Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 7 April 1921, Page 14

Current Topics

Loyal Moryah! ; \j- oi £ thn ~. -j f r . ' Archbishop O’Shea hit the nail on the head when he told his hearers that the noisy ■ and blatant heralds of the P.P.A. are part and parcel of that infamous Irish secret society which makes loyalty consist in consigning the Pope to hell with pious frequency. The noisiest and most blatant of them all is the admirer of the murderer Cromwell who from the pulpit of his tin temple now and then lectures on Catholic theology. One and all, they mean by their loyalty that they will support any Government that will give them their way and.will persecute Catholics whenever the P.P.A., the Council of Churches, or the Nation and the Wanganui Chronicle demand it. It is loyalty of the same kind that threatened to kick into the .Boyne the King’s Crown if he dared do justice to the Irish people. Lest our readers have forgotten how loyal were the parsons and the pests of Ulster who backed Carson and the Kaiser against the Irish Catholics, we will recall a few choice expressions of Protestant loyalty. Speaking at Edinburgh, December, 1911, Carson said: “I have been called a rebel, but Ido not care for that.” At Belfast, April, 1912, he said: “The present Government had treated them with fraud, and if necessary they would treat the present Government with force.” (The Council of Churches were not /worried over that, were they ?) At Blenheim, July, 1912, Carson said: “We will shortly challenge the Government to interfere with us if they dare.” At Armagh, October, 1913: “It is good that there should stand beside me here the Lord Primate of Ireland, a very good specimen, if I may so so, of a brother rebel.” (Did the Reverend- J. J. North lose any sleep over the Protestant Primate’s rebellion against the Crown?) In the same strain spoke Galloper Smith, Bonar Law, Captain Craig, and many other loyal heroes who had sworn, when they got their positions, that they would in all circumstances support the Crown. It is not surprising that such perjured people later on tore up their war pledges and by their trickery and chicanery dragged the name of England in the mud. What did they care for England? They cared exactly as much as the P.P.A. or the Council of Churches cares for the Empire. But let us see how loyal were those Orange parsons whose treason never worried the New Zealand Council of Churches half as much as we do when we demand that, for shame’s sake England ought to keep her word of honor to the men whom she called upon to die for the destruction of, Prussian tyranny. One Reverend Anderson, speaking at Irvinestown, May, 1912, said: “He begged of them to put their trust in God and to be ready to shed their blood and risk their lives in defence of the great privileges they enjoyed.” That was an honest man. He cared nothing for the Empire but he cared a great deal for his privileges. The Ulster Protestant press boasted that the Kaiser would help them to burst up the Empire, and Ulster Protestant bishops spoke in the same strain, making it quite clear that their loyalty consisted in supporting a Government as long as it maintained their ascendancy over the vast majority of the Irish people. Did the damnvisans domesticus become perturbed by all this parsonical rebellion? Did the Wanganui Chronicle bawl over this treason? Did the loyal Orange Lodges and the- loyal P.P.A. , worry one whit at the open proclamations of sedition made bv parsons and Orangemen? Not a bit of it: the only thing that worries these persons is that the Irish people at home may win, or that Catholics out here may get fair play. What a contemptible gang they are! At home and abroad they are all the same, blatant, boasting, ignorant ranters who from press and pulpit make it clear that the one god they adore is the idol of their own selfish interest. The sad part of it is that we have in Parliament men who are tools of those wretched persons. ~ 7 Opportunists lua.. Jbj-or hstyr&nm brfftd : Among the Apostles there was one opportunist. More than his principles, ;: . he ; sold his Master for a

