Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 2 October 1919, Page 14

Current Topics

New Books and Good Books In the articles of the New Zealand Tablet Company it is provided for the development of a Catholic book depot, in connection "with our printing works, if at any time it should seem advisable to the directors to undertake the work of carrying on such a department. The distribution of good literature is the primary object of the company, and it has long been recognised that this could be more effectively done if we had always on hand a stock of standard works such as we recommend from time to time to our readers. While the war lasted, to launch out in any new direction was for many reasons not prudent. Now that there is a probability that things will become normal once more, we have already made arrangements with publishers in London, Dublin, and America, and in a very short time we hope to-advertise a list of new books by good Catholic writers. We will also be willing to receive orders for books which we may not have in stock, and we will endeavor to help promoters of Catholic parochial libraries as far as lies in our power. Our aim is the circulation of good books among our people, and with this end in view we confidently rely on the support . of the Catholic community, in whose interest solely we are acting. We have been requested to say that all business will be conducted on a strictly cash basis, which will be more satisfactory for ourselves and more advantageous to our clients. In addition to Catholic literature, we will be able to offer our readers the latest Irish publications in prose and verse, which, as far as possible, will be personally selected and recommended. It may be some time before our stocks come to hand in quantity, but as new books arrive we will notify our readers through our advertising columns, to which we invite the attention of the clergy, the nuns, and the Catholic public; Private Judgment The principle of private judgment is responsible for the dissensions which shivered the work of the Reformation into a thousand warring sects. In the Catholic Church, as all good Catholics know, there is a clear line of demarcation drawn between the Church Taught and the Church Teaching. To St. Peter and his successors —to the Pope and the bishops, and the clergy authorised by the bishops—is committed the task of instructing the faithful. They are the judges as to what is and what is not Catholic doctrine, and to them and not to the flock was entrusted the mission of instruction in matters of faith and morals. Protestants may, and do, exercise the right of saying what they will accept and what they will reject. Catholics know, or ought to know, that it is not for the ignorant laity to say that this must not be preached because they do not like it, or that that is not a subject that comes within the priest's sphere as a teacher. If they are very ignorant and very uninstructed, they will in rare cases imitate the Protestants and attempt to usurp the rights which Christ gave, not to them but to the Church Teaching. It may happen that a priest will go outside the proper limits of his sphere; and in that case it is the business of his ecclesiastical superiors to correct him. They-will not fail to do so if it is necessary, and whether it is or is not necessary,- is a matter for them, to decide. Here again, we may meet with the case of an ignorant, bumptious layman, through want of good manners and through lack of right Catholic feeling, taking on himself the task of a bishop and attempting to dictate to a priest as to what he shall or shall not preach about. Needless to point out the Catholic sense of a community always puts such persons in their proper places eventually. In Catholic Ireland, so strong is the faith that not even the most notorious seonin would ever think of scandalising the people and showing disrespect for the altar by withdrawing from church because he did not like the hard truths uttered from the altar. -.;..':

Macpherson's Lies President • Wilson emphasised the fact that such papers as the London Spectator were doing untold harm to England by their ignorant or malicious misrepresentation of Irish affairs, but our local Mor gen Post man blunders on in their wake, too thick-skinned to be shamed even when the London Times exposes his crass ignorance of the whole Irish problem. We are not going to delay further with the Otago Times and its "dastardly methods," as it is our purpose here to throw some new light on the Muckpherson manifesto about "crime" in Tipperary. Already we explained how the inspector of the police obstructed the legal inquiry and forbade police witnesses to give necessary evidence. The jury naturally refused to bring in a verdict that was not in accordance with the evidence, but Muckpherson had no hesitation in constituting himself into judge and jury and publishing a false statement concerning the tragedy. He knew that any lie was good enough for the Jingo press abroad, and he was right. In addition to what we have already published on the subject of the Knocklong affray, the following paragraph, passed by the censor, appeared in the Irish Independent of July 15, over the signature of Seamus de Burca, T.D. :—"A detachment of Republican soldiers rescued a prisoner from his British captors. One of these, acting presumably on the instructions of Dublin Castle, and following the example of the British forces in Limerick who murdered their prisoner (Mr. Byrne) a short time previously, covered the defenceless handcuffed victim with his revolver and fired, the bullet being knocked aside by and wounding one of the rescuers. Whereupon a melee ensued in which two of the combatants were killed and several wounded." We have already exposed some of Muckpherson's famous "plots," which are quite in keeping with the doings of the infamous Sergeant Sheridan who, after his exposure, boasted that the Government did not prosecute him because he knew too much about its methods. Muckpherson's lies about the martial law in Limerick and about the kidnapping of children have been condemned freely in the English press. With reference to the alleged "proclamation" in Tipperary, published by the Otago Times man, on September 24, Mr. de Valera has already said: "In my own case, an academic exercise, intended to show that if Ireland were given her freedom she would be able as an independent nation to raise an army of 500,000 men, sufficient to defend herself in time of need from outside aggression, was found on my desk in my house. This was twisted by the English Government into the statement that on my person was found plans for a revolutionary army fully worked out, and intended to be used in co-operation with Germany. The same exercise indicated how, owing to Ireland's peculiar geographical position, her coasts could be defended from invasion by a small fleet of submarines operating from our Irish harbors. This was twisted into the statement that we proposed putting the Irish harbors at the disposal of German submarines. I give this simply as a sample from my own personal experience to show how England fabricates evidence when she needs it. Neither I nor my companions were allowed to reply to this charge, or to communicate with anybody whosoever for several weeks after our arrest, and then no letters with any reference to our imprisonment or the causes thereof were allowed to be sent

