Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 22 May 1913, Page 23

Current Topics

The Organising Secretary .Z, Canon Garland ; continues to come in for . severe censure from Protestants, both lay and .cleric, for his amazing departures from the recognised canons of honorable and straightforward propaganda. Mr. . John Caughley, a prominent Presbyterian and president of the N.Z. Educational Institute, is, still pursuing the Organising Secretary, with exposures of his extraordinary garbling of public documents; while a Presbyterian minister, the Rev. J. H. Mackenzie, of Nelson, in a trenchant criticism of Canon Garland's devious ways contributed to the Outlook of May 15, sums up the position thus:■' Evidently Canon Garland has yet to learn that the cause of the. Bible has never been advanced by playing tricks with truth.'

School Committee Elections ■• ... f A correspondent has sent us a number of clippings from the Greyniouth livening Star of May 7, from which it would appear that from 40 to 50 Catholics who attended the annual meeting of householders at Reefton, held for the purpose of electing a school committee, were point blank refused votes by the chairman and scrutineers. The clippings sent to us do not make it clear on what grounds the refusal was based, but the indications are that there was decided irregularity, possibly sufficient to invalidate the election. Section 108 of the consolidated Education Act, 1908, enacts that ' Every householder of a school district is qualified to vote at any election of members of the school committee for such district,*' and provides, further, that ' in the case of husband and wife any qualification possessed by either of them shall be deemed to be possessed by each of them,' so that in all cases where the husband has a vote the wife also has one. In the interpretation clause 'householder' is defined as follows:' ' "Householder," in relation .to the election of members of a school committee, means(a) Every adult male or female person who has for the period of three months next before the day of election resided in any dwellinghouse within the school district as owner or tenant thereof and (b) If not qualified under the last preceding paragraph, includes the father, wherever resident, or, if he is dead or absent from New Zealand, the guardian or other person, wherever'resident, who has the actual custody of any child attending any State school situated within such district ; and (c) In school districts situated within a mining district under "The Mining Act, 1908," means every holder of a miner's right who for the period of three months next before the day of election has resided in the district and is not an alien.' If, therefore, any resident holder of a miner's right was refused a vote at the Reef ton election, or if, as is alleged, householders were refused votes merely on the ground of their religious persuasion, the election was clearly illegal and invalid. In regard to the question as to whether a lodger can claim a vote in school committee elections there is some room for doubt. The present tendency in New Zealand in regard to all franchise enactments is to interpret them as widely as possible so as to bring elections for local bodies virtually into line with elections for Parliament; and in the district of Grey, which adjoins that of Nelson in which Reef ton is situated, the practice has been for years to allow all adult, male or female, persons who have resided in the school district for three months and who are entitled to be enrolled for purposes of r i general elections to vote and sit as members of a school The actual wording of the interpretation clause, however, speaks only of owner or tenant' of the dwellinghouse; and the Reefton coterie may thus, on this point, safely shelter themselves behind the letter, while disregarding the spirit, of the Act. Y - * ■ Where there is any question as to the legality or validity of a school .committee election, the local Board

has power to decide the matter. Section 118 of the Education Act provides that, '* If any dispute arises respecting the validity of the proceedings at the annual or other election of any . member of any committee, the matter in dispute' shall be submitted to the judgment of the Board, of , ; the district, whose decision thereon shall be final and conclusive.’ The Board has power to order a second election, but need not do so ‘ if. in its opinion the informality was not wilful and did not really affect the result of the election.’ * If our, correspondent will furnish us with a definite statement as to the grounds which were alleged for refusing the votes to the Catholic parties, we may be" in a position to advise further. ■

