Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 14 March 1912, Page 21

Current Topics

The Confession of Faith and the Marriage Question By way of a ‘ reply 5 to our last letter on this subject the Rev. R. Wood contributed a short, feeble, and, as far as we can discover, entirely pointless communication to Saturday’s Otago Daily Times, intimating at the same time that this was his final letter on the subject. No attempt was made to question the correctness of our quotation from the Confession of Faith, or to deny the fact that the Westminster enactment not only condemns marriage with a deceased wife’s sister as ‘ incestuous ’ but declares that such unions can never ‘ be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.’ The letter was relegated to the back-blocks columns of the paper, on the page appropriately devoted to fiction; and, in the customary foot-note, the Editor applied the final closure. Modernism and Methodism The finding of the Methodist Conference—sitting in Auckland— respect to charges of heresy preferred by a layman against one of their ministers, is interesting as illustrating the extent to which the virus of Modernism is permeating that once ‘evangelical’ body. The actual terms of the charges have not been published, but their substance may be gathered from the official finding of the Committee, which is given in full. From this we learn that in regard to the Holy Scriptures Mr. Chapman — minister in question uses the well-worn formula that; They contain the Word of God,” and appeal to our moral sense to discover those parts that breathe an unchristian spirit.’ The italics are ours. According to this principle the minister to whose ‘ moral sense ’ the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Vicarious Atonement, and Eternal Punishment, do not commend themselves, is perfectly at liberty to reject these doctrines. So far as the last mentioned doctrine is concerned, Mr. Chapman practically does reject.it. ‘.Mr. Chapman,’ say the Committee, ‘ believes in, and preaches, future consequences of s our sin as “wages,” or natural results, not as arbitrary inflictions or tortures. He does not deny the eternal duration of these consequences, but regards that as an open-question, and the word eternal as indefinite.’ In their formal judgment on the case the Committee quote the ‘ authoritative message ’ of the recent Ecumenical Methodist Conference Let us unite steadfastness in the faith with complete intellectual freedom and confident ability to march with the times ’— and they conclude: ‘We cannot recommend the Conference to censure a courageous man, whom we regard as loyal to all that is essential in the teachings of our Church.’ Some sympathy is due to the layman who made this sturdy but ineffectual stand for the truth; and it is very evident that the Conference might have been much more usefully employed than in resoluting against Ne Temere. How it could be done One of the stock objections always thrown at the head - of the advocate of Catholic claims on the education question is the alleged practical difficulty in the way. The Catholic demand, it is said, may be just but /►it is not practicable; to grant it would be to break up our great ‘ national ’ system; and the existing scheme is the only possible working arrangement. The purveyors of these empty shibboleths conveniently forget that in Great Britain, Canada, and other parts of the British Empire, the desires of the advocates , of religious education have been satisfactorily met without detriment, but rather with advantage, to the educational status of the people. As to New Zealand and Australia, there are many, methods;by which all-round justice could be done, without injury to any section of the community. These have, been, drawn out in detail by Dr. Cleary in his well-known- work on the education question; and in Australia Archbishop Carr