outside the prison. In this latest ‘explanation’ there is mention of a 'Sinn Fein proclamation in Tipperary. Who is responsible for that proclamation ? It is much more likely that that proclamation was got out and put up by the. agents of the English themselves than that it proceeded from any Sinn Fein sources. Sergeant Sheridan may not be known to the American public, but Tipperary was the scene of his operations also. There has been no such proclamation of the Republic Government covering any area , but there has been an Act passed by the Republican Government ashing the Irish people not to fraternise with the English force of occupation , the armed constabulary. These forces were to he . ostracised socially . I .was myself the mover

on behalf of the Government of that Act, which was passed unanimously by the National Assembly in open session, and which I know the Irish people will loyally obey. In the speech which I delivered on the occasion I gave full reason why that Act was necessary, and it is to be had in the Journal of the House— the Journal for that session has escaped the British Secret Service. The cry of lawlessness is an old cry of the British Government against Ireland. The Irish people are now, as they have ever been, the most law-abiding and law-loving people on the face of the earth. There is much less ordinary crime in Ireland than in England, and whilst the British Government tries to blacken Ireland's reputation abroad, the regular judges that administer English law in Ireland are constrained to admit that Ireland is at this very same time practically crimeless. What 'crime' there is in Ireland-is crime invented and made by the British Government. If members of the constabulary are shot, it is because these forces have themselves been blooded on to shoot the civilians. Only recently Macpherson practically told the police that they might do as they pleased, and that he and the British Government would back them up. At least six murders have been committed by the police, who, instead of being punished, are promoted. As long as England tries to hold Ireland against the will of the Irish people, so long will Ireland be in a state of political disturbance. Violence calls forth violence. In 1917 in Westmeath, Clare, King's Co., Trim, Wicklow, Longford, Cavan, Limerick City Wexford, Monaghan, Waterford Co. as well as city,' Sligo, Louth, Westmeath, King's Co., Wicklow, Mayo, Kildare, and Armagh, the judges were presented' with white gloves as an indication that these circuits were crimeless. In 1918 in Waterford City as well as county Louth, West Meath, King's Co., Wicklow, Mayo, Kilkenny, Down. Kildare, Donegal and Antrim, Derry, Tipperary and Cavan, Monaghan, Armagh, and Fermanagh, the judges were also given white gloves." Politics and Programmes Under the headline of politics Ave have no intention of discussing Mr. Nosworthy's appointment to a seat m the Cabinet, The shout of derisive laughter with which that faux pas was received is sufficient comment. Doubtless, in that promotion both the promoter and the promoted have received their desserts. Our sympathies are rather with the remaining Ministers among whom the Ashburton bigot takes a seat now. We are here concerned with the programmes and promises offered to the voters by Sir Joseph Ward and by the Labor Party. Sir Joseph was a member of the Government against which most people make such charges as were voiced by Mr. Holland in his speech towards the end of last year. These charges were chiefly : The introduction of Prussian militarism; the imposition of unnecessary burdens, whether in money or in blood on this small Dominion; class legislation in favor of the capitalist and the profiteer ; brutal treatment of political prisoners and conscientious objectors; neglect of the soldiers and of their dependents. Sir Joseph lias now broken away from the Reform Party the members of which may be regarded as the chief offenders, and he offers to the country a sweeping democratic programme as a pledge of his repentance. Of that programme it has been said with reason by the Labor Party that its main planks are borrowed from their platform; so that as far as promises go Liberal and Labor Parties come before the electors with an appeal tor the support of democrats who are weary to death of Plutocracy. Certain Labor representatives have said to us that the great fault they find with Sir Joseph is that he comes too late. They are distrustful of promises made on the eve of an election, and they ask why he did not before now make a protest against the administration, for which he - made himself jointly responsible with-Mr. Massey during the war. In spite of such opinions it is, however, likely that sane Labor will see the necessity of making common cause with the Liberals for the routing of Capitalism, and it would

