Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 14 July 1910, Page 1089

Current Topics

Some Pertinent Queries One of the most interesting chapters in that fascinating work, A Modern Pilgrim’s Progress— which we have often commended as one of the most acute and at the same time most profound books of its kind, well worthy to rank with the Apologia of Newman that in which the author describes the results of• her investigation of Materialism and Evolution and her experience of ‘the insoluble difficulties which these theories present when put forward as a complete explanation of the origin of the universe. ‘ Darwin told me,’ she says, ‘that each creature possessed sufficient instinct to accomplish its destiny and produce the highest results of which, under given environments, its organism was capable, but he did not tell me who implanted the law by which such evolution took place. I was too ignorant of science to weigh the details by which he proved his principles. . . Yet I saw that evolution implies the existence of intelligence, and that some one must have started matter on its journey through time and have determined what its course was to be. I realised that even if the whole cosmic drama were evolved from primitive atoms, those atoms needed a Creator whose intelligence had endowed them with potentiality of development and guided the course of their evolution. . . I wanted to know who gave to the atoms the power to concert in order to attain an end not yet realised, and the laws that governed the attainment of that end; who gave them their purpose and caused that combined activity of physical causes of which order was the product. More easily could I imagine the type in a printer’s room concerting to produce the poems of Dante, than “primordial atoms initiating the work of the world’s creation,” and when I read of atoms and of force which caused their evolution, I wanted to know who made the atoms and who originated the force which caused them to evolve.’

These are pertinent questions, but materialistic science has no answer to them. It may furnish us with a certain amount of information as to the How, but the Why is left unexplained; and the truer scientists with the clearer vision frankly acknowledge the limitations of the realm over which Science holds sway, and see behind Nature Nature’s God. Thus, even Huxley tells us that ‘ science is as clear as the Bible about an Eternal of Whose infinite process of evolution the visible universe is a fragment Lord Kelvin, that ‘ overpowering proofs of intelligence and benevolent design lie around ms, showing us through Nature the influence of a free will and teaching us that all living beings depend upon one everlasting Creator and Ruler ’; and Sir William Siemens, that ‘ all knowledge must lead up to one great result, an intelligent recognition of the Creator through His works.’

The Church in America In the course of the historical hodge-podge which constituted the earlier portion of his ‘ Addresses to Business Men,’ the Rev. Dr. Henry made some disparaging remarks regarding the numbers and influence of the Catholic Church in America. He statedso we are informed —that the Catholics in the United States numbered less than twelve millions; and, according to the reports in the daily press, the whole burden of his song was that Protestant-influence, and Protestant influence only, was the essential factor in bringing about America’s ‘ greatness.’ Such glaring misstatements could only spring either from ignorance or from a deeply-rooted bigotry and prejudice, particularly unbecoming in one who comes as a spiritual leader and teacher of the people. The Rev. Dr. Henry, we understand, himself hails from America, so —with the facts staring him in the faceignorance on the matter would be impossible, and we are compelled to fall back on the other explanation.

The facts and figures regarding the position of the Church in the United States have been given many times in these columns and the mighty growth of Catholicism which they disclose is such as ought to set even Dr. Henry thinking. We give the statistics once again, in the convenient summary form in 'which they appeared some short time ago in the religious page of our contemporary, the Otago Daily Times. We quote from our contemporary: ‘ The Catholic Church continues to advance under the Stars and Stripes. According to statistics given in advance sheets' of the Official Catholic Directory, there are now 14,347,027 Catholics in the United States, showing a gain of 111,576 over the figures presented to the public a year ago. Adding to the number of Catholics in the United States proper those of the Philippines, Porto Rico, and the Hawaiian Islands, the total number of Catholics under the

