Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 27 April 1911, Page 757

Current Topics

The * Ne Temere ’ Decree In spite of the copious explanations that have been given, and of the voluminous discussions that have taken place, in connection with the decree Ne Temere, there are still a few people of limited intelligence, and of still more doubtful sincerity, who affect to believeand who try to make others believe—that the decree condemns all Protestant marriages as invalid, and also that, by virtue of the decree, the Catholic party to a mixed marriage not solemnised by a priest is absolutely released from the obligations to the non-Catholic party which arise under the civil law. On these two points, the words used by the Bishop of Galloway (Scotland), in his Lenten Pastoral to the clergy and laity of his diocese, put the matter so clearly and explicitly that the simplest reader is left without excuse for further misunderstanding. "We especially commend to our readers’ attention the Bishop's reference to the second point mentioned above, in respect to which his Lordship, if he does not actually break new ground, at least puts the subject in a new light. * ‘ We may remind those,’ says his Lordship, ‘ who accuse us of condemning Protestant marriages, that the very contrary of "that is the truth. The Church has expressly declared that she does not refer to the marriages of Protestants in the Ne Temere Decree of 1908, but freely accepts as lawful and valid those marriages which Protestants for themselves hold to bo such. The Church’s legislation applies to Catholics only. But someone may object that, in the case of a mixed the Decree brands the Protestant party as an infamous person living in sin. 1 reply that the Decree contains no such doctrine or insinuation; because it expressly excludes non-Catholics from its purview; but it distinctly declares that the Catholic party, who has violated the solemn law for the celebration of marriage, is living in sin. The two conditions are perfectly possible; one party may be in absolute good faith, while the other may be living in direct opposition to the dictates of his conscience. In saying so, the Church, however, does not, as has been falsely stated by some of our traducers, release the Catholic from whatever obligations he by his irregular conduct freely took upon himself towards the nonCatholic party under the civil law; he is legally married, and the civil obligations thereby undertaken certainly bind him until the secular authority, whose sanction alone he sought, is pleased to relieve him, which 1 should think is very unlikely.’ * A Conspiracy of Silence The brethren of the saffron sash have been holding conference and sweet converse in Christchurch during Easter week; and in spite of the usual expressions of self-satisfac-tion and mutual admiration, an unmistakable minor note could be detected running through the proceedings. The explanation came out at last in the course of a 1 banquet ’ given to the officers of the Grand Lodge. There—amidst the feast of reason and the flow of soul’ —one would have imagined that even Orangemen might have managed to be cheerful. But there was a skeleton at the feasttheir glorious, pious, and immortal feelings had been hurt in a very tender place. The brethren have for years been nursing a grievance and at last it has found voice. The wicked press, in New Zealand in general and in Christchurch in particular, have quite refused to take the Orange Society seriously has been in fact ‘ a conspiracy of silence ’ against them. The cause of the trouble was not even hinted atpresumably because it was taken for granted—but it appears that there can be no possible doubt about the fact. Hear the lamentation of Grand Master Bro. 11. Meredith on the point: —‘ In the course of an address at a banquet to the officers of the Grand Lodge of the Orange Order last evening,’ says the press report, ‘ the Grand Master, Bro. R. Meredith, bitterly complained of the attitude of the majority of New Zealand newspapers towards the Order, and particularly, mentioned the morning journals of Christchurch as showing bias against Orangemen. These journals, lie said, had deteriorated considerably during the past forty years. At the time when the late Mr. Edward Fitzgerald edited one of these papers the utterances of great men in the Home land on the twelfth of July anniversary were cabled to New Zealand and published in the Christchurch newspapers. He regretted exceedingly the difficulty which had been experienced during the present Grand Lodge session in obtaining space to give publicity to the important questions under consideration, and the important decisions arrived at on these questions All that the Orange Order wanted from the newspapers was fair play, and they were entitled to it. A conspiracy of silence had been entered upon by the newspapers of the city of

