Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 14 December 1916, Page 21

Current Topics

Some Travellers’ Tales . A story is told—and is ‘ vouched. foi ’ by a traveller—at the expense of a shrewd Yankee who had been ‘ doing ’ the sights of Rome. v The cute stranger from beyond the Atlantic was determined to get his money’s worth, saw everything that was worth seeing—and if he did not see all that he desired, no false modesty prevented him endeavoring to do so and asking all about it. Of course he visited and revisited the Vatican, and was courteously shown over the Papal Palace and its wealth of varied treasures. He asked many questions, and desired to see everything. After all the customary sights had been shown, the guide who attended him .asked : ‘ls there anything else. Signor Americano, that you would like to see?’ ' There’s one thing,’ answered the American, ‘ that 1 want to see more than anything else, and 1 haint been on the edge of it yet.’ 'What is that., Signor?’ ‘The cattle-pens.’ 1 The cattle-pens ? Why, we have nothing of that sort, Signer !’ ‘You haint? Then, where in the world do you keep them Papal bulls that we’re always bearin’ about ?’ i * ! The tale is matched, if not bettered, by a story told by ‘ Civis ’ in the ‘Passing Notes’ column of the Otago Mfti/g Timex the other week, which certainly deserves to be passed on : Transatlantic millionaire at the Vatican is presented to the Pope :grasps his Holiness vigorously by the hand and remarks : * Vurry pleased to meet you, sir. 1 knew your father, the late Pope.’

A Weighty Statement It is interesting to note that lie somewhat limited vision and contracted outlook of the E.X. Journal of Education in regard to the place and importance of religious schools in a truly national system of education are not shared by its professional contemporaries in other lands. The New Zealand paper, it will be remembered, stated that it stood for the present secular or so-called ' national ’ system, and was opposed to the encouragement, in any shape or form, of the religious schools, on the ground that this would tend to weaken the ‘ national ’ system. Very different is the attitude of the New England Journal of Ed neation whose editor has given us one of the weightiest statements in vindication of the Catholic position that it has been our lot to come across. We have pleasure in reproducing it, and in order that our State school teachers may by given the opportunity of looking at the question from every angle, we hope that the E.Z. Journal of Ed ion- will ‘please copy.’ ‘ There is one Church,’ says the New England Journal of Education, ‘ which makes religion an essential in-education and that is the Catholic Church, in which the mothers teach their faith to the infants at the breast in their lullaby songs, and whose brotherhoods and priests, sisterhoods and nuns imprint their religion on souls as indelibly as the diamond marks the hardest glass. They ingrain their faith in human hearts when most plastic to the touch. Are they wrong, are they stupid, are they ignorant, that they found parish schools, convents, colleges in which religion is taught? Not if a man be worth more than a dog, or the human soul, with eternity for duration, is of more value than the span of animal existence for a day. If they are right we are wrong. If our Puritan fathers were wise, then we are foolish ; looking upon it as a mere speculative question, with their policy they will increase: with ours, we will decrease. We are no prophet, but it does seem to us that Catholics retaining their religious teaching and we our heathen schools, will gaze upon cathedral crosses all over New England when our meeting houses will be turned into barns. Let them go on teaching their religion to the children and let us go on educating our children in schools without a recognition of God and without the reading of the Bible and they

will plant corn and train grape-vines on the unknown graves of the Plymouth Pilgrims and the Puritans of Massachusetts Pay, and none will dispute their right of possession. • We say this without expressing our own hopes or fears, but as inevitable from the fact that whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.' That is the Catholic argument in a nutshell ; and it has never been more aptly or concisely stated.