United States flag is 22,587,079. The power of the Catholics throughout the Union may be gauged from the following figures. The Catholic population of the State of New York is no less than 2,722,647. Pennsylvania comes second with 1,491,766. Illinois follows closely with 1,443,752, Massachusetts is next with 1,373,772. Most of the other States contain a large proportion of Catholics. The State of Minnesota has a Catholic population of 427,627, California 391,500, and even Texas has more than a quarter of a million. In the city of Chicago the Catholic churches number 187, and in the city of New York 138. Flourishing as Catholic institutions in the United States are, the most promising aspect of the Catholic position is the progressiveness of the Catholics in all that affects the nation’s welfare. They take the lead in great movements, and easily prove by their united action that they are the most powerful religious body in the country.’ In view of the narrowness of spirit and utter recklessness of statement which have marked so many of these midday addresses, it is little wonder that, in spite of all the booming, the attendance is steadily dwindling.

The Henry-Potts Mission Judging by the number of criticisms which have appeared during the week, the Henry-Potts mission is gradually finding its level, and it is evident that the ‘boom’ reports which have everywhere accompanied it are far from being a reliable index either of the quality or of the dimensions of the work that is being done. Even the evangelist’s own religionists 1 are now turning on him. Thus ‘ A Believer in the Bible,’ writing in Thursday’s Otago Daily Times, declares that ‘ if evangelists like Dr. Henry would-, give less rein to their imaginations, and declare what the Holy Scriptures reveal as to the future of our race (i.e., the whole human race), they would be more consistent than in pandering to the conceit of the British-speaking portion, flattering them that they are to be the most prominent nations.’ And he adds the pointed query: ‘ What answer to —Who among the nations are considered by God to be foreigners?’

The lack of even a modicum of the virtue of Christian patience and considerateness on the part of the missioner has also been somewhat marked during these latter days; and the. unpleasant remarks, called out by Dr. Henry such as, Let the chaff blow away ’—to people who had occasion to leave the hall before the conclusion of the preacher’s address, have, to our personal knowledge, been keenly felt by some who were, as a matter of fact, sincerely interested in the mission. On this aspect of the missioner’s ‘personality,’ ‘ Civis,’ in Saturday’s Otago Daily Times, has the following entertaining comments :— ‘ The Henry-Potts Mission, though booming like “Madame Butterfly” and the Fuller Pictures, §hows a regrettable “ touchiness.” Attending Henry-Potts you have to be careful of your exits and your entrances. . . When Henry-Potts is in process of saving a soul, not so much as a foot must move. Imagine yourself looking on at a surgical operation of extreme delicacy— are to hang over it in breathless silence. Read this: “ Just as the missioner was delivering his peroration a number of persons went out rather noisily. Dr. Henry broke off to protest against such callousness as to the effort being made to bring sinners to conversion, declaring it to be heartless in the extreme.” Heartless, because to the conversion of the sinners then in hand Dr. Henry’s peroration was indispensable. A curious fact. But that being so, why didn’t he go on with it? It is a poor peroration that so easily comes to grief. “What,” be thundered, “do these people who have just left care about the salvation of the people in this building?” Which appalling question the people who had just left were obviously not there to answer. Answering on their behalf, I suggest that some of them were people who felt that they had heard enough and didn’t, care for perorations; and that some were people who had to catch a train. Our railway time-tables have not been adjusted to. the exigencies of Garrison Hall soul-saving. That being so, we may desire for the Henry-Potts Mission an even temper, and perorations that can survive a partially seceding audience.’

Prize Fighters and their Money The historic contest is over, and the aftermath—in the shape of brutal murders and racial riotsis eternally disgraceful to all concerned in it. The solitary redeeming feature of the contest was the manly spirit apparently shown by the combatants at the close. The alleged personal bad bloodabout which we had heard so much—was evidently manufactured by the press agents who were paid by interested parties to invent fairy tales to keep up interest and excitement in connection' with the affair. Johnson’s willingness to shake hands and let by-gones be by-gones, and Jeffries’s ungrudging tribute to the black man’s superiority,

form the one aspect of the exhibition that can be contemplated with satisfaction. For the rest, the evidence now coming to hand shows that Jeffries must have gone into the ring knowing for certain that he had not a possible chance of success. Right up to the last moment the world was told that Jeff.’ could come back’had in fact 1 come back.’ Then on the very eve of the contest it leaked out that there was fat on the lungs, and fat over the heart, and fat around the kidneys that could not be removed. This is the explanation of Jeffries’s statement that as soon as the first round began he knew he was a beaten man. As a matter of fact he must have known it long before.

