ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS

New Zealand Tablet, 26 May 1921, Page 32

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS

Reader calls our attention to the joke of the week, viz., the assertion of the morning editor that the English troops received ‘ great provocation from the Irish ' patriots. British people who are both intelligent and honest have expressed so often their horror of the “ awful provocation given to the Irish people by England that it is only the protector of the blackguardly forger, “Civis,” who could be so ignorant as to utter such a falsehood. Do you remember when he used to invite bishops and “loyal” Catholics to save him from the 1 ablet, and how he used to urge on the soldiers against a paper that never believed Britain’s lies? “Reader” missed the best part of the joke: it was what the protector of the forger had to say to the Pope. D. 0 H. complains that there is hardly a day-lie journalist in New Zealand who has the courage to follow the leading English journalists in their denuncation of the crimes of Lloyd George. It is a mistake to take those persons seriously. If you reflect how little importance you would attach to the opinion of any one of them if you got into conversation with him you will see at once how ridiculous it is to read what they have to write in a hurry and according to orders. However, there is one decent and well-edited morning paper in New Zealand and even that is something to be thankful for. As for the rest, why should the public bother about the views of a man in an editor’s chair if they know that nobody will listen to his opinion when he speaks from a chair in his club? Inquirer. We have no need to discuss the hunger-strike again. The article we published last week from the pen of the greatest theologian in English-speaking countries ought to settle the question for you. Father I inlay, S.J., emphatically supports the opinion we always expressed in these columns, and makes it clear that Mac Sweeney was a hero and a martyr. Refer to the article and quote it for your local theologasters. B. McK. —Parker was consecrated according to the defective ordinal of Cranmer. Barlow consecrated Parker, and it is doubtful whether Barlow himself was consecrated or not. Besides, Barlow, Cranmer, Parker, and Pilkington held that consecration was not necessary and that the appointment by the king or queen was enough. In any case, owing to the defects in ' Cranmer’s ordinal, orders conferred according to it were invalid, and thus the succession was lost. 1