The London ‘Star’ Tells a Tale No sensible person nowadays thinks of turning to the columns of a sensation-loving evening daily, such as the London Star, for a sober statement of Catholic events or Catholic history, and the general public has long ago learned to take with considerably more than a grain of salt the tall tales and startling narratives that are from time to time, served up to sell the paper. Mark Twain said in his More Tramps ; ‘I never could tell a lie that anybody would doubt, or a truth that anybody would believe.’ But such highart liars are, like poets, born-, not made. The average newspaper fabricator, especially when handling Catholic matters, cannot lie plausibly or consistently. This is evidenced in a fairy tale printed in the Taranaki Daily Sews the other day, and quoted as having appeared in the London Star. It is all about an alleged love affair of Pius IX., in the days before he entered the ecclesiastical state. There is nothing in the story itself discreditable to the reputed lover, but the foolish and sensational headlines— A Pope’s Romance,’ ‘ Bride Forsaken at the Altar ’certainly convey the impression that the incident happened after Pius IX. had ascended the Papal throne. According to the story, the young Italian, scion of a noble house, handsome, chivalrous, generous, etc., etc., formed a romantic attachment (duly reciprocated) for the lovely daughter of an Irish Anglican bishop. lie proposed, was accepted, and the wedding-day fixed.

It was, of course, inevitable that the course of true love should not run smoothly. It never does• in fiction. The young ‘ loviers ’ had therefore to be separated in the time-honored way by interfering parents. The tragedy is thus narrated: ‘But when the day arrived the Count was not at the church. The would-be bride waited for a long time, but he never arrived, and not for many years afterwards did she learn the reason, and know that he had after all been faithful. The explanation was simple. The Count came of a Jesuit family who had estimated his value to the Church, and determined that it should possess him. Letters were intercepted, and being persuaded that the beautiful Irish girl had ceased to love him, he took Orders, and was sent to the West Indies. His true worth soon told ; he became a Bishop, and Archbishop, and Pope on the death of Gregory XVI. 1 He learnt (how it is not stated) of his family’s deceit, and on the day be ascended the Papal Throne he revealed the fact that he was the Count Mastai-Ferretti, who had failed to keep his wedding-morn engagement with Miss Foster. - Thus was the truth revealed to the woman who had loved him so well.’ The whole thing is, of course, purely legendary, and finds no place in the authentic biographies of Pius IX. But the idea of a Pope, on the very day on which he ascended the Papal throne, turning aside to tell the world all ,about his early love affairs is so absurdly and deliciously comical that we almost forgive the varlet for the rest of the nonsensical • concoction; It is something to get an innocent laugh in these otherwise serious and sombre times.

Germany and Ireland German papers and writers in tlx© United States are making an earnest and determined—if rather belated and amusing—attempt to pose as the friend and protector, and even as the would-be ally, of Ireland. To this effect writes a 'Mr. Viereck, in the well-known German American paper, The Fatherland, of October 4. He has made the discoveryvery late in the day, it must be admitted—that the Germans ‘ are one with

the Irish/ and that the Irish are one with us.’ But let Mr. Viereck and The Fatherland speak for themselves. ‘ Germany/ says the German organ, ‘ did not discover Ireland until 1913. > She did not discover England until 1914. Germany did not sympathise with Ireland, because she did not know Ireland. Germany advocated an under-standing with England, because she did not know England. To-day Germany knows her friends. She knows her enemies. The advocate of an Anglo-German Alliance would be swept off his feet in Germany to-day by a wave of popular indignation. We do not believe that Germany will ever come to an understanding with England, until the fate of Ireland is settled. Germany will not give up Belgium 'unless England liberates Ireland. If England indemnifies Ireland, Germany will indemnify Belgium. < England cannot be safe, while Belgium is in German hands. Germany cannot have free access to the high roads of the ocean while Ireland is enslaved. If the Irish Republic had lasted a little longer, Germany could have recognised Ireland as a belligerent. If the Irish Revolution should break out afresh, if the Irish should again hold their own capital and establish a government, Germany would be able, under international law, to recognise the independence of Ireland. She has already prepared the way. She has sent arms to Ireland. She is willing to send men. The passport of Roger Casement read : Roger Casement, Irishman. This in itself was a recognition of Ireland as a nation. . . . Roger Casement had the vision of a statesman. He clearly enunciated that the freedom of the seas and the freedom of Ireland are one and inseparable. Professor Muensterberg, in a much-discussed article, recommends future co-operation on the part of Germany with the United States and Great Britain for the maintenance of peace. He prefers an alliance of the Germanic races to a combination dominated by Russia and Japan. We have no doubt that so far-seeing a scholar did not overlook, even if he did not state, the fact that the problem of Ireland must be settled before there can be peace in Europe. Neither can there be an alliance between the United States and England until the wrongs of Ireland are righted. . . . The Fatherland and its readers feel that the cause of the Central Powers and the cause of Irish freedom are one, and to indicate our attitude unmistakably, we shall add to our creed : Fair Play for Germany and Austria-Hungary, the insistent demand: Freedom for Ireland.’