For submitting himself to be a chopping-block for the negro, Jeffrieswho, by the way, is the son of a clergyman —receives at least £20,000, and unless the pictures prove a frost, he is to receive a further £25,000 as his share of the proceeds of the cinematograph shows. Unless he is different from most of his class the money is not likely to do him much good. The vast sums that have been made by some of the champion prize-fighters have usually been quickly squandered; and the fast living which is such a common accompaniment of the prize-fighter’s career has killed off more than one of the front-rankers. It is little more than a year ago, if we remember rightly, that a young man, said to have been far and away the cleverest boxer. Australia ever produced, died in Melbourne as the result of excessa physical and moral wreck. According to an American authority the recent untimely death of Willus Britt, Stanley Ketchell’s young manager —who fought Corbett and ‘ Battling ’ Nelson partly due to sudden wealth easily acquired. Britt, always a soldier of fortune, took Ketchell to the Eastern States early last year, and arranged two contests with Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, which netted about £6250. Of this amount the reckless young manager received nearly a third, and with it he proceeded to go the pace. Nothing was too good for him. Wine suppers, automobiles, fine clothes, and other luxuries soon reduced his bank roll, and when Ketchell failed to knock Papke out inside of twenty rounds Britt lost £625 in wagers —all that was left. He borrowed more money and bet every dollar of it on Ketchell to beat Jack Johnson at Colmar. When the big negro won by a knockout Britt was penniless, his vision of a great fortune was gone, and his heart was broken. It was the old story. Squandered wealth earned in pugilism had sown the seeds of early death.

There is probably no class of persons supported by the public who live in such reckless luxury as star pugilists and their close associates. A great fighter may reign only for a few years at the head of his class, but during that period he is generally what the Americans call ‘ a high roller,’ and goes the pace. John L. Sullivan, for example, —who figured in the recent contest as the first man to congratulate the negro —is said to have been one of the most luxurious champions that ever appeared inside the ropes. He lived literally like a prince. He ate and drank like a modern Falstaff, and has been known in his palmy days to dispose of a quart of whiskey at a sitting. The result was that from a rawboned, muscular young giant he became a ponderous elephant, prematurely old, weighing more than 235 pounds. His kidneys and liver became diseased and his physician ordered him to cut out liquor entirely or die. For very good reasons Sullivan didn’t want to die, so he swore off and hasn’t touched a drop since. It is estimated that he ran through a quarter of a million of money before he settled down and began to save. With a few honorable exceptions, such as Tommy Burns and one or two —exceptions which, in this case, really prove the present-day fighters all show a disposition to ‘gang the same gait.’ Jeffries, Johnson, Ketchell, and Nelson, who like to have the best, own automobiles and use them incessantly. They all know how to live well, and when out of training none of them keep down expenses. Johnson in particular scatters his coin like a nabob, and spends it absolutely as fast as he gets it. According to report, Ketchell, who acted as timekeeper in the Johnson- contest, has gone through practically all his ring earnings, and will either have to pawn his motor or borrow, in order to raise the wind. For decent, clean-living young fellows the obvious moral is that, even from the point of view of mere money-getting, the prizering—in spite of the big stakes and the dazzling prospects—is a very good place to keep away from.

