Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 1 June 1911, Page 997

Current Topics

More About * Neutrality ’ The ideawhich was pressed home by Dr. Cleary in his Lenten Pastoral and in his subsequent controversy with the Evening Post —that there is no such thing possible as * neutrality ’ in regard to religion, where it is a question of education, is now being illustrated and emphasised in all directions. ’ S A short time ago we quoted from our able contemporary, America, a strong editorial expression of opinion in that direction, the moral in that / particular instance being drawn from a review of school legislation in France. In its latest issue the same paper relates an interesting incident in which the same lesson was enforced in a very unexpected quarterto the surprise, and, let us hope, to the enlightenment of the gathering of Socialist teachers who had invited the orator to bless the neutral schools. America, of 5 April 15, thus tells-the story: ‘A recently organised society of teachers in Brussels, Belgium, composed exclusively of Socialists and having as chief purpose the propagation of socialistic doctrines, was treated to an unlooked-for surprise in its first public meeting, held in the Maison du People in that city. M. de Brouckere, a militant Belgian Socialist, had been invited to address the gathering on the topic Neutral Schools. Expecting an entirely different treatment of the subject, the members of the society were amazed to find themselves listening to a speech proving the flat impossibility of neutrality i.e., of non-religious training in schools. The orator affirmed the impossibility on two heads: to defend such a system is to follow a vain dream, and in the supposition that the vain dream could be made a reality, its exponents would find themselves forced to close their schools. Neutral schools, he explained, so far from helping to spread the light of intelligence, must plunge their followers into abysmal darkness of ignorance. For,’ he continued, ‘neutrality in the matter of education must have one of two meanings: Either it supposes that its devotees hold no positive and fixed : opinions in all the questions of controversy of the day, orit simply forces them to banish from their programmes of study and to ignore such questions and to teach nothing that is in any way subject of discussion. M. de Brouckere, in a very effective analysis of neutrality, then proceeded to show how school training is radically impossible in either of the two suppositions. Whatever the speaker’s purpose, he certainly did a good work in pricking a bubble Socialists love to see floating above them.’ Controversial Derelicts ■ Many a time and oft has the N.Z. Tablet exposed the falsity and hollowness of those silly myths and calumnies about the Jesuits, which have been part of the bone and .sinew and marrow of the great Protestant tradition regarding the Order for the past three hundred years. Amongst the most famous and certainly the hardest-worked— of these Jesuit stage-bogeys have been the so-called ‘Jesuit Oath ’ —one of the many forgeries of the notorious Robert. Ware— and the alleged Manila. Secret a or Secret Instructions, which were fabricated by a Pcflish Jesuit called ;.Zahorowski, who had been expelled from the Society about the year : 1611. The first of these has been a particular iavorite with no-Popery zealots in New Zealand. It was given (as a genuine oath) at full length in an Auckland ;paper more than ten years ago; it has appeared, off and on, in various papers during the interval; and it was served up to us only last year in the Wanganui Chronicle. j.Let our Protestant champions take one long last look at these once-prized treasures for they have now been officially ‘retired,’ and have made their last authorised .appearance on the controversial stage. In the recently issued Protestant's Treasury, the English Protestant Press Bureau —of which a Mr. Le Lievre is secretary—which supplies material to the understrappers and hirelings who carry on, in con- : nection with sundry Protestant Alliances, an unsavory warfare against ‘ Pome,’ has, under pressure of nearly three centuries of refutation, at last expressly disowned these documents as forgeries, and has, so to speak, formally with-' ■ drawn them from the . Protestant armoury. ■-? * N And not these two only—there are others. The infamous "‘Letter of the Three Bishops’which purported to be a letter sent by three Bishops from Bologna, 1553, to Pope Julius ■ HI., urging him to prohibit all reading of the Gospel among .the people, inasmuch as they were beginning to discover ■the utter discrepancy between its teaching and th.' Romish doctrine! — has also been cast to the controversial ‘ scrapheap. Mr. Le Lievre has come to admitwhat the late Father Bridgett, _ C.SS.R., had long ago demonstrated that the whole thing is a fabrication, the letter having been

