SECTARIANISM IN POLITICS

New Zealand Tablet, 25 January 1912, Page 32

SECTARIANISM IN POLITICS

The following and final letter on ; the above subject appeared in the Christchurch Tress of January 17:

Sir,-—Three distinct denials have at length sue-; ceeded in getting you to admit that you were deceived by your correspondent -..when; you: suggested :• that the Catholic authorities brought any organisation or undue influence to bear to secure the return of Mr.. Millar to Parliament for Dunedin West. This you have done by accepting my denial without the slightest qualification or reserve.' Thus I have gained what I contended for, .and had it come after my first short letter calling your attention to the" fact that you had been deceived, it would have exhibited a better spirit on your part, and given more satisfaction to your ■.' Roman Catholic friends.' Having accepted my denial 'without the slightest qualification : or 'reserve,' lam sorry that you still try -to justify your mistake ' by failing to see where the baseness of your original statement comes in.' You gave circulation to a false statement on the authority of an anonymous and probably prejudiced: correspondent; your mistake had been pointed out. to you by 'one who was in a position to know the truth, and who had somo sense "of che responsibility of his conduct; you refused to accept the contradiction, and made the false statement, your <; own, saying you still believed it true • notwithstanding my denial. I think ' baseness 'is a by no means unfair term to apply to such. conduct. In my first letter, while, denying that the "Church authorities bad used their influence in the particular case under discussion," I did not deny their right to -use their influence when and where they thought it necessary. This proposition is so self-evident that it needs not proof nor justification. Clergymen as a rule are neither infants, imbeciles, lunatics, nor, gaol-birds, that they should be deprived of the right granted to every ordinary citizen. Their" right is as sacred and as well recognised as the right of the Tress to use its influence when and where it thinks it necessary. For modern ethics commend me to the following sentence, from your paper of the 9th inst. :—'lf it is right and proper, as Father Coffey contended, for priests to. use their, influence oyer their 'flocks in elections we fail to see how it is a base and ;Unjust '{ insinuation for a newspaper correspondent to • say that that influence had been used, even if it turns out afterwards that the statement... is based on a misrepresentation and is not correct.' Or this other one, taken from the same source: —' And inasmuch as Father ;Coffey says " that most, if not all, the Catholics in the /constituency voted for Mr. Millar?',' we do not think that our correspondent or anyone else is very.;much to be blamed for having come to the conclusion that this was the result of Church organisation.' To make this doctrine complete, you should have added, you .did not see where the baseness or blame came in, even when the I false statement had , been repeated, again . and again, ; after it had been contradicted, in the clearest possible manner, by those who knew the true position. However, as you admit that the statement was founded on a misrepresentation, and was not correct, I am satisfied. ;;:. For your satisfaction I wish to justify the charge rcontained in the following quotation from my last letter, las you have asked me to do so. 'You made an uncalledfor attack on the Catholic Bishop of Christchurch, etc.' To my mind (and I am not: alone in so considering it) your whole article of December 21 was an attack on him (for having spoken on the. subject of the abuse which (had/been levelled at vthe Prime Minister during the 3 elections. In that article"* you made use of a most ab- • surd and patently false accusation against the priests of the West Coast contained in. a -letter signed Limelight '—a more appropriate signature would have been I 'Moonlight,' as he must have been gazing by the light : of the "moon .when he saw so many clergy on the West Coast. Dunedin was drawn in ; : next; Auckland, you ; did not know ; much 4 about, but you knew all about Christchurch, and there you (witnessed ' the remarkable spectacle of the Roman Catholic Bishop on the Sunday before the second ballots delivering addresses to his

congregations in which he compared the Prime Minister to Aristides the Just.' And then you proceed to lee-

ture him on the iniquity of such an offence. - You say, We venture to think that the policy of suggesting that the ministers of the ■ Church should support the Prime Minister, not on account of his politics but on account of his religion is fraught with peril to the peace of the community.’ Your insinuation here is that Bishop Grimes suggested this line of action in his address to his congregation before the second ballots. So clear was this that the Bishop had to take steps to defend himself and his priests against such an insinuation, which he did in an interview he gave to your reporter. I may add that no Bishop and no priests of the Catholic Church, either in this or 'any other country, as far as I have heard, ever advocated the principle that Catholics should vote for . a man ‘ not on account of his politics, but on account of his religion.’ And in New Zealand the lie direct was given to such a principle at the last elections; for it is a notorious fact that in many districts Catholics did not vote for Catholic candidates, nor were they urged to do so by the pastors of the Church. Later on in the article under review you say: simply because he is a Catholic, regardless of politics, then we shall have the broad questions of good government obscured by bitter sectarian, feuds and fights.’ This is a very pious sentiment, to which I say ‘hear, hear ’; but, pray, whom do you accuse of suggesting such a thing Is it the man in the moon ? Or is it not the Catholic Bishop of Christchurch and his priests on the West Coast? Again you say :- If Catholics are urged to support a politician because he is a Roman Catholic, etc.,’ again I ask, Whom do you accuse of having so urged Catholics? Is it not the Catholic Bishop of Christchurch to whom you were devoting your attention? Journalists are not given to writing about abstract problems which have no bearing on practical politics, especially about election time. One meaning alone can be taken out of your whole article of December, 21, and that is the meaning which I have taken from it, that it was an attack on the Catholic authorities, and particularly on Bishop Grimes for having spoken as he did on the Sunday before the second ballot. Your love for the person of the Bishop which has moved you to give utterance to such appreciative expressions as ‘his learning, culture, urbanity, etc.,’ leaves me cold, I think it was Brutusa well-known character in ancient Rome—who said similar things of another well-known character called Caesar, but said them more eloquently. He added, however, that he loved Rome more, and because he loved Rome more he thrust his dagger into Caesar. I do not need to expound the application of the story,—Yours, etc., j_l T JAMES COFFEY, Administrator St. Joseph’s Cathedral, Dunedin. January 12, 1912. [We regret to find the Rev. Father , Coffey straining and twisting our remarks in regard to Bishop Grimes in such an obviously unfair and unjustifiable manner.However, ,wo are quite content to leave the whole matter to the judgment of our readers.—Ed. The iVfA’S.]