has over and over again drawn attention to certain practical methods by which the Catholic demand could be easily and advantageously 'given effect to. ‘ , . .... . v His Grace returned to. the subject the. other day when performing the ceremony of laying the foundastone of a new Catholic scholastic institution and in the course of a characteristically thoughtful and weighty speech advanced the following proposals for the consideration of the politicians. ‘He did not desire,’ he said, ‘ to criticise others, and would like to see all the children of the State receiving proper religious instruction. If; such people could only see the matter in the proper light, the State could make arrangements which would be satisfactory to all concerned. The difficulty had been overcome in Ireland, England, Scotland, Canada, and in other countries under the British Crown. He would ask, why had it not been done here ? If the State would take the Catholic schools into its system, conduct examinations of the teachers and pupils, and have a uniform programme of secular knowledge and inspection, leaving to Catholics the question of the amount of religious instruction to be given in the schools, the difficulty would be overcome. It was not so much a question of the benefit to accrue to Catholic schools as that non-Catholic children would then get as much religious instruction in the State schools as their parents required. In the city and the provincial centres no difficulty would be experienced in carrying out such a scheme, but in those districts where a sufficient number of children of., one could not be got together the best possible arrangements for giving instruction could be made. Unfortunately for us, such an idea had not been taken up by those of different denominations. The minds of many people were prejudiced, because it seemed to them to benefit Catholic schools. He was sorry that this view was held by so many in Australia. It could only be attributed to a feeling, of bigotry, and this prevented people from looking the matter fairly in the face, and keeping the balance of justice even. It would be easy, under the proposed scheme, to give all the children of the State that amount of religious instruction desired by their parents and guardians.’ .' * ‘Continual dropping,’ says the proverb, ‘wears away a stone ’; and it may be hoped that a steady insistence on the absolute feasibility of granting the Catholic demand may yet . carry conviction to our legislators.

The Great ‘Protestant’ Nation ... In the course of the violent tirades and hot-head fulminations that have been so freely launched. against Ne Temere a good deal has been heard of ‘ that great Protestant nation, Germany,’ and of the ‘ sturdy Protestantism ’ of the Fatherland. It was glorified—and indeed immortalised in the Orange hand-bill which we published in our last issue, which referred to ‘ the great Protestant nation ’ as ‘ flinging back in the face of Rome her two decrees, Ne Temere and Apostolical Sedis ’ (sic). As a matter of fact— we have often indicated in these columnsthe Protestantism of Germany is steadily diminishing both in numbers and influence; Catholicism, on the other hand, is as steadily increasing ; and if the present rates of retrogression and progression be respectively maintained, the day is not far distant when Catholicism will again be the unmistakably dominant faith of the Fatherland. These facts may now be proved beyond question by official figures, and by the statements, and admissions of non-Catholic authorities on the spot who are in a position to know. A resume of last year’s German census results has just been published, and the Berlin correspondent of the Christian World has been analysing the religious details. The figures show that 'the Catholic population of - the country, not only displays a. great absolute increase : but that the relative increase is also marked. They show th&t not only has am increase taken place within the last five:« years,v but that it marked the entire history of the forty years

which have elapsed since the proclamation of the new German Empire. The .details are of a striking character. Forty years ago there were 649.9 Protestants and 336 Catholics in every thousand of the population. Last year’s census shows that at the present time the, Protestants number only 618 per thousand and that the Catholics have risen to 363. That is to say, the Catholics have risen by 27 and the Protestants decreased by 31. . , * lt appears that the absolute figures at the present time are 24,830,908 Protestants, against 23,341,502 in 1905; and 14,581,604 Catholics, against, 13,352,444 in 1905. This leaves Protestantism in a respectable majority, from a nose-counting point of view. ‘ But the census,’ remarks the London Daily News, in commenting on these figures, ‘ does not show two things well enough known in Germany. First, that numberless persons who have ceased to have any religious belief at all remain on- the lists of the Lutheran Church, because the process of getting one’s name removed is a matter of formal application to the authorities who have made the process as tedious and troublesome as they can. The other is that, while Protestantism has not political power, German Catholicism is an organised political force of enormous weight, and that its representation in the Reichstag is the most solid and formidable party there.’ It is evident, therefore, that the vague but confident impression which prevails amongst certain NoPopery controversalists that Germany is overwhelmingly Protestant, is one of the things that isn’t so. ‘lt is,’ says the Daily News, ‘ as true as the common notion that the Germans worship their Emperorthat is to say, it is fantastically false.’