forged by an. apostate named Vergerio in Switzerland about 1550, and first published in England by a bitter enemy of Catholicism, William- Or ash aw. ‘ Other interesting fables and fabrications,’ ' says the Edinburgh Catholic, Herald, ‘ are interred with due. formality as dead and done for in The Protestant's Treasury, such as the 70,000-100,000 Huguenots massacred on St. Bartholomew’s Day the number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition, Princess Ena’s oath, and such like fairy tales.’ Some of our contemporaries are disposed to regard Mr. Le Lievre’s act of fairness as sign of grace, and as suggesting that, after all, the Ethiopian may change his skin and the leopard his spots. We would be glad if we could share this charitable view, and could hope that the Protestant Press Bureau is really turning over a new leaf. . Whether that be so or not, it is at any rate satisfactory to know that these hoary calumnies and forgeries have been publicly withdrawn; and we, at least, have no tears to shed over their demise. The Churches and Military^Training ' The Dunedin’ Presbytery, the Council of the Churches, the Y.M.C.A., and the majority of kindled non-Catholic religious bodies or organisations (Anglicans excepted) have, definitely, and in set terms declined to avail themselves of the conditions offered by the Defence Department in regard to the enrolment of senior cadet corps, their unwillingness being professedly based on the ground (a) that the proposal is in the direction of denominationalism, and (b) that the Church’s participation in this preparation for possible war —even to the limited extent of nominating an officer for a boys’ company incompatible with Christianity. With regard to the first, we have nothing to say except that—coming from such quarters — is certainly a mysterious objection. Every denomination presumably believes in itself. By its very existence it proclaims the denominational principle; and for a purely denominational body, such as a Presbytery, to object to a proposal because it appears to be in the direction of denominationalism seems about as reasonable and consistent as for a Socialist to object to a measure because it savours of Socialism, or for a. Protectionist to object to a proposal because it is in the direction of high tariff. J s • * In respect to the wider question, it is certainly the case that the Church —we speak, now, of course, of the historic Catholic —while she could not abolish war,, has always done ■ everything possible to : discourage' if- From the first she stripped it of its ; plumes and frills and gilding and set a stigma upon it. When the defence of public right called for war she rather condoned than consecrated it; and, says Lecky, ‘whatever might be the case with a few isolated prelates, the Church did nothing to increase or encourage it.’ From the earliest days no weapons were permitted within the sacred walls of her churches; and no cleric wasor is to this hour—allowed to bear arms. The calling of the soldier was. not, of course, regarded as sinful. But the calling was distinctly discouraged, partly through the new feeling as to the high value and enormous possibilities of human life, partly through the moral-or rather —atmosphere of camp and barrack life in those days, and partly, no doubt*- to the unexpressed or half-expressed hope of the coming of a perpetual peace which would aid in the spread of God’s kingdom upon earth. -j -■. ■ * Two chief occasions, however, arose in the history, of the Church when, in the interests of civilisation and of religion, she had to lean upon the military arm. One was in the days when the northern hordes had swooped down upon central and southern Europe, and there arose that conflict of races and paralysis of all government which followed the fall of the Roman Empire. The other occasion came when the Mohammedans had almost extirpated Christianity from its original home, swept the old civilisation out of a great part of Spain, and threatened to raise the crescent and trample the cross under foot over the whole of central and southern Europe. At a time when the power of resistance to their fierce inroads was paralysed by widespread panic, the voice of the Ropes alone was raised to secure unity in the distracted councils, of Christian States and to erect something like an effective Harrier against the wave of Saracen invasion which flowed and kept everflowing from the east. Through their efforts a limit .was at last set to the Saracen incursions, and with their blessing the Crusaders carried the war time and again into the enemy’s country. - Those were the times that witnessed the rise of those beau-ideals of the Christian soldier—knights of the Crusades and of the days of chivalry, such as live to us again in the pages of Sir Walter Scott. These were, however, exceptional and abnormal periods in the Church’s history. She blessed not so much the sword of the warrior as the sacred cause for which he fought; and the

