Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 12 January 1922, Page 14

Current Topics

Psycho “Analysis For the benefit of those who have been reading the usual sort of silly praise about the newest fad, psychoanalysis, we submit the following opinion of an expert. In the Dublin Review , Dr, George Matheson Cullen, who was at one time in charge of the Royal Infirmary and Royal Maternity Hospital, Edinburgh, -dealing with cures attributed to the very latest remedy for all ills says: “Cure indeed may be effected in certain cases, but it can only be by fixing a moral obliquity in the mind. Similar cures have been wrought by the more reputable methods of charlatans in every age and many cures appear spontaneously without any method at all or through the normal means of sane medicine. The moral peril cannot be exaggerated and the adepts plainly state that a necessary stage in the cure is the transference of the libido to the person of the analyst. The case of children certainly demands legal intervention. But psycho-analysis is far from limiting its activities to the domain of medicine; it is out to conquer the world.” From the standpoint of, medicine and commonsense Dr. Cullen declares the movement to be a real danger to society. But it is precisely because the majority of people are wanting in ' common-sense that charlatans thrive. Get Back to God As long as the administration of New Zealand’s money and affairs is in the hands of men of a low standard of education and manners, many of whom one would hesitate to entrust with the management of a huxter’s shop, and one of whom apparently owes his place in the Cabinet to the favor a declaration to the effect that he would never work with Catholics found with the Orangeman, we can expect nothing but a rake’s progress on a national scale for this Dominion. The following extract from America shows us that while Mr. Parr is tying knots on himself with Union Jacks men in other countries are awaking to the evil results of schools such as New Zealand’s merry men are squandering money on : » At the opening discussion in the summer school of,theology of Auburn Seminary, Auburn, N.Y.,-the president ,of the institution spoke on the “Pastor and the New Age.” Most of his remarks were directed against the spirit of rebellion that is in evidence today, “the rebellion of children against the authority of parents ... of people against the former authority of the Church, their rebellion against the authority of the Bible.” In treating of morality and religion he declared : iWe have substituted morality for religion, and in my opinion that can never work out to the permanent benefit of .civilisation. We might as well face the fact that not only the people outside the Church, but most of those within have lost their respect for the authority of the Church. They follow their own bent. The morality that we are now boasting is made up partly of inner conviction and more of a regard for the conventions. We are coming to almost the identical standards of the.old Greeks. It is the system of morality that led to the license and final decay of both Greece and the Roman Empire. The hold of the Church, of the Sabbath, of the State and of the home is sadly weakened. These are the conditions to-day. What are we to do? The most logical thing to do is to get back to authority. From Luther .to the latest vagary in New Thought- “isms” have been merely one revolt after another. And authority is precisely where it was when the first revolt began.

The Muddlement and the Bible Sometime ago the Press Association announced A that “following on the decision of the Wellington Education Board to set aside half an hour a week for religious instruction in schools, Professor Hunter, of Vie- iy toria College, notified objection to his boy being detained in school for secular work while other pupils were receiving religious .instruction. . . It was decided to obtain a legal opinion on the point.” Here we have another sample of how our Government Departments proceed. They go ahead like a bull at a gate and when they are pulled up they have to ask somebody to say whether they were right or wrong. Professor Hunter is not the only ’critic who has given them to think-furiouslyif such a thing were possible for them. The following is a copy of the instructions sent out: “The Education Board of the District of Wellington. Religious Instruction. In relation to Religious Instruction imparted in accordance with By-Law 18, as amended, the Education Board wishes it to be clearly understood that (1) The members of the school staff, during the half hour of religious instruction, should be in attendance. (2) Such pupils as are not required by their parents to attend Religious Instruction should be provided with suitable school work.” ' The instructions conveyed in the foregoing precious document are simply a new way of imposing a religious test, and they display a total disregard for freedom of conscience. According to this oracular ruling Catholic or Anglican teachers on the staff are compelled to hear a Presbyterian master propound his views on episcopal rule, or vice versa, or all three may have to listen to - some hide-bound Baptist on the iniquities of their Churches. , Perhaps the headmaster is a Christian Scientist. In that case Baptist and all must be in attendance while he airs his notions by way of comment on the Bible. Again suppose there is but one ■h teacher in a one-roomed school, and that the majority of his pupils differ from him in religion. Given a puny Seventh Day Adventist pedagogue and a robust, agricultural class of Catholics, there is material for a fine old-fashioned fight here. Of course it will, be allegedthat teachers must not make comments on the text, but knowing what human nature" is and what bigotry is in this benighted land of Limavaddy such am allegation may be dismissed as futile? We recall what we have been told concerning the erudite lessons on the terrors of the Confessional given in a certain 'school by a teacher who used also amuse himself by throwing stones at a Catholic’s windows when wending his meandering way home at night from his place of spirituous refection. We recall some of the books that were sent to us by parents whose children got them from other teachers. And we come to the conclusion, that this recent piece of muddlement is well worthy of a Government which Lord Bryce described as beneath the stand- ' ard both in learning and in manners. Al%s, there is not enough bunting available in all New Zealand to hide the ineptitude and the-crass folly of our “educationists” from the laughter of sensible people. And the half-hour a week ! Will it heal the running sore of corruption? Will it make the course of justice straight,. abolish malpractices, secure honest verdicts, do away with wire-pulling, make the young people chaste and honest and trustful and God-fearing? Surely it is high time to quit piffle, and get down to the roots of the evil. Learn a lesson from Germany. Get some of the ex-Samoans to run our Education Department, as well as the rest of the Government Departments, and give our political jobbers and our P.P.A. Ministers a long rest. " , S ■ Dominion Independence When we get a Government of men with brains and principles there will be a great deal more talk about the ' interests of New Zealand and a great deal less nonsense about flag-flapping and unnecessary oaths