purse of silver, - and having sold Him - the .. people; to whom Judas went for consolation spurned him v with contumely. ' It is always the way ; : the seoinin kowtows, and Ills pay is kicking ; the opportunist preserves an ignoble silence and his reward is contempt; J udas hanged himself with a rope and his followers are metaphorically gibetted by all honest men. A dear old Irish priest who has gone to God used to say that the only way to win respect from an Orangeman was . to use a blackthorn on him ; and conversely the surest way to win scorn from our political and religious foes is to run after them and to make door-mats of our principles for them. It is a splendid thing to see an upright man walking the ways of the world, fearing God alone, proclaiming his faith in all things right and just and holy, and never bending a servile neck to the placemen of the earth. It is fine to see an Irishman who is not afraid or ashamed to stand up for wronged Ireland at all times and to know no other guide in his demands for her than truth and justice. It is inspiring to find a Catholic who is as true to his religion in a crowd of men as he is when on his knees at night in the solitude of his room. But the pity, of it is that what is so fine and so inspiring is equally rare. Expediency is the rule among the multitude here. You must not advocate Ireland’s just claims openly (like that unspeakable Tablet does !), you must always remember that the P.P.A. and the parsons do not like Sinn Fein, and you must talk unctiously about “our Empire, “our fleet,” and “our men.” Anyhow, what is Ireland to us? What did she give us but the Faith? For the Irish people, with the thought of God ever before them, the Faith was all right, but. we have other things besides God to think about, you know, and we must be broadminded and affable to all. We left Ireland behind long ago, and even if she is a small nation why‘should we worry about her wrongs and her sufferings? We don’t suffer, and making a stand for Ireland might inconvenience us out here.” That is exactly the line of thought of our opportunists. They haye the purse; they have sold their principles and honest men have metaphorically hanged them. “Away with de Valera and give us Nosworthy is their motto. Archbishop Redwood, Archbishop Mannix, Archbishop Walsh, and Cardinal O’Connell are very foolish persons and they don’t know as much as we do. When the people who reason thus are not of Irish birth there is some excuse for them, but for those who are born in Ireland there can be none. But even among the latter there are degrees of infamy. An ignorant layman may plead ignorance; perhaps it is natural that ideal things and spiritual things should not mean much to him. But the seoinin Irish priest is in a class below which imagination cannot descend: he sins against the light and for him hope is lost. We thank God that such are few. The day has come when all true men of our race are taking their stand with Archbishop Walsh, Archbishop Mannix, and Archbishop Redwood on the side of right and justice. It is recognised by intelligent men now that to dictate to the Irish people what we think best for them is not only impertinence but contrary to the right theory of sound government. Marked as the division between the sheep and the goats is the division now between the true Irishmen who stand by their country in her dark hour and the miserable seoinini who, ensconced in their snug nests, level destructive criticism at every man who ever tried to do anything for anybody. Self is the god of the seoinin and the opportunist; they talk and talk and go through life like drones until '.they die and leave the world better for their absence. If their wisdom only equalled their conceit, if their deeds only equalled their, words, the contempt that men have for them would be changed into respect and esteem. But there is no hope: they sin against the light. yf . ; r. i- N&vm to T.,-,. _ •. • . ——— > i\i •]!r,di 1: Were the Early Christians Socialists ? " i cl > It is not uncommon to read in Socialist’ papers and books that the early Christians were" f Socialists and that the Gospel of Christ-was a revolution in economic theory. Christ, they say, was a Communist who ■ condemned ’ private property and strove to abolish

Capitalism, teaching that to be attached to riches was sinful and that "poverty' was a condition for going to • Heaven. * He was followed by the Apostles, the Fathers of the early Church, and the faithful, so that the first Christian Churches were societies of Communists. Not, they say, until Christianity became the fashionable religion of the Roman Empire did the Church change her views to suit altered circumstances, as, indeed, she had already done in the great trading centres of Egypt, under Clement of Alexandria. Clement, according to Nitti, accommodated the Gospel of Christ concerning riches to the requirements of a rich commercial community ; and we are told that the medieval and modern Church adopted his views from that time to this. The charge that the Church has changed her dostrine is an old one. It is the same charge as was made by the Reformers, and is still made by their, successors in our time. Cardinal Newman studied the problem for years before becoming a Catholic, satisfying himself that the charge was false, and that what was called change was only vital and natural development. People outside of the Church fail to grasp the distinction between precepts and counsels and much confusion springs from this error. The Protestant theory that all that is good is of precept and that nothing is merely recommended as a higher course has found its way among all who depend on Protestant literature ; and consequently we find the view repeated by Socialist writers who, knowing nothing of Bible criticism themselves, depend for their information on traditional Protestant views. For example, they cannot distinguish between the precepts and the counsels in the case of the rich young man whom Christ told to keep the Commandments if he would enter into life, and upon further query as to what good might be done, told him to sell all his goods and give the proceeds to the poor. Instead of proving, as Socialists say, that Christ laid down poverty as a necessary condition for Heaven this narrative proves exactly the contrary. “If thou wouldst have everlasting life, keep the Commandments” that is, the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue in which there is nothing against riches and no insisting on the necessity of poverty. Then comes the counsel : "If thou wouldst he ■perfect, go sell what thou hast and give it to the poor.” That is, if the young man wanted to lead a life of higher perfection than that to which ordinary Christians are called he was to sell his goods and give to the poor. Note that he was not told to give to a common fund from which the poor were to draw at need. It is clearly implied that the money derived from the sale was to he his to give or to hold as he pleased. For the Apostles, St. Paul may be taken as a representative witness. In his instructions to Timothy he tells him, how to deal with the rich, but he does not tell him that they must renounce their wealth or give it into a common fund. From the New Testament we can gather that there was for a time a system of holding all in common in the Church at . Jerusalem. We can also infer that it was local and temporary, and in no wise of obligation. And as for the instances brought forward by writers to support the contention of Socialists, we usually find that they stop short of the important points and quote only as much as suits them: another relic of Protestantism. In parables one must distinguish what is figurative and symbolic from what is essential, and one must be careful not to base arguments on what is merely ad ornumentum. Thus, the narrative which says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle • than for a rich man to go to Heaven only teaches that riches are a burden which makes winning Heaven difficult in ordinary circumstances. Indeed, one interpretation refers the "eye of a needle” to a gate in the city walls so called and so low that camels had to be rid of some of their load before passing through it. But even if that be not the true interpretation, what follows (and what Socialists omit) makes it clear that Our ■Lord: meant something very different from what Socialists say He meant. ’ The disciples asked Him: • "Who then : can be saved . "With men,” said Our