be "a pity ' if ~ through• any division of -- the "democratic forces the real enemies of the people should slip back into power.. Let us say frankly that, ; for | more than one reason, we hope Labor will be strongly represented in the next New Zealand Parliament. Labor" has undeniable grievances which need redress; and, given a strong Labor . representation, we may feel fairly safe in future from the evils of Prussian militarism and profiteering. Labor, too, stands unequivocally for Proportional Representation, which is the only ■ sound and fair electoral policy for Democracy. Again, Labor has always courageously befriended Ireland and opposed the despotism which constitutes the shame, of the Empire at this hour of the world. With no halting voice, on the floor of the House and at public meetings, Labor members have spoken out bravely for the right of self-government so long denied Ireland, and we who are of Irish blood must not forget it to them. While saying so much, we are also bound to say that we cannot agree with the Labor programme in its entirety. We hold with the Auckland magistrate, Mr Cutten, that it is only in denominational schools that a wellbalanced education is given to children, and that it is a pity that by reserving State aid for a class of schools to which Christian parents object to send their children a monopoly is established which is injurious and unjust to the whole Dominion. Non-religious schools are, in fact, sectarian schools, and by encouraging them at the expense of private schools, in which, besides secular subjects well taught, children are taught the religious truths which are the basis of social stability, an injustice is done to the Democracy of the country. Therefore to the advocacy by Labor of Free, Secular, and Compulsory Schools, and to- its consequences, we are firmly opposed, now and always. Labor and Liberal Parties agree in pledging themselves to work for the nationalisation of public services, banks, insurances. The American Bishops, following the guidance of Leo XIII., have already urged such reforms and also advocated the transference to the workers of a share in ownership of industries. While maintaining the right - of ownershij) of private property, and eschewing the fallacies of Communism, we are ready to work with any party which strives after such reforms as those we have mentioned. And though we think it incumbent upon us to point out our objections to the Labor programme, we nevertheless express our sympathy with the Party in its main proposals. We advise no man as to how he shall vote, but we think it right to put our views plainly before our readers who will follow their own good judgment conscientiously. As we have known before now of opponents of Labor who used the Church's disapproval of Socialism to further their own political ends, we here reproduce some remarks written by Father Hull, S.J., for the guidance of Catholic trade unionists in England who asked for advice as to their correct attitude towards Labor organisations with a Socialistic objective. Father Hull says that any concrete movement calling itself Socialistic may contain five elements—(l) A movement for the betterment of the laboring classes, and a mitigation of the tyranny of employers or capitalists, such as grinding down the poor by sweating, or over-working and under-paying them, etc., or in the way of unfair corners, combines, monopolies, etc., which crush out the smaller traders and industrialists, and artificially raise prices, etc. With this movement, if conducted justly and on orderly linen, the Church has full sympathy. (2) A policy of introducing State control over industry, production, and public services, so as to prevent diversion of public revenues into private channels; and especially for the protection of the weaker sections of the community against the strongerfor instance, iii the regulation of fair market prices, etc. All this is sound, provided it is really for the general well-being and, does not hill nut private enterprise, or deprive people of openings for legitimate -development. .. (3) Extreme socialistic theories which deny the right to private . property and the fruits of personal enterprise, teaching that the individual is for the State,

and not the State for the individual. This theory the Church rejects as false in theology and philosophy. "' (4) A destructive and violent war against certain classes as such, aiming at their destruction and ruin in a revolutionary manner. Such hostility is contrary to the principle of "a fair. field and no favor," according to -which people have a right to any distinctions and advantages which come to them honestly and fairly either by good fortune or personal merit. To this element the Church is strongly opposed, as being subversive of right order. (5) A materialistic, atheistic, anti-religious philosophy (or policy) not essentially bound up with Socialism, but often, at least on the Continent, mixed up with and practically identified with it. This policy includes not only the separation of Church and State, but actual disabilities to religion in regard to rights of property and freedom of worship and instruction; the exclusion of religion from public affairs; and, above all, the abolition of religious teaching in schools, and perhaps even the substitution of materialistic or atheistic teaching in its place. To this element the Church is essentially opposed. The question whether Catholics can (in public and political life) join any Socialist Party, or throw themselves into any Socialistic movement existing in the country, will depend on the further question, "whether any of these objectionable features is embodied in the movement, either formally or informally, and how far participation for legitimate ends can take place without committal to that which is repugnant to Catholic principles. In conclusion, readers will note that the objectionable sections, (3), (4), and (5), are not part of the Labor programme, and that those who advocate such principles are the real enemies of sane Labor.