These touching but newly-developed sentiments are obviously ‘ springes to catch woodcocks,’ and even the most violently anti-English of the Irish American papers, the Irish World, will have none of such vague and delusive promises. In vain is the snare spread in sight of the bird. ‘ Mr. Viereck,’ says our Irish American contemporary, tells us that if Ireland should raise an army that would keep the field, Germany would recognise her, belligerency. It would be very kind of Germany. Then we might expect that, if the Irish army occupied .London, Germany would acknowledge Irish independence. Rut the Irish have tied up an English army in Ireland. They have kept Mr. Wilson from entering the war on England’s side. In return what has Germany done? Sent a shipload of captured Russian arms which never arrived. Now, will Mr. Yiefreck tell us what there is in international law, supposing there be such a thing as international law left after England’s assaults upon it, to prevent Germany from declaring that, when she makes peace, she will-insist upon the freedom of Ireland, or of Poland or of inland, or of any other small nation ? It is not a question of recognising their independence, it is one of demanding that they be set free as a condition of peace. What is there against it? So far as we can see, nothing unless there be . a desire for an ulterior alliance with England. On the contrary, such, a declaration would immeasurably strengthen! Germany morally and politically, and it would as inevitably weaken the Entente. Again w r e ask, \y}jafc are Germany’s intentions regarding Ireland ? ‘ The Irish

American paper has hit the nail squarely on the head; and it will ask in vain for a declaration: of Germany’s intentions which will satisfy the searching condition it has laid down. '

The Landing at Saionica

At the time of writing, General Von Falkenhayn is stated to be making a swift descent upon Monastir; and however it may fare with General Sarrail in the , coming encounter—and in view of the chaotic situation in Greece his position is not altogether an enviable one—the fact that he is there at all to 'meet the invader is sufficient to show that the landing and mobilisation at Salonica has been amply justified. The Salonica scheme to checkmate German ambitions in the Balkans is said to have originated in the mind of M. Briand—the French prototype of Mr. Lloyd George —and when the expedition was first announced it was keenly discussed and criticised, nor were there wanting those who predicted that it would prove a second Dardanelles. The prediction has not been verified. Even now the effects of the move can be seen, fo.r had the Allies not, landed at Salonica Servians valuable if sorelytried little army would surely have been wiped out; the whole of the Near East would have been over-run by the Teutons; Greece would have been definitely out on the side of Germany : and Kumania would never have joined the Allies- if, indeed, she had not been compelled to come in against • them. Some of the further advantages that have been or are expected to be derived from the lauding are thus set forth by the London Spectator: ‘lt has prevented the Germans from descending upon Salonica and establishing a submarine base there. It is a visible pledge of vast political importance that the Allies mean to prevent Germany from devouring the Balkan nationalities in her projected giant-stride to the East. And finally, the presence of the Allies means a great military camp established athwart the line of that advance. It must be a constant nightmare to the Germans. No German who travels in the Ji<ill<inzn<j Express can fail to think of that menace on his flank, and to reflect that his visions of the M I l-E iiro/Ki of the future are still subject to ■ the sanction of the Allies. The geo-political destiny of Germany with which orotund German political philosophers console themselves and their attentive readers , is not, after all, so very consoling while that wretched foothold of the Allies at Salonica has to be painted the wrong color on the war maps. The natural strength of the Salonica. position, with its circumambient hills and lakes and rivers, is so great that the Germans and Bulgarians did not dare to attack it even when the defences were only being prepared. And now they have a proper dread of the expansive forces which may * be extruded from that mysterious and haunting fortress of hills which have the supply-giving sea behind them, and on the sea the ships of the Allies commercing freely with all the world.’ The statement as to the ‘ nightmare ’ and dread experienced by the Germans is palpably overdone, but. the above considerations are certainly sufficient to confirm the Allies in the opinion that they did right in going to Salonica,