s than we. have at present. *Our politicians seem incap•jj ■ • able of understanding that the people did not elect jT' them in order to be absolute slaves of secret diplomat- ‘ ists—Anglo- or Anglo-Germanin Downing - Street, and the last thing they dream of is the inculcation of a right spirit of New ' Zealand patriotism, - “New Zealand first” is a call that in no way stirs < them; their rule of-life seems to be “Obey the bosses * and keep the job.” However, the spirit that is abroad in other Dominions will one day reach even New Zea- : v land, though it is likely that it will first become perceptible to the politicians when they are kicked out of office by a disgusted and angry people. The war has brought Canada and South Africa, and to some extent Australia, into the position of absolute equality with the other free nations of the world, and if New Zealand lags behind we have to thank a fool-government for it. According to the Manchester Guardian -. “It was the final act of the war, the making of "the peace, that really set the seal on the new position of the Dominions. In 1897 and 1902 they had declined to take any share in the control of British foreign policy or the burdens of the defence of the Empire. In 1899 and 1907 they were not consulted about the Peace Conferences at The Hague. At the Colonial Conference of 1907 Australia had pretested against British policy - in the New Hebrides, and Newfoundland against Brit-ish-policy in the matter of fishing rights, and in 1909 the Commonwealth of Australia made a formal protest against the conclusion of the Declaration of London ' without consultation with the Dominions. In 1911 the British Government was anxious to arrange for co-operation and mutual consultation, but the Dominions were lukewarm, and difficulties arose. Then came the war. The Dominions had nothing to do with the declaration of war, though that declaration involved them in a state of war with a great Power. They might have withheld their co-operation, but they threw themselves into the struggle, and were more and more con- • suited as time went on. From 1917 their representfL*, atives took part in the deliberations of the War CabBp inet, and at the Peace Conference they had a position indistinguishable from that of a sovereign State.” / The Guardian tells us that the right of the Dominions to separate representation in commercial conventions had been recognised before the war, and that , after some discussion their right to send representatives to Paris was admitted. Canada was eager to do so, and although Australia was less eager she had protested against the conduct of the British-Government in assenting to the armistice without consulting her. Note that in all such important matters the name of New V Zealand counts for nothing! We read : “It was agreed finally that Canada, Australia, and South Africa should each have two representatives, and New Zealand one. Colonial delegatee took a part m all the chief Commissions, and the Prime Minister of Canada was appointed chairman of the. British Empire delegates in the absence of Mr. Lloyd George. Moreover, a Dominion representative acted from time to time as . one of the five British delegates. Each of ' the Dominions ratified the Treaty through its own Parliament, and the ratification of the British Empire was not effected until - each_ Parliament had approved. The Government had made the tactless suggestion that the ratification need not be delayed for Parliamentary sanction in the Dominions, but Sir Robert Borden made a prompt , and vigorous protest against this view. •. -the peace gave the Dominions a recognised position as - , " nations - 1 As members of the League of Nations they send delegates to that Assembly who are quite indev. pendent of British influence; and the Assembly which elects four members, of the Council, may elect a DofT; minion representative if it desires. Moreover, three Itet Dominions hold mandates under the League of Naipv - tions. * ° i, * But the most striking feature of “self-determina-tion in the new status of the Dominions is the principle laid down in a debate on the Peace Treaty in September, 1919, by General Smuts when, he said the ' United Kingdom “has no right to legislate for. the