Christchurch. He spoke with considerable and extensive knowledge of the history of Canterbury province and of Christchurch, and he regretted that the proprietors of the Christchurch newspapers had not considered it wise or prudent to allow a fair amount of space for the reports of the Orange institution.’ * As we have said, Bro. Meredith, in his jeremiad, does not hint at the cause of the present weepful state of affairs, but that cause is not far to seek. The Orange organisation is ignored by an enlightened public opinion, in the first place, because of its intrinsic insignificance. It is ignored, in the second place, because its methods — of noisy vituperation, coarse abuse, and underhand and unscrupulous attack— are recognised as being out of place in a reasonably civilised community. And it is ignored, in the third place, because its —that of fomenting religious strife and of keeping alive sectarian animosities which should have no place in this new land — is one which does not, and which never will, appeal to broad-minded New Zealanders. In a word, the Order is ignored because, from every point of view, it thoroughly deserves to be; and both it, and its portentous ‘ manifesto,’ will continue to De perfectly negligible quantities. Books About Spain Ever since' the recent revived interest in Spaindue to the violent anti-clerical developments in the policy of Senhor Canalej.as—a number of literary pedlers, with an eye to the main chance, have perpetrated books about that interesting country. The volumes announce themselves under such titles as ‘Spain from Within,’ ‘The Truth about Spain,’ ‘ Spain as She Is,’ etc. ; and almost invariably claim to impart first-hand and quite exclusive information on the subject. They are for the most, part written simply to sell and their authors are characterised by a perfectly obvious bias, by a weakness for wild exaggeration, and by a bountiful ignorance of the language, customs, institutions and spirit, of the people about whom they presume to rite. Airs. C. E. Jeffery, who, from many years’ residence amongst them, knows the Spanish people through and through, has contributed to the Liverpool Catholic Times a number of vigorous articles in refutation of the calumnies and prejudiced misstatements so freely circulated by the pot-boiling authors we have referred to. And now, in the issue of our contemporary just to hand, this writer gives us a terse and pithy description of how the thing is done—of precisely what it is that goes to the making of the average anti-Catholic ‘Book about Spain.’ ‘The genesis of all such books,’ she writes, ‘is not far to seek. The intending author of calumnies about Spain sets forth with the distinct object of discovering mares’ nests, and he discovers them. His equipment for his self-imposed task is simple. It consists of hatred of the Catholic Church, profound ignorance of the country and the people, boundless credulity, and a firm determination to shut his eyes to all he has not come to see, or which disagrees with his preconceived ideas. He takes with him a notebook and letters (u introduction to the sort of people who are likely to assist him, and who do assist him with information of a sort which would be invaluable to burn on a rubbish heap. Arrived in Spain, he at once seeks the headquarters of the nearest Baptist, Presbyterian, or Methodist missionary society s agent, running an evangelical schism shop in some obscure back slum; interviews the pastor and the pastor’s women folk, and asks them to state their views on the hpa lush hierarchy, Bishops, Cardinals, priests, the morals of the monks and nuns, and the whole state of religion in Spain. Naturally his entertainers receive him with open arms, and proceed to stuff him up with cock-and-bull stories tiJl his notebook bulges and he himself is like a crammed fowl at a Sussex poultry farm.’ * ‘ Having exhausted the stock of fables at the disposal ot the missionaries, the intending author of the book on Spain next scrapes acquaintance with the type of Spaniard he’requires to confirm them. The typo is not far to seek : it abounds in wine-shops, casinos, hotel bars, and billiard looms. I reeraasons, Socialists, anti-clericals, the enemies 0t religion and order, all are willing to smoke with him, and fill him to his fullest capacity with the sort of information’ he wants. They take his measure, and see that nothing is too gross, too monstrous, and too far-fetched tor him to believe, and so they conclude to fill him up. Then he returns to England, writes his book, and labels it Gospel Truth About Spam,” or something equally appropriate, and the British press applauds it in fulsome reviews just as they would any other drivel if only it libelled the Catholic Church and the Catholic clergy.’ Why We" Are Penalised : Some short time ago an influential Wellington paper—not the Evening Post- -sanely and sensibly remarked that the fact that, in addition to secular teaching, religious

