Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 10 March 1910, Page 369

Current Topics

The snub Polite At one of last week’s morning sittings of the New Zealand Methodist Conference the secretary read a letter from an Orange Lodge, in which was contained a charge that a minister of the Methodist Church was having his family educated at a convent. ‘Of course we know nothing of this,’ said the secretary. He curtly moved that the letter be ‘received.’ This was done without further comment, and the lodge’s ‘charge’ was promptly hustled out. » Cold douches seem rather to be the order of the day Just now so far as the saffron sash fraternity are concerned. For example: Mr. Robinson Snowball, Victoria’s chief sectarian—or as the Bulletin calls him, ‘chief insectarian and tne high priest of Orangeism in Australia, made a speech at a recent Orange picnic in which he alleged : (1) That the Catholic Church wielded a sectarian influence in the Australian Natives’ Association. (2) That he was an opponent of the three-party system in Parliament. (3) That he was, above all things, a Liberal; and (4) That he (Snowball) advised the electors to make the Bible-in-schools question the governing issue at the Council elections in May. Then, one by one, says the Bulletin, four little avalanches fell on Brother Robinson Snowball’s swelled head and protruded chest:—(l) The A.N.A. Lodge in his own district passed a curt resolution to the effect that Snowball was an alias for Ananias; (2) Treasurer Watt observed that he (Robinson Snowball) had joined a Conservative third party constructed in the last days of the recent session; (3) The same Minister said that Snowball had persistently voted against the Government’s Land Tax Bill, though elected as a Government supporter; and (4) Various people told Robinson Snowball that, as the Liberal party had decided to fight the Council elections on the land-tax issue, his advice to make something else the test was the advice of a traitor. All of which seems to show that the public about sick of the incessant ‘ anti-Rome ’ racket of the ‘ brethren.’ The Latest * Text * Non-Catholic preachers, who have not a clearly-defined body of doctrine and an arrangement of Gospels and Epistles for the day to fall back upon, sometimes find a difficulty in the selection of a topic, and occasionally in their desire to be appropriate and up-to-date they happen upon texts which we would regard as distinctly odd. We have read, for example, of a minister who when asked to preach the funeral sermon for a murdered clergyman (the Rev. Mr. Plow) took as his text ‘So He giveth His beloved sleep.’ We have heard of the American preacher who, on the death of Abraham Lincoln, preached from the sentence, ‘Abraham is dead.’ We have read of an eminent London ministerthe Rev. Mr. Martin, of Westminster Chapel— once preached from the passage in Job, ‘Am I a sea or a whale P ’ —and if we might be allowed, en x>assant, to express an opinion we should certainly say he was a whale! And we have heard of the clergyman ■who celebrated the decease of a deacon who had always been rather cantankerous in Church affairs, by a tirade from the Averse, ‘ And it came to pass that the beggar died.’ But all these ‘ pale their ineffectual fires ’ in the splendor of the achievement of an American Methodist minister, the Rev. John Timbrell, who, as reported in the New York Freeman's Journal, selected recently as his text, Can Jeffries Come Back and Beat the Big Black Gorilla ? * For the benefit of those who are not acquainted with the recent history of the prize ring it may be necessary to explain that Jeffries is an ex-champion pugilist who, with an unbeaten record, retired from the championship in favor of one Tommy Burns; that Burns, after a brief but very lucrative career as champion, was lately beaten by one Jack Johnson, a negro—the ‘Big Black Gorilla of the ‘text’ — and that now Jeffries has agreed to stand up in a ring in three or four months’ time — San Fransisco,

on July 4, to be precise—and fight the negro pugilist to e ermine which of them is the better bruiser. Here is how the Rev. Tirabrell puts it in his sermon: The pugilistic crowd is looking the world over to find some champion who can stand up to the gorilla and down him, and take the belt, which means about the same thing to these modern heathens as the wreath of laurel meant in the Corinthian games. And with desperation in their glance they turn to Jeffries with this question, which means far more than a laurel wreath to them— Jeffries come r C j The text’ was used doubtless for. the purpose of drawing’ a congregation, but though it may have ( tlcled i the ears of the groundlings 5 it must surely have made the judicious grieve.’ A Protestant congregation of fifty years ago, we are persuaded, would never have listened to such a sermon on such a test without manifesting the most intense indignation. What the Germans Say We have little time for the ‘ yellow journalism ’ of the Daily Mail and still less for Mr. Robert Blatchford in his new role of militarist and alarmist, but it cannot be denied, that the series of articles on the * German peril ’ which he has contributed to the London daily have been taken very seriously indeed by the more thoughtful section of the British public. A number of representative and non-partisan New Zealanders, who happen to be in London just now after ‘ doing ’ the Continent, have expressed themselves to a press interviewer as greatly impressed with the gravity of the situation and with the extent and completeness of the German preparations for a struggle; while Mr. Balfour himselfone of the most unemotional and least hysterical of men—in a recent speech at Hanley gave his hearers the following piece of plain-speaking on the matter. ‘ Let me say to my own friends here, between these four seas, that unless they bestir themselves Great Britain will be in a position of peril which it has not been in in the memory of their fathers, their grandfathers, or their great-grandfathers, and if that position of peril should issue in some great catastrophe—which may Heaven forbid! it is a catastrophe __ from which, if it does once occur, this country will not easily arise.’ * Under the circumstances it would be interesting to know what the average educated German feels and thinks on the question, but this is not so easy to ascertain. Assuming that the Germans are preparing for a contest it is obviously to the interest of official Germany to officially and even vehemently deny the fact. Hence it is not surprising, and not very convincing, to find the President of the German Group of the Union officially contradicting ‘ the wholly unfounded allegations of the militarist English press with regard to the German programme ’ and the chairman of ‘ Krupps ’ explaining that the 28,000 hands —referred to by Mr. Blatchford—employed at the Essen works are not new employees, but have been on the staff since 1906. Other writers and speakers, however, untramelled by official ties, have been less diplomatic in their utterances. Herr Harden, for example, an outspoken and independent writer, has, in an article in the Zukunjt, frankly confirmed Mr. Balfour’s statement. ‘ Mr. Balfour,’ writes Herr Harden, ‘ whom only an ass would describe as a mere instigator to strifeknows where the land lies; otherwise he would not venture so far. The statement that he has offended international decorum and approached the assiduous Blatchford—who, as demagogue et demi , was indispensable as a counterpart to Mr. LloydGeorgeis pure nonsense. I believe that if I were an Englishman I should think and speak just as Mr. Balfour does. He has made his reverence to Germany; he wishes to avoid war; but he does not want his country to be dependent on the goodwill or the Jllwill of any other Power, and therefore wishes to open the eyes of the indolent masses as soon as possible to the danger that is approaching if they will not pay a higher premium for the security of their possessions. That an Anglo-German war is considered in the Chancelleries of nearly all countries as probable is true. It is also perfectly true that there are people in this country who are of opinion that the German sword must riddle a Custom Tariff which would exclude our

wares from the whole British Empire. Why do we deny these facts?’ * Equally candid, and equally interesting as an exposition of the opinion, not of the Jingoes and Chauvinists of the Fatherland, hut of serious and high-minded Germans, is the following letter, which, under the heading of ‘ The German Danger,’ was printed in the London Spectator. It was written by a typical educated German, and runs thus: ‘Sir, —Will you allow a German to say a few words on this subject? There is one law which governs us all, nations and individuals, worlds and molecules law of the survival of the fittest. This law is the basis of all development: it is merciless and brutal, but at the same time divinely just and grand. Not the Emperor of Germany nor the English Prime Minister creates the future of our two nations. If the present British generation proves so unworthy of their fathers as to forget their duty towards their past and their future, then the law of the survival of the fittest will deal out a merciless revenge, using the German nation or any other nation for its purpose. As soon as England is weak enough, somebody (Germans or other nations) will, and must, step into the gap to serve the aims of development. I have known England for twenty years, and have made your country'a special study. During the time I have heard a great deal of talk I have witnessed an enormous amount of pretension but cannot see any improvement. The average Englishman of our time expects everything from his country without recognising any duty at all. Remember, you cannot rule the seas by pretending to be the ruler, but only by doing the work of a ruler, and proving the strength of the same. Yours, etc., A German.’ The Spectator considers that ‘ this striking letter ’ contains a much-needed lesson,’ and it entirely endorses the warning which the German writer conveys. The London weekly adds: ‘ That the Germans are a kindly and noble people we do not doubt, and we are sure that the writer of the above letter is a good example of the best part of the German people. Yet, with the characteristic metaphysic of his race, he holds that we are devoted to destruction because of our alleged degeneration, and that “as soon as England is .weak enough Germans or other nations” will become the instruments of Almighty Providence, and will sweep us away. Here, writ plain, is the reason why we cannot rely upon the goodwill of the Germans not to attack us if we become “weak enough.”’ Some Criticisms An esteemed correspondent writes to us to express the view that ‘ The average Catholic, in mixing with Protestants of various denominations, does far more harm to the Catholic Church than he or she would believe.’ *lt was only the other day,’ our correspondent remarks, 1 1 heard the question put to a Catholic girl who had been as a day scholar to one of our convents, and . who, one would think, ought to know what the plain teaching of the Church is on such an important subject as to “ whether Catholics were allowed to read the Bible?” and her answer was to all intents and purposes in the negative. During the discussion that followed on the subject I was assured by a Protestant friend, that out of half a dozen Catholic girls, he would easily be able to get three or four of them to make the same reply. Believing that this was a statement made on the impulse of the moment, I arranged for the same question to be asked in front of another girl, also with a fair knowledge of the teachings and doctrines of her Church, and, to my astonishment, her manner in replying to so simple a question left a. most uncomfortable impression on the Protestants present diffidence and hesitation shown, the apparent lack of knowledge on the subject, led me to the conclusion that there is something evidently lacking in the instruction our girls are receiving in the convent schools in New Zealand. One would think it would be easy enough for a girl, of average intelligence when asked “are Catholics allowed to read the Bible?” to reply, “not only allowed but enjoined to do so; it is considered inadvisable to allow the Old Testament to be read till the age of discretion is reached, but in all our schools Old Testament history is thoroughly taught.” ’

We can quite believe our correspondent’s account «.£ her experiences in questioning the Catholic children, while at the same time we wholly dissent from the inference which she has drawn. It is a notorious fact that under the fire of oral— especially of unexpectedinterrogation children almost never do themselves justice. One of the most heart-breaking, and at the same time one of the commonest, experiences which school teachers have to undergo is to see their best pupils, under oral questioning on examination day, giving the strangest and silliest answers to queries which under normal circumstances they would have answered letter-perfect. Sometimes it is nervousness Avhich is the cause of the trouble, as in the case of the boy who, when the Inspector asked ‘ Who discovered America’? tremblingly replied, ‘Please, sir, ’tAvasn’t me Sometimes it is sheer misunderstanding of the terms of the question, as in the case of the girl interrogated by the late Lord Shaftesbury. Visiting a school one day the great philanthropist put his hand gently on a little girl’s shoulder and asked, in Scriptural phrase, ‘ Well, my little woman, who made this vile body ? To which the little woman promptly replied ‘ Please, sir, mother made the body and ’Liza Simpson made the skirt.’ Sometimes it is over-eagerness—the fault of the boy who will speak before he thinks. An instance of this is narrated by Dean Hole, who records that when on one occasion he inquired from a Sunday School class what proof we had of St. Peter’s repentance, a boy, without a moment’s delay, replied: ‘ Please, sir, he crowed three times.’ Still more commonly the cause of the surprising answers often given by children is to be found in the opposite qualitya diffidence and hesitancy, making the child unwilling to answer at all and leading her eventually to give the negative or affirmative answer,, which, from the form of the question, she thinks the questioner expects. This we take .to be the explanation of the indecisive and hesitating responses in the cases referred to by our correspondent. As we have said, we have no difficulty in accepting our correspondent’s account of the unsatisfactory nature of the answers received, but in view of the ease with which children are flustered and of their general unreliability under oral cross-examination Ave cannot allow that the facts by any means w r arrant the somewhat sweeping inference which our correspondent has drawn. If she is still unconvinced, Ave would suggest that she should try the experiment of plying some of the children attending non-Catholic Sunday schools with similar questions. Let her ask Anglican school children, for example, to say off-hand whether their Church teaches Apostolical Succession, and if so, what does she mean by it; Avhether their Church teaches the Real Presence, and if so, Avhat does she mean by it; hoAv many Sacraments there; are infants regenerated in Baptism or are they not; are * members of the Anglican Church alloAved to go to confession; and so on. Or let Presbyterian children be called upon at a moment’s notice to explain Avhat their Church means by ‘ effectual calling (Question 31 in the ‘ Shorter Catechism ’); or to state whether they believe in ‘ predestination,’ and if so, Avhat do they mean by it (Question 20 in ‘Shorter Catechism’); or to explain what their Church ‘ justification ’ (Question 33 in ‘ Shorter Catechism ’). We believe that the children in the Anglican and Presbyterian Sunday Schools are taught with all possible earnestness and diligence, but we are quite satisfied that if our correspondent Avill try the experiment we suggest, she will possibly in an even higher degree—the same stammering, diffidence, and hesitancy Avhich she has already encountered ■ * ■ “ *' Our correspondent also complains- that Catholics are sometimes to be found ‘ sitting composedly on the benches of non-Catholic churches’; and she asks: Why is this? Why should we blazon to the Avorld the lie, that to us, each Church is as good as another ? Doubtless instances of this sort of thing do happen here and there, but their occurrence is on the whole so infrequent and rare that we are justified in describing such cases as isolated and excep-tional-due, as our correspondent says, to lack of instruction on the part of the particular individual concerned. As a matter of fact it is much more frequently our very loyalty in this regard that is thrown up against us as a reproachwe are usually censured because, while non-

Catholics are quite willing to come to our churches whenever they feel so disposed, Catholics are not willing ,to return the compliment by going to any other churches. We consider that our correspondent is nearer the mark when she says that £ the average Catholic is not equipped to speak of the truth that is in him.” ’ That is, in the main, a true bill. It arises partly from a very reprehensible mental laziness, and partly from the very certitude which Catholics have that their faith is true. That distinguished convert. Father Benson— his admirable controversial work, The Religion of the Plain Man— makes the priest say to the intending convert : ‘lt may be that you will think we are lacking in zeal; but you must remember that the occasional appearance of that rises not from our want of faith but from our supreme possession of it. We are so absolutely secure and confident that at times perhaps we do become a little unwary.’ At the same time, in a mixed community such as ours it is undoubtedly in the highest degree desirable that our Catholic young men and women should be thoroughly instructed in the why and wherefore of Catholic belief, so as to be able, in any emergency, to give a clear and intelligent reason for the faith, that is in them. In this connection we are glad to note that as the result of a meeting of Catholic graduates from the various New Zealand University Colleges held early last year at Wellington, it was decided to form an association to be known as the Newman Society of New Zealand, the objects of which are, in part, to promote the interests of higher education amongst Catholics, to hold lectures on Catholic doctrine, and to form reading circles for the reading and discussion of current Catholic literature. We hope the work of the Newman Society will be pushed on with vigor, and that it wilHfind an ever-increasing sphere of activity and usefulness.