Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 50, 16 December 1925, Page 22

Current Topics

Ollapodrida The saddest sight in America, according to the Catholic World, is to see a Catholic buying a paper of the Hearst type immediately after Mass, and going away to devour it as a jackal devours a decomposing carcass in the jungle. Have we no Catholics in New Zealand who imitate our American friends? * * * Perhaps, the Catholic World continues, the priest at the altar had just read the warning against "fornication and all uncleanness and obscenity and foolishness and scurrility." Then, forgetting the solemn message of these words for his soul, the imitator of the jackal rushes to purchase a weekly paper which tells him all about these very enormities which bar a man from the Kingdom of Heaven. Some of our. New Zealand friends do likewise. * * * - An Irish review tells us that the one defect in Irish Catholicism throughout the world is that the people will not read Catholic literature. The Tablet has been repeating that fact for some years past, and we are glad that somebody else has discovered it. Our people have the most wonderful faith in the world, but in organisation and discipline they are far behind the German and the English Catholic. The latter know the importance of reading Catholic books and periodicals and they are hungry for more knowledge concerning the faith which is in them. In some parishes every family used to take a Catholic paper, but that is the exception, while it ought to be not only the rule but a matter of course. The Catholic child in the Catholic school, is one axiom for parents; and the second is this: A Catholic paper in every Catholic home. * * * Philip Gibbs, like many another observer, is deploring the danger of the downfall of the British Empire. He speaks of it in the usual British style when he says: "The world will lose its' strongest rock of defence against brutality and tyranny and the ethics of the jungle," if the Empire goes. The Editor of the Catholic World thinks otherwise: "I cannot agree with Sir Philip that the British Empire i s «the strongest .deduce against the brutality and tyranny and the ethics of the jungle.' Rather if I read history aright brutality and tyranny and the ethics of the jungle were largely employed in the upbuilding of that Empire." That cruel remark reminds us of the poem, "The Flag of England," written by that clever British statesman, Labouchere, and (it was said) used by the Germans as an alternative to the 'ymn of 'ate. * * * People in the United States sometimes discuss the probability of Governor Smith's becoming President. The New York Times is right when it says that, notwithstanding his suitability from every point of view there is a fatal barrier: "In one respect he would seem to be superior to either of them (Tilden or Cleveland), politically. He enjoys an immense personal popularity. ... It is

in truth a common saying heard from his party followers and from his political opponents, that but for one thing Governor Smith would be an irresistible candidate for the Presidency. * * * "Everybody knows what that supposedly fatal obstacle is. It is his religious belief. He is a Catholic, and the quiet assumption is that no Catholic can be elected President of the United Staets. The stultifying implications of this hateful intolerence are such that no public man dares to avow them openly. They are merely to be whispered about. But they exist just the same, a shameful reproach to all our American professions though they be." It seems to us that there is somewhat of a similar shameful reproach to that will o> • the wisp known as British Fair Play. Finance and the Boundary Problem It was a mistake ever to draw a boundary line between six counties in which a number of Orangemen happen to live and the rest of Ireland. That was but one more damnosa hereditas left to Ireland by the wily and unscrupulous Lloyd George. But we believe that to make a new boundary at present would be but adding mistake to mistake and aggravating already bitter feelings. Had the British Government kept the pledges made to Michael Collins and "Arthur Griffith, the matter would have been settled, but unfortunately, these two Irishmen were only just two more Irishmen who were blind to all the lessons of "the history of their country. They trusted the promises of British statesmen at a time when, as an Ulster Protestant had written, no foreign statesman could trust the word of a British statesman without danger to his country. John Mac Neill found out that the Commission was not. going to take any account of the pledges which induced Ireland's representatives to sign the Treaty, and he resigned in order to give his Government a free hand. Had the Commission gone on there would have been very bad blood, and perhaps a deal of it spilled. The best policy was to let sleeping dogs lie; in orther words to draw no new boundary line but to give North and South a chance of coming together and obliterating the old one. Who Gains? Sir James Craig is pleased, but the ■Northern Whig is angry; denouncing the agreement as another victory for Sinn Fein. Th British Government congratulates itself on turning the awkward corner adroitly, but the Morning Ppst is furious. Winston Churchill regards the agreement as a magnificent piece of work, but Lord Carson says it was a gift of £300,000,000 to the Free State. President Cosgrave is pleased with what has happened, but Eamonn de Valera condemns it as another sample of British treachery. What are we to think of such a medley of opinions from all interested parties? Our opinion is that the clear gain is that present trouble has been avoided by dropping the Commission and holding up