instruction was given in the Catholic schools, was no reason why these should be penalised. Archbishop Kelly has just raised the same issue, and forcefully directed attention to precisely the same aspect of the education question, in New South Wales. In the course of a pointed and powerful address delivered at the opening of the annual conference of the H.A.C.B. Society, on March 29, his Grace remarked- ‘ We would be wanting in a due sense of liberty, we would be wanting in our duty to ourselves and country, unless we declare these schools of ours, in which children are taught what their parents wish them to be taught, are as much entitled to some recognition for the work done for the State, as the State schools endowed by the Minister of Education. (Loud applause.) Are we not Australian taxpayers bearing burdens? Is religion a nonentity? If it be a reality, must not religion be free ? Must there not be religious liberty in every well-governed land? Australia can never say “ We have liberty,” when schools up to tin secular standards are penalised because they are religious as well.’ , * Of course the. Archbishop was taken up in one of the dailies; this time it was the Sydney Daily Telegraph, which was incautious enough to challenge the statements made. In the course of an article entitled ‘ Penalising Religion,’ the Sydney paper remarked: “Wo have no religious liberty,” declares Archbishop Kelly, “while schools up to the standard in secular matters are penalised because they are religious as well.” If such schools.were penalised because they were religious, this would amount to a truism But when Archbishop Kelly states that anything of the kind is done in New South Wales he quite misleads those who may accept his guidance in this matter.’ To which the Archbishop made the following brief but complete and trenchant reply ‘ltis a penalty to deprive a citizen or a body of citizens of any civic advantage available by law or administration to the community. Thus, to withhold a full and fair participation in the public funds allotted for the advancement of secular instruction from any school in which the standards of the State in secular subjects is found to be followed is a penalisation of that school. Now, in New South Wales since 1883 the schools preferred by Catholics, especially by parents, although they work up to or beyond the required efficiency in secular matters, arc denied the fruits of their absolute and inherent civic right to share justly in the public disbursements of the Department of Public Instruction. Why? Simply and obviously because Catholic parents and all other faithful Catholics hold, have held, and will hold in all times and —that it is a religious duty of the first importance imposed on conscience by the natural law and by positive Divine command—in the Fourth Commandment — ensure that influences favorable to religion would permeate the primary schools above all other schools, and that this end requires the teachers, the manuals, and the management to be such as the pastors of the people can sanction. Here, therefore, is a penalty inflicted on account of a religious duty binding on every, conscience, and sanctioned by the rewards or punishments of the Divine Tribunal. Here, then, is an infringement upon religious liberty.’ We commend the weighty and logical considerations advanced by the Co-adjutor-Archbishop of Sydney to the notice of those“of our dailies who are fond of minimising if not of denying the utterly unjustifiable disabilities to which the Catholic body is subjected. The * Churchman ’ and the * Tablet ’ . The N.Z. Churchman Auckland Anglican monthly —-in its issue for April, makes reference to' the criticisms passed by us on a certain reprint article on ‘ English Church “Saints”,’ which had appeared in its columns. Our contemporary’s comments . are so courteous and conciliatory—not to say complimentary—-that further criticism is disarmed, and a controversial rejoinder becomes neither necessary nor possible. After saying sundry pleasant things regarding the Tablet, our contemporary proceeds; We would like, however, to point out to our friend, the Tablet, that what we insert in The Churchman is.for consideration and enlightenment of members of our own Church, and not for the purpose of attacking the Church of Rome or its members. Our conflict, if conflict it be, is not with Rome or its doings. Her position in relation to some of the matters. The Churchman unfortunately finds it necessary to discuss, is plain and clear. . . . Not being members of that Church, we have no right nor desire to challenge them there, Rome accepts and adopts them in honesty and openness ; but we have all right, desire, and determination to resist their introduction into the English Church.- Our concern is with 'the dupes or traitors within our own Communion. ... uh such an attitude we have, of course no quarrel;, and if it is fairly and reasonably carried out we have neither the right nor the desire to interfere in that which in no way concerns us. But when—as in the case under discussion—a formal and bitter attack is made

on the exclusively Catholic saints in the English calendar, and,an article is published bristling with such expressions as ‘ Popish idolatry and superstition,’ ‘ monkish fraud, silly and lying Popish legends,’ ‘Popish idolatry and false doctrine,’ etc., we are fully entitled to have our say. V , * ■ The Churchman concludes by commending to .us a perusal of a portion of Dr. Alexander Robertson’s book, entitled The Human Catholic Church in Italy. We know all about the Rev. Dr. Robertson; and should occasion call for it we are quite ready to vindicate the Catholic Church from his coarse calumnies. In the meantime, we have only to express onr disappointment and regret that any decent, honest-minded Anglican should feed his mind upon the garbage produced by the Venice mud-slinger. ' . "We will mention one fact which may serve to show our Auckland innocent the true character of his hero. There is published in Rome an infamous, anti-Christian, antitheistic, obscene sheet known as the Asino, owned and edited by one Signor Podrecca. It has been banned from, the United States, from the Australian Commonwealth, and— only two or three months ago—by the New Zealand Government from the Dominion, as an indecent publication. Let in his latest work, Dr. Robertson does not scruple to associate himself with this moral cancer-planter. In the preface to Ike Pupal Conquest : Italy's "Warning, he writes: ‘ My illustrations are taken from the Asino ... by kind permission of Signor Podrecca.’ Referring to this fact, the correspondent of the Saturday Review points out that Dr. Robertson was well aware of the character of the Asino, for he is minister of the Scotch Church in Venice and speaks Italian fluently. ‘ That any Christian minister ' says the Saturday Review writer, ‘should sullv his fingers by even touching this periodical is almost inconceivable, but how much more so that he should publish a work including illustrations, “by kind permission,” from its ignoble pages.’ Of the volume of Dr. Robertson’s which is especially commended for our delectation, we have only to say, in tho words of an exceedingly able English reviewer: ‘He has produced a book for bats and owls; who are the only people likely to find light in it. As a history, it is a lie As a be, it is poor. Dr. Robertson should take a course of Munchausen and Aristophanes; the first would broaden his mind, the second would sharpen his wit. On only one point can I agree with him; I do honestly believe he is a 11” ■though I should not interpret those two capitals, in all probability, as he does.’ . ’