A Camp Follower of Science Mr. Joseph McCabe is with-us once" again, but this time, apparently, purely in his role of scientist.' We had a good deal to say regarding him in that capacity on the occasion of his previous visit, -and our readers hardly require any further enlightenment in that direction. We may, however, draw attention to a recent incident which illustrates his sense of honor as a controversialist, and which serves to recall, also, a telling exposure of his accuracy as a writer. In September last Messrs. Watts and (Jo. published a 'third ani revised -edition * of Mr. McCabe's Twelve Tears in a Monastery. To this the author contributed a preface in the course of which he stated that the grossly untruthful character and low cultural standard of such Catholic publications (especially of the Catholic Truth Society") as are occasionally sent to him, on account of their lurid references to himself, deter him from taking such interest in Romanist literature as he should like to do.' The cultural standard.' of the C.T.S. publications required no defence; but the accusation of gross untruthfulness was more serious, and the Lay Secretary wrote to Mr. McCabe asking for evidence in support of the charge, and of the lurid references to himself.' After three weeks had elapsed, during which no acknowledgement had been received, the request' was repeated. To this Mr. McCabe replied that he had 'hardly time to write a pamphlet in reply to it, as you seem to desire '; the question of personal references he considered ' too trivial to trouble about,' but 'the charge of untruthfulness is more serious, and I will take an early opportunity to vindicate my charge, in the Literary Guide' —a well-known Rationalist periodical. The letter reiterated in more emphatic terms his ' contemptuous feeling for Catholic literature ' and ended by saying that the writer would state ' the grounds of his indictment in (I trust) the next issue of the Literary Guide. * '-"• . .''■-' To this letter the following answer was returned: ' Dear Sir, —I neither suggested nor "desired" that you' should "write a pamphlet" in answer to my letter of October 5, and I should have supposed that the very serious charge in your book* would not have been made without readily accessible evidence. My request, you will remember, was distinctly limited to that evidence as it related to the publications of the Catholic Truth Society. I shall await with interest the publication of your "vindication."—-I am, yours obediently, 'James Britten, Hon. Sec, C.T.S.' Mr. Britten is still waiting; for neither the November, December, nor January issues of the Literary Guide contain any reference to the point at issue— this notwithstanding that Mr. McCabe is a conspicuous contributor to them. ■ ','"."'# " ;.;, - ' The only passage in C.T.S. publications which could by any stretch of language be called a ' lurid reference ' to Mr. McCabe is the following criticism, which will show how far his statements are. to be received as accurate. Speaking of 1863, and Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species Mr. McCabe had written: In France the great Cuvier was crushing the young theory with the weight of his authority. From the pulpit of Notre Dame the brilliant Lacordaire was assuring men