Lord, "this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 1 The . meaning of this is that with God’s grace even the rich man may 'be ; saved. And, of course, if the possession of riches were sinful and essentially wrong God’s grace would not come to the rich as long as they remained in a sinful and wrong way of- life. ‘ ' --7 With reference to Communism in the early Church, Tertullian may be quoted to prove that the right of private property was recognised. He says in his Apologia : “Though we have our treasure chest, it is not made up of purchase money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly collection-day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it pleases him, and only if he is able; all is voluntary .” In O’Brien’s Medieval Economic Teaching , Bergier is quoted as saying: “Towards the end of the first century St. Barnabas; in the second, St. Justin and St. Lucian; in the third, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian; in the fourth, Arnobius and Lactantius, say that among the Christians all goods are common; there was then certainly no question of a community of goods taken in the,strict sense.” Here we have Tertullian mentioned as one who writes of community of goods, while we have just seen that he clearly recognises private property. Consequently, the community of goods in the early Church was a very different thing from Communism -as understood by modern Socialists. O’Brien says: "It is therefor© doubtful if the Church at Jerusalem, as described in the Acts, practised Communism at all, as apart from great liberality and benevolence. Assuming, however, that the Acts should be interpreted in their strict literal sense, let us see to what the called Communism amounted. In the first place, it is plain from the Acts (iv. 32) that the Communism was one of use, not of ownership. . . This distinction is particularly important in view of the fact that it is precisely that insisted on by St. Thomas Aquinas. . . In the next place, we must observe that the Communism described in the Acts was purely voluntary. . . There is no indication that the abandonment of one’s possessory rights was preached by the Apostles. Indeed, it would be difficult to understand why they should have done so, when Christ Himself had remained silent on the subject. Far from advocating Communism, the Founder of Christianity had urged the practice of many virtues ’> for which possession of private property was essential.” As for the passages which are adduced fro|ji the Fathers of the Church, Mr. Devas says (Dublin Review, January, 1898) : "The mistake of representing the early Christian Fathers of the Church as rank Socialists is frequently made by those who are friendly to modern Socialism; the reason for it is that either they have taken passages from their context, and without due regard to the circumstances in which they were written, and the 1 meaning they would have conveyed to their hearers; or else. / by a grosser .blunder, the perversions of heretics are set forth as the doctrine of the Church, and a sad case arises of mistaken identity.” For a comprehensive account of the opinions of the Fathers we refer our readers to Medieval Economics, pp. 41-101. We conclude by saying that Communism was not taught by Christ, nor by the Apostles, nor by the early Fathers, and that it was not practised, as the Socialists understand it, in the early Christian communities. The right of private property was recognised and upheld while at the same time charity and benevolence were preached and practised, and poverty was represented as being, all things considered, a better state than wealth. We do not say that Churchmen did not at times show undue favor to the rich; we do not say that some such are not among us still; but we say that the doctrine of the Church has not changed although it may have developed as a tree develops from the plant without losing its oneness and continuity. 1 _■ i ~ ’.7 77 ’