Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 11 February 1915, Page 21

Current Topics

Dunedin Central and Bible-in°Schools

Apart from the party issues involved, the feature of interest in the Dunedin Central election was the somewhat remarkable volte face of the Bible-in-Schools League. At the general election only two mouths ago, the League officially and strongly opposed the Government candidate, Mr. Statham, and an allegedly bitter pamphlet was distributed giving nine reasons why conscientious Leaguers should vote against that gentleman. On the eve of last week’s by-election, however, the daily papers published the following announcement: It is understood that the executive of the Dunedin branch of the Bible in State Schools League has decided to support Mr. Statham’s candidature in the contest for the Dunedin Central seat.’ No reason was publicly given for this official change of attitude, but the presumption is that the Government, as a party, were regarded as being more friendly to the League’s proposals than the Opposition. The effect on the voting of the League's official action was apparently quite negligible. Apart from those who voted on absent voters’ and seamen’s permits—and who, presumably, would not be influenced by the League’s eleventh-hour intimation, —Mr. Statham gained exactly 40 votes on his opponent as compared with the relative position of the candidates at the general election—a result which would seem to indicate that official League pronouncements, either one way or the other, did not count for much. Mr. Statham, it should be mentioned, made it perfectly clear that though the League had come to him, he had not gone over to the League. At his meeting in the Garrison Hall, as reported in the Dunedin Evening Star of February 2, he said: ‘My attitude on the Bible-in-schools question remains unchanged. The Bible-in-schools people have now met me in a friendly spirit, and have absolved all those persons who had signed pledges. I have made no concession. I have made no bargain with them ; they did not seek a bargain. My attitude remains exactly as it was before. We have agreed to differ.’ There are still three or four seats in doubt, pending the results of election petitions : and there is still a by no means distant possibility of another general election in the near future.

The Policy of Talk

Some people’s piety—or pietism—seems to run all to tongue. In his proclamation designating Thursday, November 26, as a day of thanksgiving and prayer, President Wilson mentions ‘ a great moral stimulation ’ among the blessings and mercies vouchsafed to America during the year tjien drawing to a close ; and refers to ‘the earnest pity and disinterested sympathy for those who are suffering, and the readiness to help and think of the needs of others, which have revealed our people to themselves and to the world.’ There may be, so far as the American people are concerned, some measure of truth in this piece of pious gush. But where does the American President himself come in in this highflying panegyric ? At the time this high-toned proclamation was issued wrongs were being inflicted upon unhappy nuns and priests in Mexico that cried to Heaven for vengeance. For the anarchy which made such atrocities possible and which has let hell loose in Mexico President Wilson was himself largely responsible. Yet neither up to the time of his call for thanksgiving and prayer nor since has he taken a single effective step to redress those wrongs or to prevent their continuance.

If President Wilson were a man of action instead of a man of talk he would long ere now have found the right course to bring peace to Mexico. The occasion calls for no great daring stroke or high heroic policy involving risk or sacrifice to the American people. The President’s proper course is not difficult, and has been briefly and simply pointed out by, amongst many others,

a leading Mexican statesman quoted by Dr. Francis C. Kelley, the editor of Extension. In an article on the Mexican situation, contributed to Our Sunday Visitor, Dr. Kelley, who was at the time in Mexico, writes: “How do you think,” I asked a prominent Mexican statesman, and a real statesman at that, one of the great leaders in Mexico, how do you think peace could be brought to Mexico?” “Peace,” he said, “could be assured if the President of the United States would refuse to recognise any Government that does not guarantee complete and absolute religious liberty as it exists in the United States, and bars, until peace is completely restored, all importation of arms - and ammunition into the country.” ’ It is not much to ask, especially from a President who has been visited by ‘ a great moral stimulation ’ and who is so pathetically full of ' earnest pity and disinterested sympathy for those who are suffering.’ But the appeal is made in vain—it is so much easier to talk than to act. President Wilson will continue to deliver himself of pious platitudes and showy oratory—and nuns and priests will continue to suffer.