Catholic and Protestant it is a standing and eternally insoluble mystery to Catholics how it is that Protestantism, not content with preaching its own gospel, feels called upon to continually go out of its way to attack, abuse, and oppose the Catholic Church. In the Life of Lord Nelson it is related how on one occasion, on the eve of one of his great battles,, two of his officers came to him with regard to a quarrel that had taken, place between them. Pointing to a line of vessels in the distance, the Admiral said: ‘ There are the enemy ; drop your quarrel till they are disposed of.’ In view of the fact that all Christian bodies are confronted by a common enemy in the shape of atheism and unbelief —as well as by a practical enemy in the shape of sin and vice—it would seem to be a reasonable thing that they should refrain from frittering away their energies in mere abuse of one another, and that, though they cannot work together in ecclesiastical unity, at least they should live together in mutual peace. Some such sane and sensible view occasionallyvery occasionallyworks its way into the brain cells of a more than usually thoughtful Protestant, and he is naturally moved to lift his voice in condemnation of the folly of his fellows. Such an one is the Rev. Dr. Frederick Lynch, who contributes a special weekly column to The Christian Work and Evanyelist, a Protestant paper of New York. Here is how lie tries to drive home the truth which we have stated. t * ‘ When he [a Protestant] sees the paganism in our great cities, the utter indifference to religion of thousands of men?' the worship of pleasure and the frenzy of the masses over sports, the frivolity of our modern life, the growing evil of divorce, the lessening sense of sin, the graft and corruption in business, the heedlessness of law amounting almost to anarchy, the denial on all sides of the sacrificial life as the true creed of humanity, he thanks God that the Catholic Church is strong, for she is set like a flint against all these real menaces of our modern life. He had infinitely rather see her churches multiplying in Chicago than to see the low music halls, the gorgeous cafes, the halls of pleasure, the gilded halls of champagne and vice, the theatres, given over to nastiness, multiplying on every side. He had a thousand times rather see her preachers of judgment and of the righteousness God demands of men

preaching on every corner than to have Nietzsche, Bernard Shaw, and Mrs- Glynn gaining increasing hold upon our people. This is what we Protestants have got to remember. . . . For our part, we have no time to waste in hating another Christian Church while we stand almost despairing before the thousand enemies of Christ.’ ' • . .. ; . * These My Little Ones ’ Under this title a well-written, beautifully-illus-trated, and altogether handsome volume has just been published giving a full account of the origin,- progress, and, development of that splendid philanthropic institution, the Crusade of Rescue for destitute Catholic children, conducted by the now world-famous Fathers Bans. The book is edited by the Rev. N. Waugh, but the actual story is from the pen of an anonymous writer, who for years has known the rescue work from without. The subject is one which vividly appeals to the heart and imagination of the reader, and we can give the volume no higher praise than to say that this apostolic crusade has found a chronicler worthy of the theme. Not the least interesting portion of this story of the ups and downs, - difficulties and vicissitudes, of this effort at social salvage is that which deals with the relations ofthe Catholic authorities to Dr. Barnardo, known all over the world as the philanthropic founder and promoter of the Barnardo Homes. We refer to the matter because the facts and figures elicited in the course of the negotiations between the authorities of the two institutions furnish an unanswerable argument as to the imperative necessity for some such Catholic establishment as the Crusade of Rescue Homes. Some years ago a just arrangement was made between Dr. Barnardo and the Catholic authorities, honorable to both, and observed in a frank and friendly spirit, so that the history of their former controversies may now be revived without any trace of bitterness.

