Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 3 February 1910, Page 169

Current Topics

A * Self-Supporting ’ Occupation Says the Newfoundland Star : ‘ It does make us tired slang is excusable here—-to read the census reports giving he number of women “ engaged in self-supporting occupations, said list including clerks* typewriters, school teachers, etc., but not one wife and mother. As if the woman who darns her husband’s stockings, keeps the children’s faces clean, cooks for a family of a dozen, more or less, keeps the house in order, washes, irons, bakes, mends, sews, nurses the sick, spanks the erring, and keeps an eye on tne thousand and one things from early morning till late at P* gh “> an « then sleeps with one eye open lest Tommy kick the bed clothes off or baby shew signs of croup, were not self-supporting. But come to .think of it, she isn’t. She supports all the rest of the family, and, in nine cases out of ten, has neither time nor strength left to look out for ' herself. Checking Stage Indecency n Father Egan, S.J., preaching in St. Joseph’s Cathedral, Dunedin, a week or two ago on ‘ Social Duty and .Responsibility, remarked that it was surprising what valuable work could be done in the way of checking flagrant and public vice in a city by even a small body of Christian men if only they were united and in earnest. A timely illustration of the truth of the observation is furnished by the outcome of the action taken by the A.O.H. in Dublin with regard to a spectacle produced in a Dublin music hall during the month of November. According to the Hibernian Journal, a spectacle was presented in which the principal figure of the piece was exhibited in a condition of disgraceful nudity. The Ancient Order in Dublin, without any beating about the bush, communicated straight with he police, and had the satisfaction of receiving a letter from Dublin Castle intimating that the authorities, while not seeing, their way to institute criminal proceedings against either the theatre management or the individual in question, had effectually intervened by calling the attention of the management to the complaint made. The letter continues The proprietors of the Empire , Theatre, when spoken to yesterday, gave directions that the person playing the part referred to should be draped, and this was done last evening.’ It is added further: The exhibition complained of has not been persisted in, and it is not thought that the circumstances fully arrant criminal proceedings, but the management of the Empire Theatre will be warned as to the production of objectionable plays, and reminded of their obligations under the license granted by the Recorder, on annual renewal.’ The Ancient Order in other places than Dublin might take up the matter of drawing police attention to theatrical performances in cases where, in the interests of decency, police intervention is reasonably called for. * How far playwrights and stage managers are prepared to go—if left unchecked—in the matter of impropriety and 'offensiveness is shown by the performance at His Majesty’s Theatre, London, on Thursday, November 11, of a Mr. Synge’s two-act comedy called ‘The Tinker’s Wedding.’ What the play is like may be gauged from the following passage from the notice of the piece which appeared in the -Pall Mall Gazette : ‘ The fourth character is a parish priest, and he is as unsympathetic as the rest, being a tippler,- a money-grubber (he will marry the couple if they give him a sovereign, but not for ten shillings), and a poltroon. In the end the trio attack his reverence and tie his head in a sack ; and the curtain falls on the released Father calling down the curse of God upon them while they stand in the background mocking and laughing. We wonder has the play ever been produced in Ireland ? Surely it could please no one. The presentation of a degraded peasantry would irritate one half of the audience, while that of a degraded priesthood would offend the other.’ This Mr. Synge has already had one warning in the storm of indignation which was aroused in Dublin in the production of his ‘Playboy of the Western World’ at the Abbey Theatre. We would not for a good deal be a member of the company that undertakes to place ‘ The Tinker’s Wedding ’ on the boards in the Irish capital. The * Anti-Rome * Candidate , A well-known Sydney weekly, not remarkable for religious sentiment of any kind, but distinctly remarkable for hard, worldly common sense, scores with characteristic vigor and incisiveness the folly, , futility, and appalling waste of good energy involved in putting up candidates with nothing but ‘anti-Rome’ as their political plat-