The Papacy and the War

A fortnight ago we published in this column various cable hints which seemed to us to indicate that the one Sovereign who would emerge from the hurly-burly of the present struggle with enhanced prestige would be his Holiness the Dope, and last week we suggested that the Holy Father would be an ideal arbitratorif an arbitrator should be necessary the time came for threshing out the details of a settlement. A somewhat interesting confirmation of both these views is now to hand from a strictly independent and unbiassed English source. Mr. W. L. George, the well-known author, who acts as London correspondent of the Dunedin Evenimj Star , has the following weighty and significant paragraph in his latest communication which appears in Thursday’s issue of that journal: ‘ There are developments at Rome, for we have just appointed an Ambassador to the Holy See, which has not been done for the last 400 years. The Turkish Government are attempting also to appoint an Ambassador, the object probably being to take away from France her protectorate of the Christians in Turkey. Serbia and France are also negotiating to the same effect, and it is on the cards that in a few weeks a full diplomatic corps of Ministers to the Pope will be collected in Rome. Now, this is a curious thing ; for many years the power of the Roman Catholic Church seems to have been waning. Italy and then France broke off all relations with the Pope. Recently even Spain seemed uncertain. And now suddenly times have changed ; the Roman Catholics gain converts in England, and the French Government send army chaplains to the front. Is a European war, then, necessary, to arouse to the full religious sentiment, or are those about to die anxious to make in time their peace with God ? 1 suspect, in fact, that a more political idea is at the bottom of the movement, and that Europe, as she secs nation after nation go to war, and imagines that others, such as Italy and Rumania, may soon be involved, realises the need for a mediator. The United States (and even it may not remain at peace) is perhaps too interested, while the Pope, in spite of Austrian sympathies, might very soon provide at the Vatican an ideal meeting-ground where peace could be signed. It is a fascinating idea that the city whence came Gregory the ambitious and Julius the fighting Pope should have such a chance as may yet come to it of giving hospitality to almost forgotten peace.’

Despite Mr. George’s allusions to individual Popes, the Holy Father as peacemaker would be playing an entirely normal and accustomed role. For centuries the Holy See was regarded by all Christian princes and nations as the international arbiter, the highest tribunal for the decision of all national disputes and important political questions. For the purposes of international arbitration the position of the Roman Pontiff is unique. His

uprightness and independence are unquestioned by the nations. To him rank or power is nothing. Seated on a throne from which no power can move him, he overlooks the kings and emperors who put their trust in quick-firers and ‘ Jack Johnsons.’ He, of all others, can afford to take a comprehensive survey of any dispute between State and State and decide, without disturbance from any secondary cause, which is the course that makes for justice. He is still — though in somewhat different way from'the olden time— the natural Grand Referee of the nations.

The War

For the life of us we cannot follow the line of reasoning —if it is reasoning —of those who predict that the end of the war is well within sight. Tire editor of -I salti Shim bun, one of Japan’s leading newspapers, tells us that the Japanese think the war will be over by July; amongst English journals when the last mail left Home April was the fashionable date. That is surely optimism rim mad. No doubt a great deal will have happened by July ; and if, as is anticipated, Italy and Roumania take a hand in the near future, there will probably be swift and far-reaching developments. But it has .to be remembered that this war is not only the biggest war in history, but also that, big as it is, both sides have determined that it is to be a fight to a finish. No single victory, however great,' on the one side or the other, is likely to bring the struggle to an immediate end. The Allies, for their part, have solemnly declared that they will not sheath the sword until Prussian militarism is crushed — in a word, until Germany is beaten and acknowledges herself to be beaten, and until the Allies are practically in a. position to dictate the terms of settlement. That is a large contract : and one only needs to exercise his common sense to see that its execution will take time. Germany has, admittedly, immense resources both in men and material. No one can honestly question German courage. The Germans are struggling — or think that they are strugglihg— for their very existence as a nation ; and it is no mere figure of speech but a simple statement of sober fact to say that they will fight to the last ditch. Under the circumstances it is at least premature, if not absolutely foolish, to be trying to worry out the exact month or day when the trouble will end. On this point the Time* military correspondent, one of the ablest commentators on the war, puts the whole position in a nutshell. ‘ All of us are probable asked a dozen times a day how long the war will last,’ he writes, ‘ and all of us give the best answer we can, endeavoring to preserve an appearance of solemnity, but knowing perfectly well in our hearts that our opinion on such a subject is not worth a rap.’

