. The motion which I propose expresses the regret with which the Society learns that the Council has permitted the use of our rooms by a non-Catholic and political organisation, and desires that no further meetings of .that or of any other non-Catholic organisation may be allowed in our rooms. I need hardly call the attention of this meeting to the fact that our Society is strictly and exclusively a Catholic Society, More than this, by the rules we are required to be all practising Catholics, by which I presume is meant that we must all be Catholics who have at least complied with our Easter obligations, and nofc merely Catholics in name. All our meetings are by the rules commenced and ended with prayer, arfd we also have a Catholic priest appointed by the parish priest as chaplain. It will also be admitted, I think, without dispute, that the National League of Ireland is a non-Catholic organisation, intended to pursue certain political ends. My endeavour will be to show that it is neither wise nor prudent for us to permit the meetings of such an association in our rooms. Ist. Because, by so doing, we, to a certain extent, manifest our approval of an organisation which is viewed with great dislike by the large majority of persons amongst whom we have to live. 2nd. Because that organisation ip, rightly or wrongly, looked upon by n on- Catholics as one of which the Holy See disapproves. 3rd. Because, such being the case, we are seemiDg to set omv-elves — an exclusively Catholic Society — in opposition to the expressed wishes and opinion of the Holy See. With respect to the first of these reasons I need not say much. It is perfectly notorious and indisputable that the Irish National League and its objects are viewed with detestation by Englishmen of all classes and of almost every shade of politics. (I read an article from the Times of Sept. 28.) Individually, lam one of the few Englishmen who advocate Home Rule for Ireland, not for the sake of Ireland, but for the sake of my native country. I firmly believe that Home Rule would lead immediately to the separation of Ireland from the British Tffimpiic, and, as an Englishman, I think such an event would be greatly to the benefit of England. I may also say that, believing as I do, that the majority of the Irish nation are in favour of recovering their national independence, and holding it to be a wrongful deed to keep any nation which, like Ireland, is geogjjffihically and ethnologically a distinct nation, under subjection by JWuain force, I should rejoice to see my country make some amends for centuries of misgovernment, by restoring to the Irish nation freely and frankly her independence^ Whether such a result would be ultimately beneficial to Ireland is another question, into which I do not feel called upon to enter, and, indeed, I only make this confession of my political creed for the purpose of showing that I do not, as an individual, Eec anything wrong in the main object of the League. But I feeLbound to say that I am in a very small minority. Very few, indeed, of my countrymen hold these views, although I think the number is gradually increasing. The vast majority consider the National League as merely a successor of the Land League, which they hold, and I share that view, as having been the cause of all the disorders and crimes which have disgraced Ireland for the last three years. Now, such being their opinion, is it wise or prudent for us who live amongst them, a small minority, owing our religious freedom to their tolerance, to provoke them into coupling the Catholic religion and the Catholic cause with an agitation which they abhor and an organisation which they view with detestation ? We are here allowed the freest possible exercise of our religion, ' There is not a so-called Catholic

country in the world in which the Church is so perfectly free ai she is in the British colonies, or in which her property and spiritual privileges are so safe. One grievance alone we have to complain of, and that is that we are forced to pay for the support of the State schools, to which we cannot send our children. But what is that compared with the oppression and tyranny under which the Cburch labours in France or Belgium, or the spoliations of Spain, Portugal, or Italy, or the necessity, as in all these countries, in Germany, and Austro-Hungary, of being subject to State control and interference in the appointment of bishops 1 Now a strong feeling is arising and increasing every day amongßt thinking people against the irreligious education system. Sensible people are beginning to sac the evils of it, aud there can hardly be a doubt that before many years are over our heads some modification of it will be adopted. That *iodification, if we are wise, prudent, and charitable in our language, cannot fail to be favourable to our claims. But if we make it clearly seen that Catholicism in this Colony means Irish nationalism, and that the Irish National League is virtually here an organisation conterminous with the Catholic Church, we shall arouse a feeling of dislike and prejudice against us as Catholics of which we have hitherto had no experience. For allow me to say that I know of no part of the British territory where there is so little of what I may call social prejudice against ths Church as there is here. I have been in a colony where national feelings divided Catholics and nonCatholics, and intensified into the bitterest hate the prejudices which naturally arise. In that colony, although the Catholics were the large majority, yet being politically the weaker, the Church had to suffer. In England I can safely say that the prejudice against Catholicism was, until a few years ago, most intense. Bat it was a religious prejudice ; it was not a social one, or a national one. Owing to the spread of indifferentisni, infidelity, and agnosticism, that prejudice has greatly subsided, and is now a thing of the past amongst educated people. But amongst the unedusated it still exists in a much