form. Its article is headed ‘ A Candidate Who Might be Pro-Australian and is Only Anti-Rome.’ The particular candidate referred to is one William Wilks, M.H.R. for Dailey (N.S.W.), but the arguments advanced and the truths so bluntly expressed are quite , general in, their bearing and apply to the William Wilkses of all sorts and sizes wherever m these southern lands they may be found, Ibis particular William, it appears, had stood originally as a hreetrader; but he is not going to be a Freetrader any more, because, after a decade of Protection, he fancies that his constituents have come to the conclusion that Freetrade is a discredited policy. He next stood as an i° C 1 ist but tJl is cost him so many votes in 1906 bat he has lost enthusiasm for the cause, and declines to stand again on that battle-cry. So far as he has any political views at all, he appears to be really a ProtectionistLabonte, but he won’t stand in that capacity ‘because certain weird folk who support him are convinced, for some strange, wild old reason, that the Pope of Rome barracks for high tariffs and high wages in Australia.’ « And then the secular weekly takes up its entertaining, it unconventional, parable: ‘ And so the battle-cry of William Goat (that is to say, William Wilks) at the coming federal election is to be Down with . . . Rome,” or words to that effect. , , And yet it is sure that if William goat (that is to say, got) a 50 to one majority on this ticket he wouldn’t do a thing to the aged Italian city, or to the Vatican, or to the elderly divine who sits therein. It is doubtful if he would even go so far as the Sydney Watchman, the official organ of the anti-Rome brigade, did last year, and start a public subscription with the object of buying Rome and razing it to the ground. The betting is a million to one on that he doesn’t intend, at any time, to take steps to have the local Romanist schools and nunneries wiped outan essential preliminary to any honest movement in the direction of Rome-pulverising. The Cardinal will never be deported through William’s agency, nor will any of his Bishops. In plain words, William as a Rome-disconcerter is an arrant and flaming fraud. If he were returned to Parliament in “the Protestant interest” for 50 consecutive elections he wouldn’t assail Rome to the extent of bringing, about the disfranchisement of a solitary lay-brother. And yet, according to a recent news item: “It is anticipated that by the time of the commencement of the election campaign the Dailey Protestant Political League will have a committee engaged in earnest political work fully 2500 strong.” * ‘The tragedy of it! Two thousand five hundred people, mostly of the -working classes, are going to waste their time and money in a cause which is as palpably bogus as the crudest of gold brick swindles. Twenty-five hundred human beings are to canvass and argue and hurry about in the heat and offer drinks to total strangers, and otherwise toil like mad to secure Bill Whelks £l2 a week for feebly denouncing the North Pole or the Equator, or something equally meaningless. And they might be expending all this perspiration on behalf of a rep. who would direct his energies towards raising their standard of living, shortening their hours of labor, and otherwise furthering their material interests. The situation, in a State which spends over £1,000,000 a year trying to educate itself, seems as mad as a Christmas nightmare.’ The * YJVI.C.A. ’ The aggressive forward movement in connection with the various Young Men’s Christian Associations of New Zealand which was initiated some time ago by an organising secretary from the United Statesplentifully endowed with the spirit of American ‘hustle’ — being continued, and in Dunedin and in some of the other large centres ‘ supplementary ’ collections for sums ranging from £2OOO to £4OOO are being vigorously carried out. It is true that some critics have complained that in spite of the large sums that are being subscribed the latter-day Y.M.C.A., on its spiritual side, is a failure. ‘ The Association,’ writes a Christchurch member and supporter, ‘ is not doing the kind of work required; it fails in the fact that there is too much play and too little pray. I question the worth of such an institution, and consider it a hindrance rather than a help to the Church.’ But with the general merits or demerits of the organisation we have, of course, nothing to do if it is a failure, that is a matter for the Association itself and for the citizens who are so generously subscribing the £20,000 required in each of our four cities. As we have said before, the intentions of the promoters of the movement seem to be most excellent, and in their work amongst non-Catholic young men we wish them every measure of success.

