Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume L, Issue 27, 12 July 1923, Page 18

Current Topics

Faithful Servants v During the first eight days of July New Zealand lost two devoted priests who were called to their eternal reward after long and faithful service in the Master's Vineyard. On last Wednesday we stood by the grave which received the mortal remains of Father Patrick . O'Neill, the exemplary and saintly pastor of Winton, a member of that fine company of Irish missionaries who came to New Zealand thirty-three vears ago with Bishop Moran. Under his care they came to this country, under his watchful and paternal eye they began their labors, and to the end the example and the teaching of Dunedin's first Bishop were as lamps to their feet. Death was also busy in the ranks of the clergy of the Archdiocese of Wellington. On Sunday we received a telegram announcing the death of Dean Thomas McKenna. the parish priest of New Plymouth. Dean McKenna came to New Zealand over thirty years ago. After working as a curat© with his brother, the Right Reverend Monsignor McKenna, of Masterton, deceased ■became pastor of Pahiatua, whence he was promoted to Newtown, with the title of Dean, about five years ago. On the death of the late Dean James McKenna, Dean Thomas McKenna was appointed to the important parish of New Plymouth, where he died on last Sunday morning. He was a remarkably amiable man and few saggarts held such a place in the hearts of the people as did "Father Tom," as he was affectionately called by his old parishioners. To great zeal and energy;' he added incomparable gentleness and charitv; and as was well said of Father O'Neill, it may be said of him that his good example was his best preaching. He had the esteem of his superiors and of his brethren in the Sacred Ministry, and he will be deeply mourned by priests and people. To the friends and relatives of both deceased priests we offer our cordial sympathy in their sorrow. Potter Punctured When Lord Bryce described the New Zealand Parliament as composed of men below the average in education and manners, he was harsh if -just. Had he known Mr. Vivian Potter he would have added another clause to his condemnation; for a recent happening in Wellington has made it clear that for entrance into the assembly of our legislators not even common decency is required. This Mr. Potter made a characteristically ignorant and defamatory P.P.A. attack on the Catholic clergy in a speech in the august House oneday recently. For his ammunition he went to the dust bin of No Popery spouters and disinterred the old calumnies concerning oaths taken bv priests and Sinn —oaths which to our knowledge no priest or Sinn Feiner takes, and which exist only in such diseased minds as that which concocted certain letters that were followed by a well-merited horse-whipping. When challenged by Father Gondringer to prove his assertions, the illustrious Potter ran away with the cowardice and want of honor usually displayed by people who make such charges. As Father Gondringer pointed out, he was not too busy to utter his calumnies but he was too busy to defend himself when his truthfulness and honor were publicly impugned. Like a P.P.A. warrior he fled from the battle and called on his friends to save him. - Hence, we find that another person, whom Father - Gondringer treats with open contempt, tried to take up the cudgels for the discomfited Potter, and, needless to say, fails to attract notice or to make better a bad case. While, with commendable taste, he. ignores this person, Father Gondringer throws a disconcerting flood of limelight on Mr. Potter and his ways in the following letter, to the Evening Post, of July 4 : : '■■■' .: Y.) Y Sir,—-In the House on June 26, Mr. Potter said that Catholic priests are bound to take an oath, as follows "I renounce and disown any allegiance as due

