Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 7, 18 February 1925, Page 22

Current Topics

Ireland and the, League of Nations The Manchester Guardian reports that a delicate situation has arisen in Ireland out of the objection of the British Government to the registration of the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the League, of Nations. Several weeks ago we gave reasons why Britain wishes Ireland to be regarded as a purely domestic problem of her own; but according to the statement issued by the Irish Minister for . External Affairs, the domestic problem theory has outlived its power to deceive. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out in his statement that the Covenant of the League sets out the duties undertaken by every member of it. There are no distinctions between the States, he says; none has special privileges and none is exempt from the obligations set forth in the Covenant. lie quotes .Article 18, and proceeds: “This Article means that every treaty and international engagement entered into after January, 1920, shall be registered. The Irish Free' State, as a member of the League, is bound by this Article. As the Treaty, is the basis of the Irish Free State’s relations with the other members of the British Commonwealth, of Nations, it was pre-eminently our duty to register it. To have failed in this would have been to repudiate the Covenant, which can be done neither by the Free State nor anv other

member of the League.” Mr. Fitzgerald’s reading of the Article is correct'. Those who doubt may here read the clause for themselves. It reads as follows; —“Every treaty or international engagement entered into hereafter by any member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat, and shall as often as possible be published by it. No such treaty or international engagement, shall he binding until so registered.”

Seeing for Themselves When the British Trade Union Delegates returned from Russia to picture Muscovite conditions in glowing colors, one English paper described them as “British mugs” who “had no more idea of the true feelings of the Russian people and the real conditions

of Russian life than a trainload of bullocks have of England in their journey from the pastures up to .Smithfield Market.” The ad interim, report of the delegates is really not worth the paper upon which it is written, to say which is not to reflect*upon the honesty of those who wrote it. They would see just as much of Russia -as their hosts, the Bolshevist leaders, deemed it wise to .let them see. Tho good old stock' challenge, “come and see for yourself,” is not always as open as it sounds. For example, many distinguished visitors have looked upon Belfast and returned home “deeply impressed” with all they had seen. They would be escorted to Stormont Castle, and driven to 5 the City Hall; they would be taken to the scats of the big industries, and feasted in Ulster Hall; and then they would be closely shepherded to the railway station. But, says an Irish exchange,* no one would dream of

taking those visitors to the slum districts.

No Russian Bolshevist in Moscow could improve upon the procedure by which hundreds of visitors to Belfast are “shepherded” by skillful and plausible exponents of the noble science of deluding “'mugs.” A Wily Shepherd The same paper goes on to refer to the time when the once-famous “Mick McQuaid” was getting a goodly bonus per head from the “Joint Stock Papist Souls Conversion Society,” with headquarters in London, for every citizen of Connemara “evangelised” under his auspices. An honest Anglican bishop announced his intention of paying a visit to the scene of the great “Evangelisorbs” fruitful labors. The society warned their agent in alarm and panic. They knew that the stories of the conversions were impudent fabrications. When the bishop, a generous subscriber, arrived, he thought he had taken Mick by surprise; hut the faithful MeQnaid promptly undertook to “show i him around.” With the help of an accom- ; pi ice, half-a-dozen successful personations of ■ “converts” were effected on the road to the ; place where an •‘Orphanage.” peopled by the i children of “murdered converts,” had been > established —according to the appeals issued > by the “J.S.P.S.C.S.” Five hundred yards from the road, on the border of a little lake,

some twenty or thirty children were standing or seated. When the good bishop turned towards this interesting and pathetic group, McQuaid produced a huge bottle of evilsmelling stuff, which lie sprinkled over the prelate and himself with great liberality and fervor, explaining that the poor orphans were stricken with, smallpox owing to the diabolical devices of the local unconverted Papists. PI is Lordship’s retreat was accomplished in record time: and he handed £SO to the heroic foster-father of the afflicted

“orphanage.” Thereafter the pious “evangeliser” salved the small garments in which he had arrayed figures formed from turfmould, and kicked the “bodies” of the “or- * phans” into the lake. It is a story that should never be forgotten by the serious pilgrim in search of information.

Lourdes and the Modern Mind Millions of people throughout the world are the victims of superstition in some particular or other. Some believe in the potency °f charms to ward off evil; others in the prophetic nature of dreams; some go in fear and trembling to the fortune-tellers to discovin’ the future; others again will not pass under a ladder, or remove the horse-shoe from the door. The Manchester Guardian says that there arc at least 15 well-known professional astrologers plying their trade in the West End of London and many lesserknown ones. The writer smiles behind his hand when he says that -whatever we may think of astrology, it is fascinating to find that in an age of supposed intense enlightenment what the encyclopedia calls “one of the oldest superstitions” is apparently as active now as it was in the dawn of history,