‘ A Protestant of the Protestants/ says our writer, ‘ supported in his gigantic enterprise by the generosity of Protestants, it was but natural that the children adopted by him would be brought up in the Protestant religion, unknown in their father’s house, naught knowing of the priceless heritage of Faith which was being filched from them. The homes in London, with the 13 branches in the Province, claim to have rescued and trained in 43 years of their existence nearly 70,000 children. The number of these baptised in the Catholic faith is probably underestimated at 10,000. What shepherd could sleep, or rest supine, while so many of his sheep were being lost ? Communications began to pass between Father Seddon, the secretary to Cardinal Mannjn and Dr. Barnardo, in 1887, and letters, interviews, negotiations, and legal proceedings followed with increasing volume for many years before a friendly understanding was arrived at, and a working agreement established, . . . An undertaking was given at length by Dr. Barnardo that the cases of any destitute children who applied for admission to his Homes, on being found to be Catholics, should be referred to the Cardinal for his consideration. . . . Dr. Barnardo frankly avowed that he did it with reluctance, and as might be expected from his standpoint as' an ardent Protestant, placed the narrowest interpretation, on his obligation, and he contested with determination and tenacity every inch of the ground, and resisted to the last moment every concession.’ And, in particular, he flatly refused to give up any of the Catholic children, already placed in his numerous Homes unless and until* he was absolutely forced to by legal process. ‘ The last line of resistance was reached/ says our writer, when the attempt was made to reclaim the Catholic children already being brought up in the Barnardo Homes throughout the country. When the staggering admission was made that one-fifth of the children in this series of. thirteen homes had been baptised Catholics, and were being brought . up as Protestants, it will be understood how heavy was the heart of the Cardinal, and how uncompromising was the struggle before him. Dr. Barnardo declined absolutely to give up any of the children he had already received, unless the cases were such *

that the law, put in force, would compel him to do so. Point by point, case by case, the issues were carried from court to court; to the last tribunal of appeal in the House of Lords.’ * • . Out of many cases cited in this volume, we quote the following typical specimen, giving the particulars in abridged form. In the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, before Mr. Justice Kay, an application was made on 31st July, 1890, under the Guardianship of Infants’ Act of 1886, by the godmother and next friend of William George Murphy, 13, the son of Catholic parents, then at Dr. Barnardo’s Home in Stepney Causeway, for the appointment of the Earl of Denbigh as guardian of the r person of the infant, during his minority, or until further order. Dr. Barnardo’s contention was that the child had been so far brought under Protestant influence, as to make the case an exception to the general rule that a boy should be brought up in the religion of his father. The boy was Capable, the counsel for Dr. Barnardo said, of forming religious opinions, and he read affidavits sworn by Dr. Barnardo, the Chaplain of Barnardo’s Homes, the Vicar of a Protestant church in Fulham, and the master of a Board School, all to prove that the boy had been instructed as a Protestant. The affidavit of the boy himself is worthy of special consideration. He had plenty to eat and drink and a comfortable bed to lie on, he was very happy at the home, and getting on nicely, and did not wish to go to the Earl of Denbigh, or to be brought up as a Catholic, but earnestly desired to be brought up in the Protestant faith. Mr. Justice Kay expressed himself in stern rebuke. ‘ Knowing so well as I do the way affidavits are prepared, you cannot expect me to pay much attention to this affidavit. It was sworn in the usual way, I suppose, before a Commissioner, without his taking the pains to read it over to the boy. Such an affidavit, is to me very shocking. Such an affidavit is, to my mind, the profanation of an oath.’ The case was adjourned, that the Judge might see the boy himself in his private room. When the Judge returned to give his final decision, nothing could be more severe than the terms of his judgment. The boy’s affidavit, he said, had been made not by him, but for him. He had no obiection to be brought up in the religion of his father and mother. Asked whether he was happy and comfortable in Dr. Barnardo’s Home, he said he was not. The boy was not content, and would prefer to be removed from the home and put into a Catholic school. Accordingly, there was no choice in the matter. The boy ought to be brought up in the religion of his father, and he ordered him to be delivered into the custody of the Earl of Denbigh, subject always to the. Court in case any further order should be necessary.

* Since then, as we have intimated, a compact was sealed between Cardinal Vaughan and Dr. Barnardo whereby peace was permanently and honorably established. That the history of the negotiations is not revived in any spirit of bitterness or recrimination is abundantly shown by the following tribute with which the writer concludes his references to Dr. Barnardo: ‘Dr. Barnardo is entitled to admiration for his magnificent benevolence, to respect for his strong convictions, and to irierit for his great achievements. The dogged tenacity with which he fought the law and opposed the Church, were but evidence of refracted honesty. His very narrowness of prejudice, gave consistency to his actions. His one idea was generous, and his one achievement noble. Let the curtain fall on him with words of peace and -goodwill.’ ——