temporary clasping of her gloved hand with the mailed fist of the soldier was riot, as Lecky points out, an expedient that suited her pacific nature, but a policy forced upon her ‘ by the terrors and the example of Mohammedanism.’ * Opposed as the Church has always been to the spirit of war, the calling of the soldier was not, as we have already said, regarded as sinful; and even the Dunedin Presbytery —though some of its members half hinted at it—would hardly be prepared to boldly affirm that all war is par sc unlawful. Those who, like the Quakers, deny altogether the lawfulness of war, on Scriptural grounds, are easily refuted; the case of the soldiers instructed in their duties by St. John the Baptist, and that of the military men whom Christ and His Apostles loved and familiarly conversed with, without a word to imply that their calling was unlawful, sufficiently prove the point. ‘Time would fail me,' says the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews,’ to tell of those who by faith conquered kingdoms . . . became valiant in Avar, put to flight the armies of the foreigners.! It would be better to-day, for good order in the community and for all the social virtues, that even numbers of lives should be lost in a just war, than that individuals should perish in the lawless riots and revolutions which multiply round the. Socialists who speak of universal peace. With all this said, Avar is an evil; and it is one which, in a large proportion of cases, is brought on a country, not because of its military strength, but because of its military weakness. The visible weakness of a nation is a perpetual temptation to its more powerful neighbours; and the justification of the Church’s approval and . sanction of military training is that adequate preparation for defence is, humanly speaking, the very best means available for preventing war. Spiritual Independence: Scotch Presbyterians and Rome The dust-storm of controversy over the Ne Tamara. decreet-initiated some time ago by the exploiters of the McCann casehas not yet completely died down. All over Scotland, Presbyteries are still busy condemning the measure; and recent cables from Sydney tell us of sundry vehement protests passed by various Protestant synods in New South Wales. It may help to preserve New Zealand Presbyteries and Conferences from falling into similar foolishness if the widest publicity be given to a remarkable ‘special article’ in a recent number of the ' Scotsman, in which that staid and sober journal severely rebukes Presbyterians for their ridiculous inconsistency in rebuking the Catholic Church for adhering to a principle which they themselves have always staunchly proclaimed and maintained. The article is so clearly and vigorously written, and is of such permanent value, that extensive quotation is more than justified. * There are,’ says the writer of the article (‘A Scottish Presbyterian’), in the Scotsman of April 8, ‘two exponents of the principles of spiritual independence which stand at the opposite extremes— Church of Rome and the United Free Church of Scotland. The attitude of the Church of Rome towards the State cannot bo better expressed than in the great saying of Ambrose when- the Emperor Theodosius made penance in the Cathedral of Milan—‘The Church is not in the Empire, but the Emperor is in the Church.’ That expresses the proud claim of the Church of Rome to the fulness of poiver independently of the State. The State was only one of its provinces. The claims of the voluntary Churches may differ in form, but they are the same in spirit. ‘ They claim independence in the sphere of spiritual matters as full as even that of the Church of Rome. But the remarkable thing is that the one exponent of the doctrine of Spiritual Independence condemns the other exponent. The extremes meet- in the one claim of independence—but in their meeting the one protests against the other.’ * > ‘This is apparent in the attitude which the Presbyteries of the United Free Church are adopting towards the Ne Temere decree of the Church of Rome. All over the country Presbyteries are condemning and protesting against that decree. The Presbytery of Edinburgh this week condemned it because—“first, that it is in opposition to the law of the land, inasmuch as it declares certain marriages contracted in accordance therewith to be invalid; secondly, that it directly leads in the case of mixed marriages, celebrated otherwise than it prescribes, to the repudiation of moral obligations, ; which . have been solemnly and legally undertaken.” This decision of the United Free Presbytery of Edinburgh condemning the action of the Church of Rome in the exercise of its spiritual independence is based on the fact that the decree Ne Temere, is in “opposition to the law of the land.” This is, surely, a curious ground of condemnation to be taken up by the United Free Presby-