to any Protestant King, prince, or'State"; and again, "I will do my utmost to extirpate the Protestants and their power, legal' or otherwise." Thereupon I issued him what I thought was a very clear challenge. • I asked him to mention by name an individual Catholic priest who had taken such an oath, and I promised that he would get a writ for libel at once. I regret, for his own sake, that Mr. Potter did not take up the challenge, for I thought that a member of Parliament should be a man of the highest honor, a gentleman through and through. And I cannot conceive it to be part of a gentleman's code of honor to make such grave charges without being prepared to prove them to the hilt. My challenge would have given him the opportunity to prove these charges if he could and I do feel deeply that the public of New Zealand have the right to have such a question openly debated before a Court of Law; for manifestly, if people exist in our midst who take such oaths, it is in the interest of the commonweal that they should be openly exposed. Well, the answer of Mr. Potter has.come, and I do not know whether it moves one more to anger or to laughter. To my challenge, Mr. Potter replies: "I regret that the pressure upon my time will not permit me the pleasure of indulging in a press controversy, but I have requested somebody else to undertake this matter." Really, Mr. Potter, did no one warn you, as you wrote those words, that you were exposing yourself to public ridicule? f Too busy to defend your honor ! For it was your honor that was at stake did you but see it. I accused you of using forged documents in your attack upon the Catholic Church. I gave you credit for believing those documents genuine, and, bv my challenge, offered you a means of proving their ?enuineiiess. And you say you are tor; busy ! Too busy, forsooth, to make a mere statement saying that Father A.B. had taken such an oath, when you apparently had time to make a lenq-thy preparation before you spoke in the House ! Or was the preparation done by someone else? Did Sancho Panza only speak the words and then call out to Don Quixote: "See what a ' mess ' you have got me into ; come and get me out of it"? No, Mr. Potter, my challenge stands, and will stand to your dishonor. If you really believe that I or any other priest in New Zealand have taken such an oath, you have a means at your disposal to prove your charges. Refuse to prove them, and you can but blame yourself if the public of New Zealand regard you as the tool of people, cleverer than yourself, who must have had a very low opinion of you when they selected yon to bring out these forgeries once more. Which is it to be, Mr. Potter? Will you stand to your guns or declare yourself a "quitter" ! _ Short as your letter is, you have succeeded in producing a new oath: "Would the gentleman deny that he or any other priest ever signed an oath requiring his loyalty to this country and Empire to give place to his loyalty to the Pope and the interests of his church?" Yes, Mr. Potter, I hereby solemnly deny that I or any other priest ever siVned such ail oath. This new oath can be made part of the challenge, too. The more oaths we have, the more will truth be served. —I am, etc., B. J. Gondringer, S.M., St. Patrick's College, July 3. • The Sinking of the "Lusitania" Some of our readers may remember that at the time of the "Lusitania" disaster we took the rather unpopular view that the people most to blame for the loss of life were the British and the United States Governments. On- that, and on many other points concerning which later revelations proved that we were right, many of our critics did not by any means agree with us. Now comes Admiral Sims, noted for his active pro-British sympathies during the war, telling us that the German submarine crews were humane people and that the sinking of the great ship was for Germany a lamentable and unexpected tragedy. What he says we found confirmed in a German book which we picked up at the Presbytery in Invercargill recently. There it is explained that the big Cunarder was really

an armed cruiser used for the transport of munitions under the disguise of a harmless passenger ship.' This statement is warranted by an account of what she actually had on board when torpedoed — an account quoted from a New York paper of strong British leanings. The Germans allowed the ship to come close to land, and when they fired at her v they were confident ( that she would sink slowly F and that all on board would be easily saved. 'But to their consternation a second explosion followed I that of the torpedo and the huge floating mine of 1 ammunition was blown to pieces by the ignition of her dangerous cargo. The German writer rightly contends that it was cruel and criminal for both the British and American Governments to allow passengers to travel on such a ship, and he points out that German officials warned the public of their dano- before she sailed from New York. The enormity of this crime is increased by the hypocritical denunciations of the Germans after the event. It is said that the incident was used by Wilson as an excuse for bringing the United States into the war, but he and his Government were far more guilty of causing the loss cf life than were the Germans. The latter were known to be ready to sink ships carrying , munitions of war, and knowing this, to permit civilians to travel by the "Lusitania". was exposing them to • great danger. Yet the British and American Governments not only did that but they also failed to guard the ship effectively during her voyage. Probably they reckoned that the now admitted humanity of the Germans would allow them to employ safely this means of transporting munitions in a passenger ship. And, from what Admiral Sims admits and from what the Germans tell us, it is likely that the cowardly and ignoble scheme would have succeeded had the/ Germans had the least suspicion that the torpedo launched at the steamer would have exploded her cargo and thus sunk her so rapidly. Apart from all considerations of humanity, the Germans, about whose cunning we used to read so much a few years ago, would have known that for their own interests nothing worse could happen than the>drowning of the civilian passengers on board. And, all things considered, we find our opinion expressed at the time amply confirmed now. The evidence proves that whatever blame attached to the submarine crew, far greater blame attaches to the Governments of the two countries between which the steamer was trading. She was an armed ship and a munition transport, and thus, being a fair mark for an enemy submarine, she had no right to have passengers on board, and it was criminal and inhuman to allow them to travel by her. Whatever our daily papers said at the time, there can be no doubt as to what the verdict must be when the facts are known. The whole incident is one more example of the shameful propaganda work which Sims exposed recently; one more example of the base methods to which alleged civilised nations descend when their passions are roused by war and the thin veneer of hypocritical convention is removed. Ireland Reports from Ireland inform us that the country continues fairly quiet, although, there have been a few sporadic outbreaks of violence here and there especially near and in Dublin. The Free State Government has published extracts from letters of prisoners who' admit that their lot in prison is on the whole satisfactory. A report from .the International Red Cross Society also testifies that life in the prisons oe s , on under such conditions as might be expected under a humane administration. The authorities describe as a lie a statment to the effect that shots were frequently fired through the prison windows. That there may have been isolated instances of harshness we are ready to believe, but the evidence goes to show that on the whole the complaints were purposely exaggerated for propaganda results. tob In an interview with an American journalist de Valera asserts that his peace proposals were sincere and that the letter published by the Government to