But to our own young men it seems to be our duty ‘ right here ’ —as the American secretary would say—to sound a note of warning. It is one of the proud boasts of the Y.M.C.A. —and one of its strongest claims to public support —that it is ‘unsectarian.’ If by this is merely meant that no single one of the rival Protestant bodies has any special prominence or control in the management of the institution the claim may be fully justified by the fact. But if, by the use of the term ‘unsectarian,’ it is meant to be suggested that the atmosphere of the Association is absolutely non-Protestant, and that Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Gentile, will find their religious beliefs and susceptibilities all alike respected, then we* believe the claim to be open to the very gravest doubt. In this connection we quote a significant fact recordedand aptly dealt with —by the Boston Pilot of December 11. In an article headed ‘ Under False Colors,’ our contemporary says; ‘ To utter the word of distrust when any large popular movement is on foot is unpleasant. The impulse is rather to hold out the hand and to give encouragement. But at times such a course becomes a duty. The Y.M.C.A. is an institution that has enjoyed popular favor, and within its own sphere has accomplished great good, and we say “well done.” But when the Y.M.C.A., under false colorings, endeavors to proselytise our young people it challenges us and calls for an answer. For example, in New York, the Y.M.C.A. bulletin, entitled “ Twenty-third Street Men,” of last month contains such sentences as this: “Millions in Brazil, look upon the Virgin Mary as their Saviour.” It speaks sneeringly of the “ Superstition and Idolatry of the Brazilians, ridicules the Catholic doctrine of indulgences in the old hard cider way, and i« generally offensive to any Catholic who may chance to r«»ad it. It is this spirit, a spirit of “ tolerance,” embittered with condescension, pity, and contempt which renders the Y.M.C.A. untrustworthy as a gathering place for Catholic young men. As to its work with others than Catholics we have nothing to say, but our Catholic people ought to know that however loudly the Y.M.C.A. proclaims itself unsectarian, its actions and expressions indicate most undeniably that it holds to the Protestant doctrine, and that it offers a constant danger to the faith of any, young Catholic man who places himself under its influences.’ New Zealand is not, of course, to be held responsible for New York; but it is to be remembered that America is the home of the present-day Y.M.C.A. movement, and the parent institution naturally gives the lead and sets the tone for its offshoots. In all the chief centres our Catholic young men have excellent clubs and club-rooms of their own, and it is their plain and bounden duty to patronise them. * The Church in Politics ’ Under this heading our Dunedin evening contemporary of Thursday last publishes the following: denied as it is affirmed that the Catholic Church does bring influence to bear upon the voters at an election. The following statement, published in the London Daily "Telegraph for December 4, should go far to settle the controversy.’ Our contemporary then prints the following paragraph from the Daily Telegraph, which has appeared also in other New Zealand dailies : ‘ Most of the Roman Catholic Bishops have issued pastorals, in the course of which, among other things, reference is made to the impending dissolution of Parliament and the general election which will follow upon it. In these pastorals there is allusion in many cases to the position of the Roman Catholic schools, and to the desirability of electing members of Parliament pledged to secure fair treatment for them. One of the most noteworthy pastorals is that of the Bishop of Newport, in the course of which he says: “Let it be carefully noted that the use of the vote in defence and support of* the Church is obligatory on Catholics.” After pointing out that it is certain that no party will give to the Catholic Church all that she justly claims, Dr. Hedley proceeds: “ There is at least one principle which may be laid down for the guidance of Catholics in this country, as everywhere else. The Church has the right to intervene, even in practical politics, and when she speaks Catholics are bound to obey. By the Church is here meant the local authorities of the Churchthat is, the authorities which have the duty of deciding in grave and difficult emergencies example, the Bishops of the province. To contend that the Bishops may only pronounce upon abstract questions, and may not authoritatively direct their flocks to support or oppose a concrete and definite measure, or to vote for or against an existing ‘ party ’ at an election, is to paralyse the Church’s arm.” ’ * Our Dunedin contemporary having before it only the extract contained in its own exchange is not, of course, responsible for the Telegraph’s omissions or for the rather contemptible way in which a paragraph has been torn from its context in order to suggest a very different impression

