Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 11 December 1919, Page 14

Current Topics

A Compliment to the " N.Z. Tablet J% ~,., :,--■ kl On November 26, the Rev. Dr. Kelly, editor of the N.Z. Tablet, Lwas entertained at lunch at the Hotel Australia by the directors of the Sydney Catholic Press. The Archbishops of Sydney and Wellington were present, as well as the directors and staf& of ~ the Press, amongst whom were : Monsignor ; Moynagh, Monsignor Collins, Very Rev. Father Whyte, 7 Father Sheehy, Messrs. Tighe Ryan, P. S. Cleary, O'Brien, Bryant, and O'Neill. Monsignor Moynagh, in proposing Dr. Kelly's health, paid an eloquent tribute to his work as editor of the Tablet, which, said the speaker, had been made a real live paper and an effective champion of religion and fatherland. Both Archbishops also spoke appreciatively of the worth of the N.Z. Tablet. Dr. Kelly in replying expressed his. deep r appreciation of the honor done to the Tablet and to himself by the directors of . the Catholic Press, and said that he was particularly pleased that Archbishop Redwood, who had helped him in troublous times,-was present. He also felt that such kindly recognition was no small reward for much worry and annoyance endured as a result of speaking out honestly what he believed it his duty to speak.

Natural Rights and Duties As the tendency to make an idol of the State grows it becomes more and more important that the people should be educated in the knowledge of those inalienable rights and duties which are above and beyond the province of the State, and which cannot be abrogated by any human power without tyranny and despotism such as we have all witnessed during the past five years when Governments became instruments of danger instead of bulwarks for the protection of the liberties of the subject. Man, by virtue of his rational being, possesses certain rights and duties, known as natural rights and duties, founded on the Natural Law which is a participation of the Eternal Law in the rational creature, and as a consequence is immutable, and above all man-made laws. Natural Rights and Duties are from God. They were bestowed and given to man before any State existed and they are absolutely independent of State-recognition. In the maintenance of those rights and duties consists the main duty of those who would preserve the true liberty and dignity of man against the inroads of the modern Servile State which tends more and more to recognise no right and no law but its own will. When we consider how incompetent are modern politicians, and how ignorant of the fundamental principles of law and ethics, we readily realise what a danger and a menace is a Servile State administered by them, and our obligation to withstand them and defend humanity against them becomes obvious.* We have had proofs recently that there are alleged statesmen in New Zealand who would introduce the tyranny of a State conscience and would make the will of a majority the supreme norm of right and wrong for all we have also seen the law put in force to compel men to act against their conscience and we have had terrible incidents in which brutal servants of the State mal-treated conscientious objectors. The Servile State has been in our midst for four years, and it is to the interest of every man who loves liberty to do all in his power to break the despotism which has gained control of New Zealand in the name of a Government for the people. * Nothing will help so much to do this as a knowledge of our Rights and Ditties and a firm determination to defend for God what came from God, even with our lives. For a clear treatment of this question of Natural Rights and Duties we refer our readers to . Kerr's Catechism of Catholic Social Principles, and here limit ourselves to tabulating the primary Natural Rights which man must defend if he will preserve his independence and his worth as : a rational being. A man's Primary Natural Rights are chiefly:— .y : '^"''.-^^

1. The right to live.-if'=;_ 2. 3 The right to his family. 3. The right ■; to. develop: % A. The bright to serve . God.

From the first it follows that mail has ■" :?: (a) The right to the necessaries of life k " (ib) The right to work for them,V ; ''i ;1 * ; fS (c) The right to accumulate the fruits of his :•'•• -■ toil. ■ : "'"" : " -"'■'■•'•'. - w®?f **«w o.tt

From the second follows that he has - '•'".'..''*.'"",. "....'*^l (a) The right to marry. ■"■..,; .■/.% «C| (b) The right to his wife and children... ; n t> (c) The right to bring up his children in ? the fear and love of God. ,;-->•

From the right to develop follow . ada.O (a) The right to liberty. iiv-con :w (b) The right to rest and recreation. (c) The right to exercise and improve 'his skill, craft, and the powers of his mind, f':-' (d) The right to invent and keep about him all those aids to civilisation which make

for his improvement and benefit.

