Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume L, Issue 28, 19 July 1923, Page 18

Current Topics

Blessed Robert Bellarmine - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who was recently beatified, was one of the most illustrious sons of St. Ignatius. He was a prolific writer and a tireless worker. As a preacher he was distinguished and as a professor his ability was world-wide in renown. His masterpiece was his work, Be Gontroversiis, which was rightly described as a complete arsenal to which defenders of the Faith turned, and never in vain, for materials to refute the attacks of the Protestants of the age. By order of Pope Clement VIII. he produced his famous Catechism. - He also wrote several treatises on historical, dogmatic and moral questions. , By his zeal and learning he won the noble title of "prince of controversialists." The Pope and Pasteur The celebrations in honor of the centenary of Pasteur, in France were taken as an occasion for inviting the participation of the Holy Father in them, and his Holiness addressed the following letter to Mgr. Cerretti ; it was read on Friday evening at the Sorbonne, . Paris: Venerable Brother, ■ Health and the Apostolic Benediction. The invitation which has been addressed to the Holy See to join in the solemnities of the centenary of Louis Pasteur has been particularly agreeable to us, and we desire to associate ourselves with them by delegating you to represent us on this occasion. Pasteur is too noble a figure as a Christian savant, his scientific successes have been too beneficent, his work of charity and devotion is too- universal for the Holy See not to associate itself with the fetes organised to celebrate his memory. His studies on the origin of life, his struggles against the microbes of sickness, have been the basis and point of departure for a whole series of applications which continue to shed benefactions on the whole of suffering humanity. But especially, amidst his studies and his magnificent discoveries he preserved the Faith, pure, simple, and confident, and his scientific studies enabled him to discover more and more at the foundation of all things the infinite God who illuminated and consoled his soul, and who inspired his charity. With this Divine help he was! able, as he stated in his inaugural discourse at the Institute which bears his name, to push back the frontiers of which is certainly no little title to glory for a mortal. Happy to associate ourselves with the solemn ""fetes of the centenary of this savant, great amidst the great, we form the wish that studious youth and men of science should be inspired by the magnificent examples of this master. As a testimony of our special benevolence, we grant you with all cur heart the Apostolic Benediction. Rome, the Vatican, May 20, 1923. PIUS XL, POPE. Archbishop Mannix Rebukes the Envoys .Speaking at Melbourne, on June 24, Archbishop Mannix put plainly before his hearers the injustice and impropriety of certain recent attacks on the Pope and on the Bishops of Ireland. There was (he said) a matter on which he would like to say a word. The Bishops of Ireland, and even the Holy Father had come in for criticism at the hands of certain persons in Australia, for their action or inaction in the recent past. It had been said that the Bishops were British in their outlook and anti-Irish. If they could trust the press reports, the Irish Republican envoys had joined in this criticism. Nothing of that kind, so far as he knew, had been said by the envoys while they were in Melbourne; but, elsewhere thev had been reported to have made unworthy and unjust reference to the action of the Irish Bishops.

He knew the Irish Bishops probably better than' any of those who were said to have criticised them. And he had never met in all his experience even one Irish Bishop who could be justly called pro-British or antiIrish in his political views. (Applause.) He ventured to say that there was not even one Irish Bishop who would not wish to. see Ireland absolutely free. (Applause.) But Irish Bishops are men of peace, as well as Irish patriots, and they have to reconcile their Irish aspirations with their wish for peace. It was, of course, a matter of common knowledge that since 1916 those who were struggling for Ireland's freedom had to fight their battles without help or sympathv from the Irish Bishops as a body. There were notable exceptions, but they were few. Motives of the Bishops. But that really meant no lack of love for Ireland, but only want of faith in the policy pursued. And, later still, when the unfortunate Treaty was signed, the Bishops threw in their lot against the Republican policy, not, he was sure, because they were satisfied with the Treaty, but because they could, at the moment, see no good issue from an appeal to force against it. And, in that case, the Bishops did not seem to have been far astray, if their only objection was to force, because force had been tried, and, according to present indications, had been abandoned as a failure. People should, therefore, be just to the Bishops. They were not bound to agree with them en political matters. They might think that the Bishops, being men of peace, sometimes leaned too much to peace, and made too little allowance for the-claims of patriotism, or grasped at a kind of peace for their own day, which made inevitably for unrest and strife, and war in the future. These questions were 100 complicated to be settled offhand by a harsh criticism on cue side or the other, and he deeply regretted _if anything unfair or unworthv had been said by the Irish envoys, or by anybody else, no matter what the provocation might have been. The Envoys and the Pope. It was reported, too, that the Irish envoys had spoken critically not only of the Irish Bishops, but of the Pope. If there was anyone beyond criticism in regard to present Irish affairs, he thought it was the Holy Father. Benedict XV. and Pius XL had been calm, patient, and impartial. Very likely there was strong British pressure; it was rarely wanting, and never weak. The Irish Bishops had felt bound to take strong measures. But the Pope kept himself above all political controversy. He was the Holy Father of the Irish as well as of the English ; of the Free State supporters as well as of the Irish Republicans. What the personal views of Benedict XV. or of Pius XL might be in regard to Ireland he had not the least idea. But, notwithstanding pressure of all kinds, the Popes had refused to take sides. They worked for peace, and prayed for peace, but thev left the Irish people to settle their own political controversies. (Applause.) The visit of Monsignor Luzio to Ireland, and the impartial attitude which he maintained, was an example to those friends of Ireland in Australia who might be disposed to say harsh words, or to assume an aggressive'-or dictatorial tone towards those in Ireland with whom they do not happen to agree. (Applause.) The Methodists on Monte Mario Readers of the daily papers will remember seeing a cable which informed us that the Methodists of America intended entrenching themselves on Monte Mario with the view Of making an assault on the spiritual walls of Rome. Monte Mario is a hill over the Tiber a short walk from the Roman gate known as Porta del Popclo, and almost under the hill the famous Milvian Bridge spans the river. One remembers that it was beside that gate that Martin Luther lived ; that the name of the gate is from a poplar grove, from which tradition says, ravens and sundry other black birds used to drop ign ominous salutes which were conducted by the laws of gravity onto the site of the tomb of the monster Nero; and also that it was at the bridge mentioned that Constantine routed the barbarians. Having given