stronger form than anything we have here. I now proceed to the second reason, which is that the organisation of the National League is looked upon, rightly or wrongly, by nonCatholics as one of •which the Holy See disapproves. Here you must allow me first to quote -the Papal Circular, and then from some English papers. (See Public Opinion of May 19 and 26 ; Grap7bic, Sept). I say rightly or wrongly— it is not for me to judge which — these extracts show that Protestants think the Pope disapproves of the National League. When priests and bishops differ it is not for a layman to decide. But this Ido know from my extensive perusal of the English papers, that the formation of this League under the headship of Mr. Parnell, himself the associate of men like Gatnbetta, Rochefort, Cleinanceau, is looked upon by nou-Catholics as a proof that the Irish nation is breaking away from its traditional obedience to the Holy See. It is considered that after the strong disapproval expressed by the Papal Circular of the testimonial to Mr. Paraell, and after the prohibition to bishops ani priests ts take parb in it, it cannot fail to be displeasing to the Holy Father to find au organisation, of which Mr. Parnell is the head, warmly support ed by large numbeis of Catholic Irishmen. Ultra- Protestants exalt over this as a proof that Ireland is " breaking loose from the shackles of Romish superstition, and emancipating herself from the eccksiastical yoke which has so long pressed her down." That there is some truth in this view is evident from what I heard in the church at Kumara on my recent visit to the West Coast. The priest (Father Walshe) complained that the box for Peter's Pence contained less than 10a, and said that no doubt this was owing to political reasons, but at the same time reminded his congregation that by refusing to contribute to the Peter's Pence, they were not injuring the Pope himself personally, so much as impeding the working of tne Catholic Church. I believe that the Kumara congregation contributed £140 to Mr. JRedmond'sfund. Nevertheless, I make no doubt that many pious and devout Catholics have joined the League or contributed to its fun Is from the purest motives of patriotism. All that I assert is that on the face of it, and seeing what was said about the Papal Circular, and looking to the abstention from subscribing to Peter's Pence, it is not to be wondered at, if non-Catholics consider that the organisation is one of which the Holy Father disapproves. I now -come to the third and last reason for moving this resolution. It is that, such being the view of non-Catholics, we — an exclusively Catholic Society — are seeming to set ourselves in opposition to the expressed wishes and opinions of the Holy See. In order to avoid, as* much as possible, anything that may appear pei sonal to anyone here present, let me put a case which will be similar to that we are considering. Let xxg suppose that a league or association were established in AlsaceLorraine, having for its avowed object to obtain the reunion of those provinces to Franca by constitutional agitation, and not by force of arms. Such a league would of necessity comprise both Protestants and Catholics. It would have friends in France ; in Paris the whole of the extreme Radical party would be in its favour so far as it went — they would go much farther — but they would be content to use it as far as they could. And suppose that in the present difficult and delicate state of the relations of the Holy See and Germany, the Holy Father were appealed to to use his influence to prevent bishops ana priests from joining in this perfectly legitimate agitation. Suppose that, influenced by considerations into which we cannot presume to enter, be were to issue an encyclical prohibiting all bishops and priests from joining in the agitation and from favouring it in any way ; and, then, suppose that directly this was done the Catholic laity of Alsace-Lon-aine and of France were to take up the agitation most warmly, hold meetings (if sucn things were allowed, as of course they would not be), subscribe mest liberally, and, finally, were to permit the rooms of exclusively Catholic Societies to be used ioi the purpose of the agitation — should we not say that they were creating a scandal ? — That they were allowing their feelings as patriots to overcome the duty of respect and obedience they owe to the utterances of the Holy See ; and that however much they might deplore the necessity that was laid on the Vicar of Christ to issue such an edict they should loyally obey them, not only in the letter, but in the spirit 7 Should we not applaud their self-denial, and rejoice in their faith and obedience if they did so 1 But I am putting a muc

weaker case than I think I have. The National League, whatever its ostensible objects may be, comprises amongst its leaders men, who, by the violence of their language and the extreme nature of their denunciations of landlordism, seem to fall under the condemnation of the Holy See. And, unquestionably, since the revival of this League, agrarian outrages and disturbances of the most serious and fatal character have occurred. I would, therefore, beg the Society to remove what I feel sure will create a prejudice in the minds of non- Catholics here, and. will give rise, I feel sure, to an opinion that this Catholic Society is a sympathiser with those who would boldly disregard the precepts of the Holy See in all matters not strictly of faith, forgetful that we owe obedience in matters of discipline as well. I will now leave the matter in the hands of the meeting, begging them to accept my assurance that in what I have said I have no intention of saying anything uncharitable, and expressing my regret if any word has fallen from me which is contrary to charity. As Dr. Bakewell affirms that his arraignment of the Irish National- League was not met by argument, we think it but just to publish the replies actually made, and which were forwarded to us in a more