From his right to serve God it follows that he has ; (a) The right to the free exercise of his reli-

S lOll - .. '■■,■ r'i.--: (b) The right to control his children's education. rc'i

(c) The right to safeguard their morals. It will be seen at a glance that the foregoing are precisely the rights which the modern State attacks and which man, for his best interests, must resolutely defend at all costs. . . ; . _ ~,-,■;./ :;.:■; Joseph McCabe and Science A correspondent takes us to task for disparagingly writing of Joseph as a man of science, and wonders at our temerity in view of the spread of scientific knowledge gained from cheap R.P. A. prints ! We should not have thought it necessary to point out to any reader that Joseph's was precisely the sort of cheap science that is to be had at such a source and that while granting him superabundant excellence in that department we are by no means prepared to grant that he knows the first thing about science itself. However, as we said that he crept into notoriety of a sort as the prophet of the exposed forger Haeckel, we are ready to explain in what Haeckel's dishonesty consisted for the sake of readers who will not find such revelations in P.P.A. prints or in kindred works. We take merely one case and examine it in the light of the opinions of modern scientists on Haeckel's discreditable methods. Haeckel, in dealing with the geological record, draws a fictitious picture of submarine forests of prehistoric days in which he tells us we may suppose that all subsequent forms of vegetation began their careers as seaweeds. Again he says that the apetalous Dicotyledons date back as far as the Trias, thus by a sheer effort of his imagination filling in an uncomfortable gap. Worse than all; in his theory of the descent of man from the beast, he prints an elaborate genealogy in which he exhibits as a simple matter of scientific fact an "Ancestral Series of the Human Pedigree" which is calculated to deceive his readers and mislead them into thinking that they are being told facts. instead of forgeries. The faked genealogy reads thus: 1. Mbnera. 2. Celled Primeval animals. 3. Manycelled Primeval animals. 4. Ciliated planulae. 5. Primeval intestinal animals. 6. Gliding worms. ,7./^ Soft worms. 8. Sack worms. 9. Acrania. 10. Monorrhina. 11. Primeval fish. . 12. Salamander fish. 13. Gilled Amphibia. 14. Tailed Amphibia. 15. Primeval Amniota. 16. Primary mammals. 17. Marsupialia. 18. Semi-apes. 19. Tailed narrow-nosed apes. 20. Tailless apes. 21. Ape-like man. 22. Talking man. Of this precious piece of science M. Quatrefages says: "The first thing to remark is that not one of v the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen, either living or fossil. .; Their existence is based entirely on theory. ... Haeckel invents types them-

selves as well as the line of descent which he assigns them. ,, l And again, the same authority writes: "Whenever a branch or twig is lacking on his genealogical tree, and whenever the transit from one type to another would appear too abrupt, * were we to restrict ourselves to creatures actually known, he invents species and groups boldly,,. to which ...he. unhesitatingly assigns a place in phylogeny, often a part in phylogenesis. . . . He thus creates a fauna, entirely hypothetical, of which Vogt rightly said that no man ever saw a trace of it, or ever will."