that its-, father was- pride, its mother lust, and its off ' spring 1 revolutions. : On which the ; late Father Gerard ; commented::' The; 1 great Cuvier, however, had at tne time been 'dead more than - thirty years (1832), ; and Lacordaire, who died in 1861/ never stood in the pulpit of ; Notre Dame after the coup d'ttat: of 1857 And this is the man who accuses • Catholic writers of being ' repeatedly guilty of misrepresentation. ? A .Question of Equivocation A North Island correspondent writes to us regarding the difficulties experienced by a well-disposed Protestant friend of hers in regard to the supposed attitude of the Catholic Church towards the subject of truthtelling and equivocation. . Our Protestant friend is apparently under the impression that . Protestant moralists do not sanction the slightest deviation from the truth under any circumstances, but that the Cath- * olic Church allows considerable latitude in the matter. As we shall show, the position is rather the other way about; and in regard to the lawfulness of lying, Catholic theologians take up a very much stricter attitude.than that adopted by many Protestant authorities. Our correspondent refers somewhat vaguely to a discussion on the subject which has appeared in the pages of our Presbyterian contemporary, the Outlook. We have read the Outlook weekly for at least the last three anda-half years, and have no recollection of any recent reference to the subject. 'The only discussion of the question in the Outlook of wlrch we have any knowledge is one which appeared in the year 1898 in the form of a series of editorial articles in which lying, under certain limited circumstances, of course, was somewhat bluntly justified. , The particular case of equivocation to which our Protestant friend demurs, but which he says was justified by a Catholic priest, is thus related: ' A mother and child are in a hospital, both at death's door. The doctor visits the child, and finds it dead; then he goes to the mother, and her first words are: "How is my child?" To save her life th* doctor said, "He is doing well." ' * This is, as we have said, a case of equivocation. In one —though not in the sense in which the woman would probably take themthe words were true, the child being, presumably, in heaven. Regarding this equivocation we have to say: (1) An almost exactly parallel case occurs in Holy Scripture. As we are really writing for the benefit of our Protestant friend we will quote from the Protestant (Authorised) version of the Bible. The incident we refer to is recorded in 11. Kings, chap, iv., 18 and following verses, and we invite our friend to look up the story. The son of the Shunammite woman is attacked by sunstroke when out in the fields with his father. He is carried home and dies in his mother's arms. She hastens to Elisha, the man of God, confident that his prayers will restore the child to life. On the way she is met by Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, who tries to detain her and to keep her back from the prophet. He asks her, .' Is it well with thee ? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child?' And according to the Scripture (v. 26), 'She answered, "It is well." ' The Shunammite woman had a somewhat similar, though not so clear and strong, a motive as the doctor in the case cited above; and yet her equivocation is recorded without" a word of reprobation. Another Scripture instance of the use of, equivocation in order to save life is recorded in the case of the holy patriarch Abram. We again quote from the Authorised Version, Genesis xii., 11, 13: 'And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee that they shall say,. This is" his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say I pray thee, thou art my sister.' And this, as we learn later, was accordingly done. The statement 1 was not absolutely untrue, because Sarai was actually a blood relation of Abraham ; and it was usual among the Hebrews to call blood relations by the name of brothers or sisters. But it was none the less an unmistakable equivocation. A

-further Scriptural instance of the useof course for *l a sufficient motive—of ■■" ambiguous , language which the : speaker knew would be taken in a sense different fromlsi. that intended, is recorded of our Blessed Lord in John ii,., 19-21: •'.' Jesus answered and said unto them; : Destroy this' temple and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt Thou rear it up in three days But He spake of the temple of His body. When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered' that He had said this unto them,' 'etc. * (2) In such a case as that cited by our correspondent representative Protestant writers go much further than Catholic theologians, and declare boldly that an absolute lie would be justifiable under the circumstances. Out of many, authorities available, we quote four explicit statements. First let us take the wellknown Anglican writer, Bishop Jeremy Taylor. He says: .' Whether it can in any case be lawful to tell a lie. To this I answer that the Holy Scripture of the * Old and New Testament do indefinitely and severely forbid lying. . . . But then lying is to be understood to be something said or written to the hurt of our neighbor. ... It is lawful to tell a lie to children, or to madmen, because they having no power of judging, have no right to truth; but then the lie must be charitable and useful. . . And so do physicians to their patients. . . To tell a lie for charity, to save a man's life, the life of a friend, of a husband, of a prince, of a useful public person hath not only been done at all times, but commended by great and • wise and good men. . . "Be not over righteous," says King Solomon.' Milton is even more emphatic on the point. 'I do not see,' he says, why that cannot be said of lying which is said of homicide and other matters ... which are not weighed so much by the deed as by the object and end of acting. What man in his senses will deny that there are those whom we have the best ground for considering that we ought to deceive—as boys, madmen, the sick, the intoxicated, enemies, deceivers, thieves. . . By which of the commandments is the lie forbidden? You will say by the ninth. Come read it out and you will -agree with me. For whatever is here forbidden comes under the head of injuring one's neighbor. If then a lie does not injure one's neighbor, certainly it is not forbidden by the commandment. It is on this ground that by the judgment of theologians, we acquit so many holy men of lying. . . Abraham . . Joseph . . . Moses, Rahab, Ehud, Jael, Jonathan.' The great apologetic writer, Paley,. argues in precisely the same way. 'There are falsehoods,' he says, 'which are not lies; that is which are not criminal. (1) Where no one is deceived. . . . (2) When the person to whom you speak has no right to know the truth, or more properly, where little or no inconvenience results from the want of confidence in such cases. As when you tell a falsehood to a madman for his own advantage; to a robber to conceal your property; or to an assassin, to defeat or divert him from his purpose. . . It is upon this principle that by the laws of war, it is allowable to deceive an enemy by feints, false colors, spies, false intelligence.' Finally, the London Spectator, in its issue of July 23, 1898, discusses the practical question thus: ' During the existence of American slavery, a so-called " underground 'railroad " was contrived by benevolent people in the United States to help slaves over to Canada. The very existence of such an institution involved constantly either an equivocal silence or a direct contradiction of palpable fact on the part of the friends of the escaped slave. "Did the man take tHs road? No, he took that," or else no answer whatever to the question whether a slave had passed that way. ' Do we condemn the persons who thus misled purposely the slave-hunter while also breaking the law, and thus I were at one and the same time guilty of a double offence, according to the mere formalist? We know that they were among the very salt of the earth, and like Sterne's recording angel, one tear blots oi.it the offence . alleged against them. We assert that t'ie healthy instincts of every human being, endowed, with the normal conscience, ' would instantly take that view, and i would