tery. Frequently Presbyterian Church Courts in Scotland have found themselves in opposition to the law of the land. ' During the “Ten years’ conflict” the Church of Scotland waged a war against the law, of the land—but tho fact of that opposition ; could never be condemned by a United Free Presbytery, In recent time the United Free Church has been in opposition to the law of the land ’—but it never thought that such opposition was anything but a matter of conscience and right on its part. Yet it condemns the Church of Rome for similar, opposition.! The second cause of condemnation is weaker still, for there is no evidence, as Professor Martin pointed out, that the Church of Rome sought to undermine the moral responsibilities incurred by those who marry according to rites other than those of the Roman Church. All that the Ghurcn of Rome has done is to declare the law. of marriage according to which discipline shall be maintained within her communion. It is but a matter which is within the jurisdiction of every Churcha matter of domestic policy, with which there is no call for other Churches to interfere.’ * ■ ‘lf the Church of Rome has set herself in opposition to ‘the law, of the land,’ so have other Churches, including those who now condemn her. The Anglican Church has one law regarding marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, and the State has another law— the Presbyteries of Presbyterian Churches have not condemned the Church of England for this opposition to the law of the State. The Church of Scotland and the United Free Church have a common standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and its terms are clear that marriage with a deceased wife’s sister is illegal—“nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man.” That is still the law of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, though ministers have been relieved from' fears of legal processes should they officiate at such marriages. Thus on a matter of marriage laws the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland are at variance with tho law of the State, and yet they condemn the Church of Rome for its marriage laws being at variance with tho law of the State. There are indeed matters regarding which such opposition is inevitable. The law of the Church expresses tho ideal; but the State legislates for the imperfect realisation of the ideal in an imperfect world. The Church of Rome has ever held up a high ideal of marriage as a sacramental ordinance. “Those who, otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest . . . . and in the presence of two or three witnesses, shall attempt to contract matrimony, the Holy Synod renders altogether incapable of contracting marriage, and decrees that contracts of this kind are null and void” thus the Council of Trent. “Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the parish priest, or the ordinary of the place, or the priest delegated by either of them, and at least two witnesses . . .’’—thus'the decree Ne Tamer c. “The above laws are binding on all persons baptised in the Catholic Church,” explains the decree. . . . “ Non-Catholics, whether baptised or unbaptised, who contract among themselves, are nowhere bound to observe the Catholic forms of betrothal or marriage.” 5 * ‘ What the Church of Rome declares is the law of marriage for those, within its own communion. It has done this in the exercise of its full spiritual independence. In doing so it is in opposition to the law of the land; but in that position it stands by the side of the Anglican Church and the-Presbyterian Churches in their own degree. It is a grim irony to find Churches which are upholders of spiritual independence condemning the Church of Rome for her exercise of spiritual independence. The solemn resolutions of Presbyteries in Scotland condemning the exercise of its spiritual independence on the part of the Church of Rome provide an instructive spectacle. ... In no country have the claims to spiritual independence been pitched higher than by Churches in Scotland; in no country have greater sacrifices been made for its realisation. But the old spirit which claimed freedom for itself and denied it to others is not yet dead. It survives in the action of those who stir up excitement regarding a Church laying down the marriage laws for its own members. Every Church has the right to formulate the terms on which admission is given to its membership. ’ The Protestantism, concludes the Scotsman article, ‘ which is continually demonstrating its “godly attitude towards the Papacy,” and continually raising the cry “Wo arc betrayed,” is a Protestantism no longer assured of its own strength.’