'-Ssi briefly the historical and scenical setting of the story cabled out to us, it may be as well to let our readers know what is thought of it by the anti-clerical paper, 11 Messagero —a witness by no means prejudiced in favor of the Vatican. Its attention, the M essay ero says, was called by several Roman papers to what might be termed the intended “material and’spiritual conquest of Rome by American Methodists, and specifically to the statement of its own correspondent to the Chicago Tribune, in which it was said that the Methodists intended soon to inaugurate a Methodist University on Monte Mario, and meant it to be a stronghold of Methodist propaganda destined to dominate the Vatican. The M essay ero says that up to the present moment it neglected to take notice of the threat, seeing that the date was far away when it could be put into execution. But since it was often asked to declare its opinions on the subject, the Messagero exposes them candidly. The communication sent to the Chicago Tribune was , evidently made, says the Messayero, with the intention of causing a deep impression among American Methodists. The latter, continues the anti-clerical Roman daily, do not find in reality a very fertile field for their work in Italy. But the statement made to the Chicago Tribune must, not cause too deep a stir among Romans. The latter must be fully aware that either the municipal authorities of Rome itself, or if need be, even higher ones, will know how to stop the building on Monte Mario of a monument, which could be interpreted in no other light than that of an affront to the religious sentiments of a, great majority of Italians. It would be doing too much honor, adds the Messogero, to the , correspondent of the Chicago Tribune to take too seriously the announcement made by him to his American co-religionists. Behind his hopes and aspirations, there is but little foundation on which he ’ can build. If American Methodists, the Messagero pointedly adds, count for the fulfilment of the hopes on the already excessive liberty, which sometimes is’ granted by Italian Governments to “foreign infiltration in the country,” they give evidence that they have not understood that the spirit of the nation has undergone a renovation, and that the Government is energetically resolved to undeceive any such hopes, and to frustrate any such attempt as American Methodists are now making. To these remarks made by the Messagero and quoted in the Carriere (Vltalia, the Cor Here itself adds the following comment; The preceding note, which the Corriere takes to be official, comes at a most favorable moment. It does not indeed, affect its own views, the Corriere rVltalia hastens to add, for on the particular x question of the ground for the proposed building on Monte Mario, it had definite assurances from the municipal assessor Signor del Vecchio. But the note of the Messagero should give pause to the American financial backers of the plan, who keep alive the hopes and aspirations of their co-religionists beyond When, the G orriere goes on to say, the attempted conquest of Monte Mario was publicly' denounced, Signor del Vecchio aroused by the protests of the press, to the real intentions of the Methodists, took practical measure to put an end to l their fantastic plans,” ‘‘le junta fnethodistiche” and stopped the excavations they had ' already begun. There is reason to believe, the Corriere adds, that since that moment, no new attempt on the part of the Methodists has taken place, with the exception of the communication sent to the Chicago Tribune. In denouncing this last step, the Corriere declares it does so because it feels it a sacred duty to denounce every intrigue due to Protestant activity and propaganda. For in countless ways they persistently conspire against the fairest glories of “Our Latin and Catholic civilisation.” d • 1 Poor Potter Stung by Father Gondringer’s exposure Potter the rash, Potter the foolish, forgot that he was too busy to defend his honor and found' much time to make a public display of his ineptitude and his bigotry. He had tried to shift the burden of his defence to the shoulders of a creature who was able to boast that