Du Bois-Raymond says: "Man ? pedigree as drawn, up by Haeckel, is worth about as much as is that of Homer.'s heroes for critical historians." Such in a word is Haeckel's science of which McCabe is the accredited prophet. Haeckel was not even an honest scientist, and had no pretentions to be a philosopher. McCabe who builds so shrewdly on Haeckel.'.s unstable foundations claims to be scientist, philosopher, Bible-critic, theologian, and Heaven knows what not besides. And McCabe is a luminary of the R.P.A. school of , knowledge! Of the materialism which such "scientists" profess, true scientists like Lord Kelvin, Stewart, Tait, Wallace, and Lodge know nothing. But they do know something about science, and their knowledge has led them to God. Of the materialism of the McCabes, which pays well, Comte wrote that it "is the most illogical form of metaphysics." Sir Leslie Stephens said it is "not so much error as sheer nonsense." And, once more, let us quote the great French scientist who said that he thanked God that his Faith was as strong as that of a Breton peasant, and that if he knew more it would be as that of a Breton woman. Sir Bertrand Windle, who is a true scientist, and whose word weighs in halls which sciolists of the McCabe type have never won the right to enter," writes: "Let us learn humility and patience from Science if we learn nothing else; but we shall miss its greatest lesson if it fails to teach us the greatness of the Creator, from Whose Idea all these wonders took their origin." Such things Science taught Pasteur and Bernhard too. None of-them it taught McCabe. But as he has not the humility of a disciple, not to speak of that of a professor, which is immeasurably more, we fear that its lessons are for ever beyond him. It was not the humility that Science teaches that led him whither he has wandered. And no man who reads one of his books can have any delusions as to his worth or weight on any of the subjects on which he writes with such consummate cheek. The Religious Orders in France Most people have a very hazy idea of what was at the bottom of the breach between the Vatican and the French Government when the Concordat was withdrawn and cancelled. And as things go the danger is that owing to the activities of a hostile press the hazy idea is also a fundamentally wrong one. The press threw all the blame on the Pope, of course; which in itself ought to" persuade reasonable people that the Pope must have been right. The Concordat was in existence since 1801, when it was drawn up as a modus vivendi between Pius VII. and Napoleon. Before that date Napoleon had experience of other attempts at settling the relations between Church and State. From 1790 to 1795 an effort was made to establish a national Church which was to be a State concern and a State department. The scheme failed because those who tried it failed to realise that supernatural religion could not be tied in red tape. From 1795 to 1801 it was tried * to separate Church and State entirely. Finally, as a matter, as far as he was concerned, of policy, Napoleon introduced the Concordat whereby the State guaranteed protection to the Church in return for the writing off of all the old debt incurred by past confiscations. Slender stipends were promised to the clergy, and 5 there is little doubt that the Emperor thought he Was J cleverly fettering the priesthood and converting it into what he called a moral police— gendarmerie spiritu-elle—-whose interest it would be to support: himself.

But, as usual, human craft was-out of its reckoning when dealing with .the Church; and the effect of Napoleon's scheme , was really to emancipate- the impoverished French Church, and to make it more than ever, a living part of the great Catholic f Church. '^The- Church of Christ has a Divine mission to preach openly. In France it could not do so without coming into collision with the omnipotence of the State, and at times defying it. The Church of 'France really existed as a body, but in the mind of the secular authorities it existed as a body -of ( State officials. The conflict came when .the State put forward a claim to manage and control the education of the young, while the clergy demanded for Christian parents the right "to have the children brought up according to Christian standards. When the 'Concordat was drawn 1 up the religious Orders were not mentioned expressly. From that their enemies argued that they were expressly excluded. But Count de Mun has proved conclusively that they were really included in the first article of the treaty between the Pope and the Emperor, in which it was laid down that the State guaranteed "full and free exercise "of the Roman Catholic religion." For how, he argued, could there be full and free exercise of religion if the regular religious life was prohibited and excluded ? Is not the regular life of the Orders an integral part of the development of the faith? Moreover, it is clear from the work: of Count Bbulay de la Meurthe on the Concordat that Napoleon omitted the Orders precisely because he wished that they should be regarded as purely religious societies, not needing State recognition and depending for their creation on a "Brief (of the Pope) should he deem it expedient. Further, we,have the historical fact that the Orders had houses and convents and schools, opened with the tacit recognition of the Government, at the time the Concordat was drawn up and for two or three years previously: "I ask any man of good faith," says Count de Mun, "if in the face of these facts it is possible to pretend that the silence of the Concordat can be interpreted as meaning the suppression of the religious congregations." So that we may be assured that it is a historical fact, clearly established, that the religious Orders were recognised as lawful bodies by the Concordat from the beginning.