discredit his sincerity was the work of a boy of sixteen*. He protests that it is the Government, not himself, that is opposed to' peace at present. » s This is his way of . interpreting the victorious party's refusal to accept the terms of the vanquished. However, he. has now acknowledged defeat, and the order has gone forth from Frank Aitken, the Chief of Staff, commanding the Republicans- to dump y their arms. To justify this step de Valera assures his followers that they "have saved the nation's honor and kept open the road to independence," and that -/laying aside arms now is an act of patriotism as exalted and as pure as the valor in taking them up." Few people will disagree with that pronouncement, but many will regret, for Ireland's sake, that this patriotic idea did not dawn on him many months earlier. Signs of the improved conditions are evident' in the lives of the peoole who are reported to be moving about in. a state of delight at their present security. Dublin has begun to cast off its gloom and to wear its old-time smiles again. Old motor cars have been resurrected and new ones purchased in large quantities. May the sunshine "of the early summer days be a harbinger of the sunshine of peace and prosperity for the whole nation! The Government is settling down to serious tackling of the problems of reconstruction which are neither few nor negligible. Financial problems are discussed, and land purchase is again brought into prominence. The resumption of real business is a further healthy sign of the times. Among the problems remaining for solution, not the least grave is the question of the release of some twelve thousand prisoners, with the question of unemployment thereby entailed. The latter difficulty will be accentuated by the demobilisation of the army. But, with roads to remake, bridges to rebuild, and industries to revive a satisfactory way out will surely be found. James Larkin's return to Ireland was a source of anxiety not only to the Government but to the public at large, Since his arrival he has visited many parts of the country and expressed his views at public meetings. Peace is the dominant note of his addresses, which are all tuned to a note of conciliation with all parties. It is satisfactory to find that all the weight of his great influence is thrown on the side of peace, and there is sound wisdom in his gospel of reconciliation all round T On no other basis can a lasting peace be built, and the sooner all parties recognise this the better for the country. Without such a foundation the present lull in the storm will be of brief duration. He protests against the dismemberment of Ireland, which is Lloyd George's bequest of woe to the country, and there again he is sound. We recall that an Ulster Bishop complained that neither Republicans nor Free Staters seemed to care much what happened to their brothers in Ulster. We find much reason for that complaint, ,for neither the Treaty nor de Valera's paper scheme attempted to solve the problem which, in our opinion, ought to have been the first plank in the platform of the Dail Eireann. During the time of the negotiations, it. was somewhat of a surprise to us to find that the bone of contention was the oath rather than the question of united Ireland ; and while we believe now as we did then that between the oath of Fidelity actually sanctioned and that of Document No. 2 there was only a question of verbiage, we have net changed our opinion that unfaithfulness to Ulster was the real defect of the plans of both parties. On paper, as we said, Document No. . 2 provided a solution, b'jfe the' admission in the same document that Ulster must not be coerced made the paper solution futile and reduced it to the level of the arrangement of the Treaty. Taxation on Betting . The English Government's suggestion to tax betting raised a storm among the super-righteous Protestant, parsons, and among the outcries, was the voice of a certain Christchurch busybody whose small but never still voice was included in the piffle sent to -us by the cableman. In the Catholic Tim6s we find the question criticised in the light of morality and common sense