from that which is conveyed by the pastoral as a whole. The idea suggested by, the Telegraph’s isolated extract, and implied also in the introductory paragraph quoted above, is that intervention on the part of the Church is the ordinary, normal, regular thing in all elections, whether there be .any moral or religious question at issue or riot. The whole trend of the pastoral, on the other hand, is to discriminate, to indicate that ‘ the Church has no commission to intervene in party politics as such,’ and to point out that it is only on the ‘ comparatively *are ’ occasions when politics touch her own domain— e.g., on matters connected with worship, education, or. the independence of the Holy Seethat.the Church claims the right to speak plainly and authoritatively. We propose to quote from the pastoral as it lies before us the paragraph immediately preceding and the paragraph immediately following that singled out by the Daily Telegraph, and readers will s'ee for themselves how different is the impression conveyed when the extract is placed in its proper setting, with the important limitations and modifications with which Dr. Hedley qualified his statements. After describing at length the Christian conception of the Church, Bishop Hedley lays it down explicitly that ‘ the Statethat is to say, the civil government of the country to which each of us belongsexists independently of the Church, and requires no sanction from her in order to make and enforce the laws and ordinances that concern civil administration. In these matters the Church, as such, does not meddle; and history and experience show that the stability and welfare of the civil government have never had anything to fear from the Catholic Church.’ The pastoral goes on to point out that ‘ at the same time, a Catholic, in the times in which we live, is bound to do his best to prevent bad laws. . . It is his duty to influence as far as he can both the legislature and the executive administration of his country, so as to avert persecution and to obtain due provision of religious and educational facilities.’ And it is in this connection— is, where there is question of persecution or of the withholding of due religious or educational facilitiesthat the preliminary statement, barely and baldly quoted by the Daily Telegraph, is made : ‘ Let it be carefully noted that the use of the vote in defence and support of the Church is obligatory on Catholics.’ * This brings us to the paragraph immediately preceding that quoted by the Daily Telegraph, and it runs as follows: ‘ It is true, at the same time, ‘that under political conditions such as we have in modern Britain it is not always easy to see plainly which way to vote. First of all, it is certain that no party will give the Catholic Church all that she justly claims. When one party is compared with another, we find good points and bad points in each. No party, even in the most important questions of religion and education, has any absolute and immutable programme, but are obliged to follow' the changes of popular opinion and the pressure of the more noisy politicians of the hour. The difficulty, then, with a Catholic is to choose, of two evils, that which is certainly the less. He is not to be blamed if in making up his mind, he is influenced by predilection for his own political friends, whose good-will and enlightened mind he thinks he has reason to trust. Neither should he be condemned when, under similar doubtful conditions, he thinks that by continuing to act with his own party in general politics, he may be able to mitigate their hostility to Catholicism, or to lessen the evil effects of their measures.’ Then comes the paragraph quoted by the Telegraph. ‘ But there is at least one principle which may be laid down for the guidance of Catholics in this country as everywhere else. The Church has the right to intervene, even in practical politics; and when she speaks, Catholics are bound to obey. By the Church is here meant the local authorities of the Churchthat is,' the authorities which have the duty of deciding in grave and difficult emergencies; for example, the Bishops of the Province. To contend that the Bishops may only pronounce upon abstract questions, and may not authoritatively direct their flocks to support or oppose a concrete and definite measure, or to vote for or against an existing “party” at an election, is to paralyse the Church’s arm.’ * And there the Daily Telegraph conveniently stopped, conveying, as we have said, the impression that all these general statements were made without any qualification. Had the paragraphist transcribed so much as the next two sentences he would have done justice to the pastoral and would have shown precisely in what sense and to what extent Bishop Hedley claimed for the Church the right to intervene in practical politics. It is conceded,’ continues the pastoral, 1 ‘ that the Church has no commission to intervene in party politics as such. But to say that she cannot speak plainly when the politics touch her own domainon such matters, for example, as worship, education, or the independence of the Holy See —is to deny to her • ✓

that prerogative of teaching and ruling in things spiritual which her Divine Founder has given her. Such pronouncements of the Hierarchy must always be comparatively rare —but when they are made, they are a law to the flock. It may be conceded that they should never be made, and they never are made, without full and dispassionate consultation with the flock, and especially with those leading Catholic laymen who so nobly live up to their Catholic profession. Finally, there is always the right of an appeal to the Holy See. But we must pray that the day may never come when, in an English-speaking country, any man or body of Catholics will refuse to obey the bishops when they think it necessary to make a formal declaration on any question of the hour which touches the welfare of souls or the interests of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.’ Taken in all its parts the pastoral is a particularly interesting, lucid, and comprehensive exposition of the general principles governing the whole question of the relations of Church and State.