visit with .execration the man who to serve the cause oi , mere iormaK truth-telling, ; would nave handed , back the runaway to the tender . mercies oi * a " nigger - driver." ;'■' ' * • - ■ : ■■ * ' ,-'" : ."'' ■■■"■. ."''■ '■

" (3) Catholic theologians take a much stricter • view than any of the Protestant authorities above quoted. (a) They hold emphaticallythat? a real lie or untruth is not permissible under any circumstances whatever. (b) Undiscoverable equivocations that is, equivocations of such a nature that the double meaning cannot possibly be perceived by the hearerare ready ues, and are, therefore, certainly sins. So all Catholics are bound to hold, (c) Discoverable equivocationsthat is, expressions which, as they stand, or by virtue of a particular usage of language, are actually in one sense true but are capable of two meanings— in certain rare and special cases permissible, even though those 1 who hear them may understand them in a sense which is not true. The Jews understood the words of our Lord in an entirely different sense— and were allowed to do so—from that intended, but our Lord’s statement was, of course, absolutely true in the sense in which He meant ’ it. The classical example of a justifiable equivocation of this sort is the celebrated reply of St. Athanasius to the assassins who were employed to look out for him to put him to death. hailing in with him in their pursuit, and not knowing him personally, they asked himself whether Athanasius was far off. ‘He is -not far off,’ was the ready answer and the pursuers hastened on, while, of course, Athanasius escaped. In no case is even a discoverable equivocation allowable unless there is a just cause—that is, some specially weighty reason or urgent necessity, such as that of saving life, (d) In practice, equivocation, is strongly deprecated and reprobated by Catholic theologians. Just as frequent swearing,’ says Mayol, writing on the Decalogue, ‘exposes to perjury: therefore, as the Scripture counsels us, in order to avoid the danger of perjury, not to accustom our mouth to swearing, not to swear at all; so we should counsel men, in order, to avoid the danger of lying, not to use even material (discoverable) equivocations except in the most rare and extreme cases.’ Another very able and eminent divine is still more explicit.’ ‘To a person asking, is it lawful to use equivocation or mental reservation ? the answer should be it is not lawful ’ (Antoine, Theol. Moral. Tractat. de V ir tut. Moralih. r. 4). ‘lf the Christian preacher,’ says Dr. Murray, the famous Professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology at Maynooth College, ‘ does touch on equivocation, he should reprobate -t: Ids plain and simple teaching should be condemnatory.’ That is the broad and general principle of Catholic teaching. We have outlined the attitude of the Catholic- Church on this difficult and delicate subject as plainly as is possible within so brief a compass ; and we think that no reasonable and thoughtful reader, who recognises the practical difficulty involved in such a case as that submitted to us, will find anyi quarrel with it.