Archbishop Carr Scores His Grace Archbishop Carr, has just exposed and repulsed a particularly mean and underhand attack on a Melbourne Catholic Orphanage School — attack which if left unanswered and unresisted would have done im-

mense injury to Catholic educational institutions not only in the city, but throughout the State, The history of the calumny, and of its refutation, were detailed by the Archbishop at the 11 o’clock Mass on Sunday, June 19, and we summarise the facts from the full reports appearing in our Melbourne contemporaries, the Advocate and the Tribune The attack began by the appearance in the Melbourne Age of a statement to the effect that in one of the Catholic convent schools two children who had been educated for eighteen months, on subsequently going to a State school, were found to be so backward that one had to be placed in the infant class and the other, aged eleven years, was so ignorant that she could not distinguish one letter of the alphabet from another. The school was described simply as a convent school. This was followed the next day by a long paragraph in the same paper, headed ‘ The Education Bill,’ with a sub-heading ‘ State Examination of Private Schools.’ In the course of the paragraph the statement of the previous day, regarding the two girls, was repeated, and it was added that the case raised the question as to what the State was doing in order to see that all children received a proper education, and then it was further added that the Minister of Education had stated that the question of examining all schools, private as well as public, was under consideration in connection with the drafting of the new Education Bill. The object of these insidious paragraphs was apparently not only to calumniate the Catholic school, but to jockey the Minister of Education into establishing State inspection of all private educational institutions.

At once on the very day on which the charge was repeated against the school the Archbishop asked for an immediate examination, and on the following day an inspection was made. It was made by a State school inspector assistant head State school inspector — and the report which he sent in to the department was a triumphant refutation of every charge brought against the school. For the staffing, organisation, and the work of the school generally, the inspector had nothing but words of approval and praise. ‘ The organisation generally is that obtaining in a successful State school. During inspection the business of the school proceeded with quiet industry. The teaching was purposeful. It conformed to approved methods. From the quality of the pupils’ responses during the current lessons, and the lessons given at my request, and from an inspection of the recorded work in the children’s books, I am of opinion that the progress being made by the school is substantial.’ And much more to the same effect, without one word of fault-finding or criticism. * Regarding the special case of the two children referred to in the press paragraph, the inspector’s inquiry elicited the following facts:— (l) That instead of two children attending the convent school, only one of the children attended, so that at once 50 per cent, of the charge failed. (2) The convent school referred to as not an ordinary convent school, but was the orphanage school of South Melbourne; and an orphanage school — poor orphans coming at various ages and in various stages of educationis obviously on a different footing , from an ordinary school. (3) The child referred to was nine years and five months old when she entered, and she never attended school before. She was, moreover, what the teacher delicately called a girl of low mentality. (4) Nevertheless, with all those obstacles, it was found that she not only knew the letters of the alphabet, but was able to read and write short sentences when she left the orphanage school. This was proved not merely by the teachers at the school, but also by the headmaster of the State school at St. Kilda, to ; which she went after being away from the orphanage for six months. He testified that the girl was of low intelligence, but that she showed an acquaintance with the elements of reading, writing, and the rudiments of arithmetic. (5) The girl’s name was not Brophy, as stated, but Churchill; and she was not a Catholic child, neither was her parent a Catholic. She was registered as a Protestant, and it was a remarkable thing, as his Grace pointed out, 1 that the only institutions that had done anything for her was a Catholic school and the Catholic Church, and the only reward received : for that consideration was abuse and an insinuation regarding the inefficiency of their schools.’ * i : Thus on every point these malicious charges, when investigated by competent and impartial authority, broke completely down. Thanks to the wise and prompt action taken by Archbishop Carr, not only has the particular calumny been refuted, but the all-round efficiency of the institution attacked has been so thoroughly and conspicuously established that the public cannot fail to be more than ever impressed with the splendid work that is being done. And just as all other Catholic schools would have been implicated in the discredit and injury which would have re-

suited had the charges been established, so Victorian Catholic institutions generally will share in the enhanced reputation which accrues on the triumphant vindication of the South Melbourne Orphanage. The only point which has not yet been finally cleared up is the question as to how such venomous statements could find their way into an influential and reputable daily like the Melbourne Age. That aspect of the matter is still under investigation, and doubtless before very long the responsibility for this cowardly and unmanly attack will be duly and definitely sheeted home.