For many years after- Napoleon's time it was recognised that it was useful' for the religious Orders to obtain protection of the State by a sort of patent issued by the Civil authority. In this way many religious bodies came to be looked on as authorised, in so far forth as they sought for this sort of official recognition, which went beyond the tacit approval of the terms of the Concordat. And at the same time there were very many other bodies which never sought such authorisation, content with -the legitimate right of existing freely which they already had, and seeking none of the effects of Civil recognition. From this the fallacy began to be circulated that. the unauthorised bodies were also illegal bodies; and such was the assumption of the British press which in its historical ignorance of the matter asserted more than once that' the Orders and Congregations in question were prohibited, by the law of the land.' The case may be thus briefly put. The Orders were allowed to exist under the Concordat. In order that they might.claim the civil advantages which followed from the possession of a civil personality they were required to obtain State recognition. The fallacious argument of the press and of the modern French Government is therefore apparent: failure to seek for such advantages did not affect, in any way the terms of the Concordat, which tacitly recognised them. They had tacit recognition, and who shall say that tacit recognition and illegality are one and the same thing? " The reasoning of M. Combes has no value; unless he is prepared to admit that they are one and the same thing. In July, 1901, this enemy of the-Church falsely represented to the people that the Orders which had not obtained recognition were rebels and law-breakers; and as such he treated them, ; although, v says Count de Mun, until July 1, i l9Ol, the non-recognised Congregations were within their rights (in remaining non-authorised).;

their existence was licit though they : could claim no civil personality or advantage as corporations acknowledged by law."

Waldeck-Rousseau professed that it was the intention of the July laws of 1901 to legalise all Orders and Congregations; he said he wished to extend legalisation to all bodies that applied for it and to making all that did not apply henceforth illegal. All that was required, he protested, was compliance with a few general conditions, such as making a general statement of their property and means of support. Some of the Orders took him at his word. Others, better informed of the spirit behind the movement, preferred to leave France rather than seek for such authorisation as they foresaw would be denied them by the enemies of the Church. The fate of those who trusted to the honor of the Government was ample proof of the wisdom of them that would have no part with the tyrants. That same fate has revealed to the world how little justice or honor remain among those who rule in France. Combes and Rousseau refused authorisation en- bloc. Schools were closed, houses were suppressed, and the Congregations thrown on the mercy of the world in defiance of truth and honor. The matter was put bluntly by M. Rabier, before the Chamber of Deputies : "Of what use is it to discuss the ends and objects of the Congregations who have asked for authorisation ? We have no call to judge them as we do not mean to authorise them. Our intention is to condemn them and to refuse their application, and so destroy them under the new law." Remember that it was guaranteed on the word of honor of a French Minister that the application was only a mere matter of form. It is just possible that WaldeckRousseau may have been sincere and that the whole blame for the blackguardly breach of faith lies at the door of his successor, M. Combes, but to most people it will seem that both were guilty. It is true that before his death Waldeck-Rousseau made a protest which threw all the odium on Combes ; but of that protest it is enough to say that it was too late to be effective, and that when' the time to protest was at hand no protest was forthcoming. Nuns, many of them in their old age, were evicted from the convents where they had passed their lives laboring for the glory of God and for the welfare of France. How they fared did not matter to Combes or Viviani or the rest of the gang, some of whom pocketed the proceeds of the plunder of the convents and monasteries, and with their ill-gotten goods— quote from a recent issue of A —bought jewels to deck the necks of harlots. * Here, then, is the true story of the suppression of the Orders in France and the exposure of the perfidy and duplicity that lay behind it. If we ask why were such crimes committed the answer is in the words of

the Bishop of Orleans: '.'lt is against God and against Christianity that-all this persecution is directed. . ■. . God is the enemy. . 4 . . God is to be exiled from the soul of the young child." It was exactly the same policy which kept* down Foch and Castlenau and Pau and put Freemasons and other incompetents over their heads until the test of war compelled the cowards to call on the Catholics to save them. It was the same policy which drove from France the thousands of priests and Brothers who have fought so valiantly in the trenches, not for the rascally Government, but for their own France which they want to save. The curse of the war is terrible; but far worse is the curse of such Governments whose crimes have injured France more than ten such wars. What a sorry plight the miscreants would be in but for the patriotism of the Catholics whom they persecuted !