At the same time there is absolutely not the slightest room for pessimism, either as to the final outcome or as to the present position: It is true that Germany has overrun Belgium —but no one, of course, doubted her ability to do that, and it was no part of her real programme. It is true that she has obtained a substantial footing in France. It is true that the progress of Russia, fighting as she is under enormous handicaps, is undeniably slow. But there is another side to the picture : and surveying the situation from a different angle it is evident that Germany’s failures are far mere considerable than her successes. Her hold on France and Belgium has been slowly but surely weakened. Early in September Von Kluck was within striking distance of Paris ; now Paris is absolutely safe. In the Kaiser’s scheme, Paris, Calais, and Warsaw all in turn were to be taken ‘at all costs’—not one of them has been taken or is in any immediate danger of being taken. Perhaps most significant and momentous of all has been the failure of the prolonged and desperate attempt oil Warsaw. The German effort in that direction has extended over more than four months. On October 7 the Germans were in a position almost to train their guns on the Polish stronghold : to-day, in spite of the most violent efforts and of enormous and reckless sacrifice of life, Warsaw is still in Russian hands. Tire main object, presumably, of

these tremendous drives on the Polish capital is to relieve Cracow by .compelling the Russian left wing to withdraw from Western Galicia in order to save Warsaw. So far this object has not been attained; and in spite of local victories—even on a large scale—until the Russians are definitely forced to retire from Cracow Germany cannot claim any real permanent success in the east. On a dispassionate survey of the situation if seems clear to us that it is the German and not the British commentator who has grounds for pessimism.

Prohibition and the Mass

Rather more than three years ago, on the eve of the then pending general election, it became our duty to draw attention to the possibility of a dangerous development of the Prohibition movement in this country —a development which, if ever it eventuated, would place a legal ban upon the celebration of the great act of worship of the Catholic Church. We were informed, upon what appeared to be reliable authority, that one of the accredited lecturers of the Prohibition Party, the Rev. T. B. Hammond, had publicly stated that his party held alcohol to be an evil thing in itself, and that they looked forward to the time when, if Prohibition were brought into operation, its use for medicinal and sacramental purposes as well as its sale and consumption as a beverage, would be strictly forbidden. Under the existing law, if national Prohibition is carried the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcohol are forbidden, but subject to the proviso that its use for manufacturing, medicinal, and sacramental purposes would still be permitted. In about ten years, according to the reported statement of this reverend lecturer, the Prohibitionist leaders hoped to bring about the withdrawal of at least the last two of these exemptions. We immediately interviewed the reverend gentleman in person ; and having ascertained that on these two heads at least the report supplied to us was substantially correct, we dealt with the matter in the editorial columns of the Tablet. His Grace Archbishop Redwood followed with a circular to his clergy and people, and in the subsequent vote the Prohibition issue was by a narrow margin defeated.

Although the action of the Tablet was the subject of general commendation, there were some who, while entirely approving of the course we had taken as a prudential measure, could hardly bring themselves to believe that the danger hinted at was a very real one. It is instructive and significant, however, to note that the danger we feared lias actually materialised in the United States. In one State at least it is now 1 a misdemeanor ’ to introduce wine even for sacramental purposes. At the general elections held in Arizona on November 3, 1914, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Arizona was submitted to the electors, and in the following December, by proclamation of the Governor of the State, was declared approved by the vote of the electors, and in full force and effect. According to the new law the manufacture in, or introduction into the State of Arizona, under any pretence of wine, including, therefore, the altar wine needed for the daily celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is declared to be ‘ a misdemeanor.’ The Catholic priest or layman who manufactures or introduces wine for purely sacramental purposes, as required by the rites of his Church and in conformity with the divine institution and commandment of Christ is thus, according to the actual terms of the law, liable to imprisonment for no less than ten days, nor more than two years, and to a fine of not less than twenty- <■ five dollars,' nor more than three hundred dollars and costs for each offence. The Sacrifice of the Mass, as offered in the Church for nineteen centuries in answer to the divine injunction, ‘ This do for a commemoration of Me,’ is now ‘ a misdemeanor ’ in .the State of Arizona.

The validity of the law has ' been challenged in a claim for a bill for injunction submitted to the District Court of the United States for the District of

Arizona by the Rev. Thomas M. Connolly, pastor of All Saints’ Church, Tucson, as complainant in behalf of all other priests and of. all Catholics of the State. The claim set forth that the law, taken in its literal sense, apart from all private ' interpretation, is a direct infringement of religious liberty and a violation of the Constitution, of the United States, guaranteeing to every person the right of worshipping God according to the dictates of his conscience. It was shown further that it is in violation of the Enabling Act of the State of Arizona itself, providing that in the drafting of its Constitution perfect toleration of religious sentiment should be secured, and that no inhabitant of the proposed State should ever be molested in his mode of religion. The injunction was, however, refused, and appeal has now to be taken to the United States Supreme Court. Similar laws, it is said, have been passed in other States. Catholics, either in the United States or elsewhere, will not of course submit to such outrageous interference with their religious liberty ; but this American legislation illustrates the very real necessity for keeping a watchful eye on Prohibition developments.