TO YOUR TENTS, O ISRAEL?

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XX, Issue 18, 19 February 1892, Page 17

TO YOUR TENTS, O ISRAEL?

fHERE is our contemporary the Dunedin Evening Star as confident as ever he can be, and yet, at the same time, in a terrible fright. Oar contemporary is strong in the championship of Mr James Allen, and he does not care a straw about Dr Moran. He, however, thinks it right to be on the safe side. Even if the B'shop be altogether in the wrong box some flaw or another may still be discovered in the armour of Mr Jambs Allen, and then where will our worthy contemporary find himself ? But Dr Moran, according to our contemporary, is a " halfcrazy faddist," quite unworthy of the traditions of his Church. What the traditions of his Lordship's Church are, according to the interpretation of the Evening Star, we all know. Under a pretty triumvirate we should sit to learn their meaning. We fancy that Catholics will draw on some other sources for instruction as to what befits their Church and her prelates than the ultra-Evangelical stamp, the synagogue, and the pendulum, let us say, that vibrates between the Salvation Barracks and the Anglican Synod. We cannot call Mr Allen a weather-cock, for we do not think he is even good for telling in what direction (be wind is blowing. In our experience, in fact, of all the men who have made their way, or had it made for them, into public life in the colony, Mr James Allen has proved the most complete non-entity. And, by the way, Mr Allen himself owed his short period of Parliamentary existence to the Catholic vote. It was the Catholic vote given, not for him indeed, but against Sir Robert Stout, that put him into Parliament, as it was the Catholic vote given against him that put him out. We admit that the bottle-holders of Mr Allen may have some reason to distrust the Catholic vote. But to return to the Star. " The lamentable lack of the sense of proportion displayed in this procedure," says our contemporary, referring to Dr Moran and the block vote, " would be more fitting in a half-crazy faddist than in a bishop of the ( great historic Church/ " Is it not, on the contrary, the lamentable presence of the sense of proportion in the Bishop that, in truth, is bothering our contemporary ? The Bishop tells the Catholics of the colony that no Government can despise a proportion of voters amounting to 20,000, and that is exactly where the shoe pinches. The Star says he will not think anything at all of us if we follow the Bishop's advice, and what is morn, that he will thirk mighty little of a Catholic education. But, on the other hand, what would the Bishop think of the Catholics if they did not follow his advice, and, above all, what is the value of the Star's opinion with regard to Catholic education, or, for the matter of that, to education of any kind ? We know what our con-

temporary thinks of his Catholic fellow-colonists as it is. He could not think worse of us, but his bad thoughts do us no harm. And if he thinks Catholic education is any good at all he is acting a rascally part in offering it the systematic opposition for which he is accountable. Between the Evening Star and Dr Moran, Catholics can easily make their choice. As to the preference given by our contemporary to Mr Allen in the Anglican Synod, we have nothing to do with that. For all that concerns us, their majority, including the Bishops, mr y be the lot of uninfluential noodles, out of touch with the great body of their community, that, in effect, our contemporary describes. It is not our province either to attack or defend them. Our contemporary, however, in proposing the compromise he mentions, seems to betray some doubt on the subject. He, at the same time, inadvertently admits the complete godlessness of the secular schools. "No doubt," he says, " many desire some kind of recognition of religion in the schools, and, as w« have often observed, if the Anglican, Presbyterian, and other bodies could only unite in a specific demand, that demand would undoubtedly receive attention at the hands of Parliament." The nondescript jumble our contemporary proposes as what he calls " some kind of recognition of religion in the schools " — and a pretty kind of recognition it would be — l^ight be introduced there without altering the godless tone that the men who have determined to destroy religion are, at all hazards, resolved to maintain. To do the trueborn Briton justice, however, it is not in accordance with his character to adopt cowardly shifts like that. He may occasionally be very stupid, and he may often be a great bully, but there is little of the trickster or schemer about him. He will hardly try to cheat the devil in the dark by adopting such a device. The proposal, indeed, seems to us more worthy of the wiliness characteristic of Southern or Eastern peoples. It smacks of the secret lodges of Continental Europe, whence the decree for the destruction of religion, by means of godless schools, issued, and it is especially appropriate that it Should find a prominent place in our contemporary. The Star, as we know, is largely under the control of the influences by which those lodges are governed. Nor are we particularly concerned with the line of argument which our contemporary quotes from Mr Allen, speaking in the Synod. We had it all before, and a good deal more that we have by no means forgotten, when Mr Allen was coached by Mr Cohen for his late Parliamentary candidature. Mr Allen, indeed, was repaying Mr Cohen for his kindness in championing godlessness before the Synod. We have to congratulate the Anglican community on the leaders who essay to guide them. There is, however, a choice placed also before Catholics. — Dr Moran, on the one side ; the triumvirate, the Star, Mr Mark Cohen, and Mr James Allen, on the other. And the penalty ? Why, they will hold us in contempt and say our schools are no good if we reject their leadership ! They will laugh at us, forsooth. Well, let it be our part to see that their laughter partakes of the nature of the sardonic grin. Catholics can make them laugh at the wrong side of their mouths, as the saying is, if they stick together and act like men. They know this right well, and this is why they stigmatise Dr Moran as a " half-crazy faddist." If they could only make fools of us they might save the day.