by the sound theologian, Father Slater, and as common sense and morality are remarkable for their absence in this country his remarks are worth studying: "But, surely, if we want sound ethics we must appeal to reason and not to sentiment. It is often difficult' to draw the line between what is right and what is wrong, but there is no other way of obtaining a code of rational morality. All right rules of conduce are a mean between two vicious extremes. The right use of money is the mean between stinginess and extravagance, and so with all virtues except divine charity. , Divine charity is the end of all virtue; it :s the measure of all virtue, and we cannot have too much of it. But of. all other virtues we may have too much as well as too little, and so if we want to have moral rules for the guidance of our conduct, we must necessarily draw the line, separate what is a elective from what is excessive, and thus define what is right and what is wrong.' Betting Not Necessarily Wrong. Betting is not necessarily wrong. A man in tends to go on a short holiday at the week-end. • On Friday morning he says to a friend: "I think it will be a fine day to-morrow." The friend prides himself on being weather-wise and he answers: "I'll bet you a shilling that it will rain." "Done," said the other, "I'll take your bet." Few people would maintain that such a bet as this is, morally wrong. We suppose that both parties can spare a shilling, that both intend to pay if they lose,that nobody suffers in consequence of the •bet. As one might give the other a shilling as a present) if he chose, so he may pay a shilling to the othor according to agreement, because he was wrong in ah forecast of the weather. Liable to Abuse. But, as everybody knows, betting is liable to abuse. Money may be staked of which the bettor has not the free disposal, or more than he can afford. If he loses his bet lie may be ruined, or he may be sorely tempted to commit theft or fraud in order to get wherewith to pay. Frequent betting becomes gambling, and a very dangerous habit is formed. Gambling encourages idleness,- leads people into bad company, and very frequently ends in ruin. Gambling, then, or playing for high stakes, is usually wrong for one reason or another. In other words, betting may be unobjectionable from the point of view of morality, if it is indulged in sparingly and under certain conditions. It may be compared to drinking intoxicating liquor. It is not wrong to drink a glass or two of beer or wine if you can afford it; it is wrong to drink to excess or more than you can afford to- pay for. It was necessary to try to get clear notions about the morality of betting before going on to consider the question of the morality of the taxation of betting. The two questions are connected, bait they are not identical. With regard to an institution which is certainly immoral I can well imagine a most moral Government saying to itself: I cannot suppress you, if I attempted to do so I should probably do more harm than good. But I know that you are' making a great deal of money. I will tax you, and that, at any rate, will have the good effect of diminishing your profits, and preventing others perhaps from imitating your example, induced thereto by the hope of realising the excessive profits which you realise at present. . Nothing Morally Objectionable. Is there, then, anything objectionable, from the point of view of sound morality, to the proposal of the Government to tax betting transactions* I cannot see that there is anything objectionable to the proposal. As to the assertion of Mr. Snowdon that the proposed, tax would patronise, legalise, and make respectable one of the greatest curses of the country, I must say that I fail to see it. After all, to tax a man is hardly to patronise him or make him respectable. Such an argument may come well enough from his Majesty's Opposition in the House of Commons, but it hardly produces conviction when it is read calmly in the quiet atmosphere of , one's room. The taxation of intoxicating liquor offers a complete parallel. In the case of in-

toxicating liquor, taxation does not patronise or legalise drunkenness, or make it respectable; how, then, could taxation patronise or legalise gambling, or make it respectable? Without qualms of conscience on the part of the most scrupulous, the Government obtains a large annual revenue from the taxation of intoxicating liquor; why should it not endeavor to- raise a little money by the taxation of betting ? Drinking intoxicating liquor is a luxury and so is betting. ”