Union and that the Royal Veto is obsolete with regard to Dominion legislation.” Although the right to secede from the Empire would seem to be implied, nevertheless, as the Guardian points out: “General Smuts made one exception of the highest importance in the case of a law proposing the secession of the Union from the British Empire: such a law must be refused the royal assent, as the Crown could not divorce itself from the Union. Dr. Keith discusses this view and the famous unconsidered declaration of Mr. Bonar Law about the right of secession. Dr. Keith points out that all that Mr. Bonar Law could have meant was that if a Dominion'wished to leave the Commonwealth the British Government would as a matter of policy not resist it. There is clearly no right of secession in the sense that a Dominion may remove itself from the British Commonwealth by a simple act of its Parliament, to be ratified as a matter of course like any acts of a purely domestic nature. A good deal of confusion in other controversies would have been avoided if this had been understood. The British Commonwealth is now a federation of nations, united by the Crown. It rests on common tradition and common convenience, and it can never rest permanetly on any other basis. Force could not keep any member within the circle, but separation would not be one single impulsive act; it would be the result of a considered resolution following on a careful discussion of all the consequences to the State proposing it and to the other members of the Common wealth.” Back to the Vatican One of the most remarkable results of the war was the procession of the representatives of Governments all the world over back to the Vatican. It is needless to point out that the nations in general would not take such a step if they did not realise that it was very much to their interest to stand well with the Catholic Church, and this fact is the best answer that can be given to the lies told about the Pope by hired bigots during the years of the war. Fools who provide a means of livelihood for such liars may believe them, but it is evident that the civilised Governments of the world know better. Before the war the Vatican had diplomatic relations with a dozen States now it has such relations with . twenty-five. Before the war the Vatican sent to foreign Powers only five nuncios and two internuncios; * it received only two ambassadors and twelve ministers from foreign States; now it sends out. nineteen nuncios and five internuncios, and receives eight ambassadors and seventeen ministers. Governments that had no relations have established them, others that had broken off relations have renewed them; and some that had secondary relations have raised them to first-class. The British Government has converted a special mission (established in 1914) into a_permanent legation. Holland and the new Polish Czecho-Slovak and Slovak States have -also established new relations! Franc© is an example of Powers that have come back, not by the back-stairs but through the front door. Germany, Belgium, Chile, Brazil, etc., have now first-class diplomatic relations with the Vatican. It is noteworthy too that the civil Governments have approached the Pope, not the Pope the civil Governments. Italy still remains without representation, practically alone among the European nations. However, relations between the Vatican and Quirinal seem to be more friendly than in the past. The Pope has relaxed the rule prohibiting Catholic potentates from visiting the Quirinal, at the same time explaining that this must not be regarded as a renunciation of the rights of the Apostolic See. Commenting on the situation, L. S. Wood writes in the Atlantic Monthly. But to prophesy as to future-historico-political possibilities arising from it would be premature, parr ticularly in .view of the very sudden way in which it has come about. There is a point, however, which rivets the attention. No one, in considering to-day’s phenomenon, can help thinking of old times, when the Pope had relations and agreements with all the Powers of the world the historico-political world that counted

then—-Eui ope. Such relations were between temporal sovereigns of States and the Pope— also was temporal sovereign of a State, but at the same time supreme spiritual sovereign of the Catholic princes with whom he had relations.” Times have changed, as the Pope is reported to have said nsore than once lately; and “if we run down the list to-day we find his Most Catholic Majesty of Spain the only remaining sovereign of the class of the olden days.” There are, of course, Catholic States represented at the Vatican, such as Poland, Belgium, Bavaria, even France, and others: But Rome’s diplomatic relations with the world to-day are not with Catholic princes, but with ‘ democratic ’ States, represented by parliaments and prime ministers. It has been said in disparagement of limited companies that they have ‘no souls to be saved or bodies to be kicked.’ In the old days of Catholic princes and of the Temporal Power, both these conditions stood. Such entities to-day have the first half of the phrase only in the measure of righteousness of feeling expressed in the policy of the nation influencing the Government; and the second half stands only in the lessened and entirely changed'measure of adjustment of diplomatic differences. In truth, to-day Rome’s aspect in its relations with the world flocking to it must be very different from’that of olden days. How it will align itself will be matter for interesting study by future students of history. And it is for the future students of history, not for a passing note-maker of the time, to comment on another striking phenomenon. There is one great country to which the Pope’s eyes turned specially in every crisis of the warwhich, up to the very last minute, he believed never would come in; to which his eyes turned all the same after it had done so to which the eyes of the Vatican are still turned, the more so in view of its evidently increased prestige and objective and subjective importance—and that is the one country which is not joining in the rush to Rome. The United States receives a purely religious representative of the Pope in the person of an Apostolic Delegate, but it has no diplomatic relations with the Holy See. That, too. is a policy as to which future students of history, at the Vatican and in America, will have opportunity for noting results and forming judgment.”