But those who are most careful to observe

all the rites connected with superstitions are the very people who pour most ridicule on the miraculous happenings at Lourdes. Hil-

alre Belloc referred to this when he ; spoke at a- demonstration in London organised by the Society of Our Lady of Lourdes. The title ’ of his address was “Lourdes and the Modern J Mind,” and in the course of it he pointed out that the thing that called itself the modern mind denied the miraculous quality of Lourdes. Within living memory it had denied the phenomena. It was now prepared to look for the phenomena everywhere. There was nothing in the way of the abnormal, the unaccustomed, and the strange which it would not swallow except Lourdes. It accepted M. Cone, and was delighted to accept Einstein, but not Lourdes or the Gospel. He suggested that the reason for this inability to believe that the miracles at Lourdes were due to an external power and this volte-face from flic old materialism to the new general credulity was to be found in the hostility to the Catholic, Church. Mr. Chesterton, who followed, claimed that while Catholics regarded the miracles at Lourdes as due to the will of God, they regarded all natural phenomena, as equally the result of His will, “Our vision of this ordinary world is more tinged with mysticism than that of the average transcendentalist, because we say that the same Power that created the spring at Lourdes created the world.”

Can Catholics Think ? One of the stock calumnies against the Church is that she. does not allow Catholics to think for themselves. A New Zealand Protestant divine delivered a sermon a couple of Sundays ago, and in the course of it he deplored the craze for definition in matters of doctrine. He concluded by advising his congregation to accept the facts without the niceties of logical or theological definition. We shudder to think what would have been

said had a Catholic preacher expressed himself so, and we are glad to say that no Catholic preacher would dream of tendering such advice. There is a Mr. Glover, however, who has been writing in the Daily News to tell his friends that Catholics cannot think. The poor man has forgotten that it was

the thinking of the Catholic General Foch that saved his skin what time his Protes-taut-thinking Generals were unable to beat the Germans. He evidently does not know that Catholic inspiration is at the root of French literature, which is the work of the clearest thinkers of modern times. It is an old fable, that Catholics cannot think, and as usual it seems to be repeated by a man who has himself the very fault which he would like us to have. Asa writer; in Gath(die Truth points out, the only tyranny in Catholic belief is that it prevents a man from thinking wrongly on certain matters, And if this be a tyranny, it is also a tyranny to teach a boy that two and two. make four so effectively as to make it impossible for him ever again to think that two and two make five. In fact, Catholics are good thinkers for the very reason that their faith gives them something to think about. You

cannot think about anything unless you know

something. Even the Catholic child who has no more learning on scientific problems than he gets from the Penny Catechism knows more about the deep problems than Mr. Glover himself, and consequently is bet- . ter equipped for making a start as a thinker yabout them. Coming down to hard facts, the highest of all studies is Theology, and the hardest kind of thinking has to be done before one makes any progress in it. One looks long and vainly before finding any Protestant thinker fit to rank with Aquinas with Scotus, with Bonaveiiturc; and we venture to say that boys trained in modern State schools (which admirably inculcate’the science of not thinking) could not even follow the close reasoning of these masters. But perhaps Mr. Glover and his disciples may object to such a deep study as Theology on the ground that only a Catholic mind can grapple seriously with it. Then, let him take any other subject he pleases. 11 we turn to literature, we find that from Dante down to Francis Thompson or to Paul Bonrget, we are justified in backing our man to beat any contemporary “thinker” selected by Mr. Glover. If he turns to science, we can call on all sorts of people, from Roger Bacon down to Mendel; from Leonardo da Vinci down to Louis Pasteur, to prove that Catholics could think to some effect on all sorts of subjects. Take it another way. Take the effects of long Catholic thinking and set against them the effects of long Protestant thinking. On the one hand you have in France at the present time the richest and noblest of modern literatures, •as well as industrial successes won by men who, in the Catholic tradition of the Middle Ages, aim at producing things that are a credit to the producer, aiming in a word at quality rather 'than quantity. On the other hand, you have Protestant and American literature in the gutter at the present time, while shoddy is becoming the hall mark of British-made goods. And yet these people tell us that Catholics cannot think. If what we do is not thinking, one wonders what name would suit the operations that go on in the heads of men who talk such nonsense as is heard from the average No-Popery ranter, whether in England or in New Zealand. It seems that such people are, never ashamed to be found out asserting the thing that is contrary to the truth, and that exposure does not deter them from doing so again and again.