lengthy report than that which appeared in our last issue. — Reasons we judged sufficient prevented us from giving insertion to the report in question : — Mr. D. A, Sullivan rose to oppose the motion on the ground that the line of argument which the mover had taken entirely erroneous and misleading. The League meetings here not be said to be illegal while they were held in the very heart Jof England. The members of the League were composed of men of all shades of religious opinions, and if Mr. Parnell, in his public capacity, had to meet "with men in France who were infidels and atheists, it must be borne in mind that he was also the friend and associate of some of the wisest and the best of the Irish Episcopacy and priesthood. He then went on to review, in a very able manner the good that Mr. Parnell and the League had done in Ireland, and sat down amidst loud bursts of applause. Mr. Leahy rose to oppose tbe motion on the ground that it amounted to a vote of censure on the Council. The question arose • " Had the Council the right io let their rooms to tbe Irish National League ot not?" If they had a right to do so, then this motion need not be discussed any further, and if they had not, this was not the very best way in the world to convince them of their error. He thought the motion was one that should never be brought before this meeting. He would therefore give it his opposition. Mr. E. O'Connor opposed the motion, and took occasion to question the prudence of the mover in dragging in the Pope's Encyclical into the debate to support his proposition. There was grent stress laid on the duty of Catholics to obey the Encyclical of His Holiness but he begged to remind the meeting that there were very divided opinions on that document. With regard to the state of feeling in outside circles about the action of the League, he did not attach much importance to it. There was a great deal said about tbe Catholic religion in England. He thought that the Catholic Church would not be very prosperous in England to-day if the support of the Irish was withdrawn from it. Mr. Nolan, who, by the way, is a member of the Council, rose, and it was evident that the delate was now waxing hot, for it was several moments before he could speak, owing to the clapping oE hands and cheering through the haU. He begged, for the information of those members who had been told that the Encyclical must not be criticised in that meeting, to give them the teaching of the Church on those documents, Bellarmine taught that it was possible for a Pope, even as Pope, and with his own assembly of Counsellois, or with General Council to eir in particular controversies of fact, which chiefly depend on human information, and testimony; and. s condly, it was possible for him, as a private doctor to err even on questions of faith and morals. He then d. fiued the dogma of the Infallibility, showii.g that the Pope must speak, Ist as Supreme Teacher; 2ud, to the whole Church ; 3id. Defining Doctrine ; 4th, to be held by the whole Church ; and scb, in faith ana morals. " When any of these five conditions were wanting it would be contrary to Catholic teaching to say th it the utterances of t l c Pope were ex Cathedra," He contended that the late Encyclical was just such a document; namely, one that entirely depended for its integrity on human iuformation, which in the present instinct, coming from the sources it did, was naturally misleading. His* Holiness on this occasion derived his infortnatiou from an authority which was admittedly unreliable. He re^r tted very much that Dr. Bakewell could have thought fit to bring this motion before the Society. It was in exceedingly bad taste, and coul 1 only result in causing a certain amount of ill-feeling among the members. It was difficult to discuss the motion on its merits, for it led into subjects which ought never to have been brought up in that Society. Surely Dr. Bakewell did not mean to affirm that an organisation which was entirely '^fcipostd of Catholics, aud at which a Catholic Driest asJme.l at its last meeting was non- Catholic. If so," then the Literary Society itself was non.Catholic. A great deal was attempted to be made out of the religious liberty which Catholics enjoy in this Colony. Did the doctor need to be informed that that vaunted religious liberty which he now enjoys is entirely owing to the faith, to the zeal, to the eloquence and to the patriotism of Irishmen, to the ancestors and fellowcountrymen of those whose liberties he would now wish to curtail 1 He boasted that he would like to see Ireland get all she was asking for, in fact he thought that if England cut Ireland adrift it would be a vrry good thing for England, and he, moreover, said that he, for one;, would like to see Ireland get Home Eule ; but, said the speaker, when 1 asked Dr. Bakewell if he had gone to see Mr. Eedmond, (when Hat gentleman was in Cbristchurcb), he turned from me in disgust, as if he had been asked to d > something that was inexpressibly repugnant to his feelings. This is the man who would be glad to tee Ii eland get all that she is asking for, who would be glad to see her get Home Rule, who would be glad, as he says, to see England cut her adrift, and yet when one of her representatives

comes out to these colonies to try by legal and constitutional means to attain these ends, he would positively rather see the very d himself than see that man ! There was a great deal made of the crimes -which stained the calendar of Ireland since the beginning of the present agitation. A leading article appeared in lattThursdays Mar, raking up all the crimes committed in Ireland duiing tbe lait month. The speaker took the trouble to look over the files of the English papers for tbe same time, and the result of hia search showed that there were ten times tbe number of murders committed m England— in peaceful, hapuy, law-abiding England, — in the same time that there were in Ireland. He would give the motion his most etrenuous opposition.