though he was horsewhipped he had led by the nose such notable personages as our dear friend, Sir Francis Bell, the godfather of the infamous and ridiculous Marriage Bill. But . Father Gondringer pointed the finger of scorn sternly at Potter, while' ignoring the "rotter." Hence, Potter emerged into print, or put his name to a printed screed, in hopeless effort to make good a bad cause. From first to last, Potter did not find much sympathy among his colleagues, many of whom considered that lie had disgraced the name of New Zealand's Parliament by his ignorant and incoherent bigotry. Father Gondringer's scathing letters were a source of delight to Members who could hardly conceal their contempt for Potter and his infamous champion. The following reply from Father Gondringer, which appeared in the Evening Post, of July 10, sufficiently explains what Potter's methods of defence were and what sort of credit he reflects on whatever sort of people chose him for their representative in the House: Sir, —At last Mr. Potter has found time to defend his honor—or what remains of it. The pressure upon his time must have eased off considerably, for, apparently, he has found time to read two long works : The Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori, and The Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII. With regard to these, I beg leave to make but one remark: even if Mr. Potter possessed these works, he would be as capable of understanding them as he would be of deciphering the inscriptions in the tomb of Tutankhamen. After giving us bogus oaths, he gives us bogus quotations. Let us dispose of the oaths first, Mr. Potter. The issue is this: Mr. Potter produced four oaths, alleging them to be Catholic oaths. I denounced all four as forgeries,-invented between 1678 and 1689 by Robert Ware, and by him ascribed to Archbishop Usher, in whose voluminous writings they are not to be found. Of the four, only one could be really tested here in New Zealand, viz., what Mr. Potter calls the "priest's oath." There are some 300 Catholic priests in NewZealand, and I, as one of them, challenged Mr. Potter to state that I had taken such an oath. I should then have served him with a writ for libel, and the whole question could have been debated in as public a manner as one could wish. • To this challenge Mr. Potter at first failed to reply. When I pressed the point, and taunted him with being a "quitter," he replied saying that I was attempting the impossible. And yet, what I was attempting to do was to persuade him to be a gentleman, and to stand by his words. For the form of words which I used wis not one "which exists,. for the purpose of this controversy, only in my imagination." I quoted Mr. Potter's own words, as they appeared (in brackets) in the New Zealand Times of June 27. Could confusion be worse confounded ? He admits quoting those oaths in Parliament, and then coolly tells me that they exist in my imagination only. But out of his confusion one definite fact appears: Mr. Potter refuses to stand to his guns. He refuses to come into Court and plain, honest people might conclude that he himself does not believe in the forgeries he .quoted. To cover up his tracks, therefore, he suggests a Royal Commission. And why a Royal Commission, pray? Is it Sir, that he has fears for his purse ? I have found occasionally that people, who were' not at all squeamish about their honor, quickly showed deep concern when their purse was in question. But I had not, until now, thought it possible that a. member of Parliament could be a man of such a stamp ! Besides, Mr. Potter knows perfectly well that neither he nor I would obtain a Royal Commission, under the present circumstances—and, that being so, he would escape scot free! To agree to this would be to set a premium on slander. Everv time that, in, the month of July, an Orangeman felt an attack of "yellow fever," he could pour forth his venom in perfect safety; for, when, his victims would protest, he need but say: "Oh, well, if you are innocent, you can try to get a Royal Commission set up ! " ' : ' •: ", * Now, Sir, Mr. Potter cannot escape through that ingeniously-devised loop-hole. " I hold him hard and

fast to my. original challenge. Let him state that I have taken the "priest's oath," and I will sue him for libel, and he will be made to prove his words, or to "eat them." My challenge concerns the "priest's oath."- But let not Mr. Potter forget that I have definitely stated that all his oaths are forgeries. I have already told him. how the Jesuits disposed of the oath ascribed to them, by going to law over the matter. Let us now take the oath of the Knights- of Colombus, the authenticity of which was "proved" by the statement that it appeared in the Congressional Records, 1913, page 2216. Let your readers judge of the reliability of Mr. Potter in this matter! In 1918, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy of the United States issued a joint statement to the press, saying that the oath appeared in the Congressional Records "only because it was produced in an election contest, and denounced before Congress as an abominable forgery." The same authorities add that, in 1918, this bogus oath was circulated as "German propaganda," and that "an agent caught in passing around printed copies of this oath in New Jersey has been arrested and imprisoned." That is how the United States deal with such people, Mr. Potter. It has surely not escaped your memory that some members of Parliament suggested that your chief confederate, who, in this controversy uses your name as his "nom de guerre," should have been treated in a like manner. You taunt me with being afraid to answer him, and you know, and the intelligent public know, that I am, as a matter of fact, answering him all the time. Such childish tricks as calling me Father Gondringer over one signature and Mr. Gondringer over another do not mislead me, I assure you. Is it beginning to be clear to you what a pretty pickle Don Quixote has got you into, Mr. Potter ? For, should we go to law, you, and not he, will have to appear in the witness-boxand pay the costs. lie has proved before to-day that he will avoid the witness-box at all price. A Royal Commission, at the expense of the State, is more to his.taste. B. J. GONDRINGEE, S.M., July 8. St. Patrick's College.