Arrogance and War There is one thing of which the MacDonald Government may justly feel proud, and it is that during their short term of office they brought a much bettor spirit into the Foreign Office than the one which previously had resided' tliere. Consequently, when Mr. Rasmay MacDonald, in discussing the affairs of Egypt, condemned the prevailing war spirit, we must grant him the respectful hearing due to the man who tried to put his principles into practice. He said, “the world would have to empty .its mind of the futile idea that one nation, by its strength of will and determination, can simply ride rough-shod over the rest of the world. The world would have to realise that it was madness to suppose that any nation — British,

Russian, Egyptian, or Frenchcan say: ‘ That is what we want, and if you don’t agree we will come and fight you.’ That is a mentality that has grown up so much since the war; that is a mentality that is going to bring us into more war, more revolutions, more unsettlement; a mentality that every Christian man and woman should range themselves against, because only when we get people to enter into a frame of mind associated with rational agreement are we going to get over our difficulties.” It is cheering to hear a prominent public man express the sensible view that international peace depends upon the goodwill of the nations. It shows that he, at least, understands the truth that peace and prosperity depend upon goodwill or charity, and not, as some reformers have it, on economic conditions. Still, much more is needed than merely saying that the nations must cleanse themselves of the truculent spirit. It is not possible to formulate a plan that will create a spirit of goodwill among the nations and permit the predatory mind to remain among individuals. Though we speak of nations as composite bodies, we must not forget they are made up of units, each one of whom possesses a mentality, a personality, and an identity separate from each one of his neighbors. His social and economic interests, though they are to a certain extent bound up with those of his fellows, are yet his own in a very exclusive, sense. For that reason a nation cannot be trained en masse. Training must be applied to the unit. General warnings are not of much value, because they are heard chiefly by those whose habits cf thought are fixed. It is the children in the plastic stage of brain growth who will make the surest foundation for a peaceful world if they are trained in the proper manner. Such a training would involve not only the study of religion but also the practice of it. If the statesmen of the world desire the maximum of peace attainable in the presence of a multitude of conflicting interests and strong passions they will have to found it upon a religion which speaks fearlessly and definitely on questions of right and wrong, a religion which possesses a sacramental system through which the moral law is applied in the most intimate .fashion to each unit; a religion which trains the child and disciplines the adult. Such a religion is indispensible, and the woes of the world are due to the fact that the world tries to get along without it. Peace talk is very laudable, no doubt; but until the nations recognise that peace depends more upon morals than upon armaments; that morals depend upon training; and that the training must be definite, practical, and authoritative, the moralising of the politicians will not have sufficient influence to prevent a single case of petty larceny, much less a war.

Materialisation Among Catholic critics on the prodigies of Spiritism there are two schools, one holding that the wonderful things done are altogether due to deceit and fraud, and the other attributing at,, least some of the manifestations to preternatural powers. It is certain that fraud has been discovered

so often that people have good a priori reasons for suspecting it in every case; it is also certain that the most wonderful and apparently inexplicable things done by spiritists have been done by natural means by such clever conjurors as Maskeyline and Cook and by Father de Heredia. Naturally the followers of such professors of the art of legerdemain are satisfied that there is a natural explanation for the maivels that occur in seances, lint there are others just as firmly convinced that no natural means can explain everything done, and that spirits really do intervene. Father Thurston, who has recently been investigating the phenomena in the light of cold and inexorable reason, confesses that he is able to come to no definite conclusion. He terminates a long study with the following remarks which are of great weight :

“By way of conclusion to this series of articles, I can only regret my inability to say anything that is positive. The observations available arc too uncertain, too extraordinary, too far removed from normal experience, to supply grounds for forming a confident judgment. Moreover, it seems very doubtful whether psychic researches a century hence will be in any better position to solve the momentous problems entailed, seeing that so little real progress has been made in the past seventy years. None the less, in my opinion, the facts which T have endeavored to outline do point strongly to the existence of several supra normal phenomena and to the intervention of outside forces, acting with a purpose, but freakishly, and sometimes almost as if they were disposed to mock man’s helplessness. Seeing that the same fitful caprice is characteristic of the alleged spirit communications, so often strangely veridical, and at other times maliciously deceptive, I am inclined to refer both classes of phenomena to the operation, of disco mate. intdliyenee, possibly Inman, or possibly alien to- earth.* -The idea of materialisation is not unfamiliar to Catholic theology. The incubi and succubi of the writers on demonology have long been the scorn of agnostics and materialists. The medieval theologian, no doubt, is inclined to refer everything abnormal to Satanic agency, but while it is highly probable that the powers of evil have much to do with the manifestations which so often end in the moral ruin of the unwary medium, I sec no reason why the discarnatc spirits of the unbaptized may not also make their power felt in this world in ways which wo cannot explain, or possibly even understand. ’

*Father Schmoeger, C.S-S.R., in a work pronounced by the Ordinary, the Bishop of Limburg, to contain nothing contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, tells us, on the authority of Sister Catherine Emmerich, that there are “souls neither in heaven, purgatory, nor hell, but wandering the earth in terrible anguish,” and also “planetary spirits who are very different from '’evils, and who have yet to be judged and condemned.” I pronounce no judg nont on Bis matter, but there has evidently been in the past some latitude of opinion among theologians as to the eschatological opinions here involved.