permanently its decisions.; .And this gain benefits, all three parties, without loss 'to any of -them." But is there not a finarioial I<W£ of millions of pounds to England? Therep is no such loss, and we shall try to explain/ why we believe this to be the fact. -1< • Facts and Figures ?■■'■ Article V of the Treaty ran thus: The Irish Free State shall assume lia-Vj bility for the service of the Public Debt • of the United Kingdom as existing at the .; date thereof, and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date in I such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set off or counterclaim, the amount of such sums being determined, in default of agreement, by the arbitration of one or more independent persons, being citizens of the British Empire. Here there are two things stated. First, Ireland was bound by the Treaty to shoulder her share of the burden of the Public Debt and of war pensions; secondly, as an offset against that, Ireland's just claims were to be recognised in determining the amount of her liability. The question, then, is what was the Public Debt, and what were Ireland's just claims. Only when we consider these two factors and see how the one affects the other can we determine whether Ireland now benefits to the extent of many . millions or not. The Public Debt England's Public Debt in the middle of the year 1918 amounted to a round sum of six ": thousand million pounds. The estimate for the following year would put it up almost to eight thousand millions. In March, 1920, the gross Debt was £7,879,000,000. That, may be taken as the amount on which Ireland's share was to be calculated, as it em- j braces terminable annuities. Ireland was to be saddled with a twenty-fifth part of this sum, which, at 5i per cent, every year, as ' interest and sinking fund, would mean a j nice total of seventeen millions annually on a debt of three hundred millions. This | amounts to a tax of three pounds a year per 1 head of the population, or a tax. of eighteen U pounds on every family. It looked a serious |J matter, and it was no wonder that several ' voices were raised to denounce the men who j agreed to sign such a bargain. But, Ireland 1 had no intention of paying such a sum either ! at present or in the future. She remembered f the offset of her just claims and knew what 1 they were. ■ ..."'..:'••-' ".■;;■' Ireland's Claims J The Royal Commission of 1894 found, that 1 Ireland was being overtaxed every year by -i England, to the. amount of at least two and a quarter million pounds. This tion had then been going on for sixty yea%l The Royal Commission also found that" coal I pensation was due to Ireland for this extortion, but not a penny of compensation was 1 ever paid. Hence we may add thirty morel years to the period for which the plundering holds good. For the sixty years in question, and for the thirty years since, on the'admi^t

st: \- lion of England'* own Commissioners all thsse t- million! the own Commissioner! all these millions (and the interett on thsm) are due ' to Ireland. But the foregoing is only Engf: 7 M: : - land's side of the story. The Irish representatives made the sum out to be much %^ ! ." : - greater. By juggling with the Irish revenue pj.^' 7 ' and making an estimate based on the abso|y " lutely false theory that it is the consumer p£ and not the producer who pays taxes, England was netting another surplus which was not acknowledged in the findings of the Comr mission. For instance, although Guiness paid revenue to England, part of it was credited to English revenue on the plea that the stout ; was' drunk in England Hence, the Irish ■ Commissioners, at that time, claimed that the amount due was much larger than what ; the report admitted. From this it may be V- ! seen that the bill of costs which Ireland was '■[. ready to present as her offset against the <:y charge for the Public Debt was at least equal to the amount determined as her share of the burden. England had acknowledged her right by a Royal Commission. Hence it was a "just claim," and there was no way of evading it. The agreement now reached :, ', renders unnecessary all disputes over these ;: counterclaims. It wipes the figures off the slate before there can be any discussion as to where the balance ought to stand. Probr - ably, we might say certainly, England has the best of the bargain, for Ireland is saddled now with the obligation of compensation for malicious damage since 1919. What that means we do not know yet. It seems to us to mean that while really giving away nothing, England is getting a very tangible something. However that may turn out, "-L;. there seems to us to be one real gain all ■■: v round, that is the amicable termination of the Boundary Commission which seemed for a long time certain to make trouble on all • - ' sides. Evolution Again A cable in the evening paper reads : London, December 2. (Received December 3, at 12.25 p.m.) Sir Oliver Lodge, lecturing on the evolution of the world, said that to regard the first chapters of Genesis as a scientific fact or as an attempt to state a scientific fact v was an unlettered and illiterate blunder. "We must regard them as poetry," he said, "and dig out the inner meaning by getting below the superficial skeleton in which they were framed. Some people declare that the process of evolution did not require mind or plan, but they are in opposition to inspired writing, and are not rational in going beyond anything they know. Things did not come into existence instantaneously. As a tree grows from a seed and as a flower unfolds from the bud, so the process of evolution was gradual, not sudden. Science did not deal with origins. Even poetry had to close its eyes, and could only murmur the : :-r •■ words 'ln the beginning God created heaven v ■■—.). and earth.' " % ' -..},-■ Since Sir Oliver went courting the spooks :> his opinions are before the public more fre-,-v- • • quently than ever, but the weight attached V:'j to them by critics is in inverse ratio to their ; J frequency. However, we are called upon by 1 this cable to say that we agree to a large

extent with his present remarks, apart from the fact that his assertion that the first chapters of Genesis are to be regarded as poetry needs amendment. By way of comment and explanation of the point raised we quote Sir Bertram Windle: "We have seen that some sort of evolution ... if looked on as a method of creation is not antagonistic to the teaching of the highest doctrinal authorities in the Catholic Church, such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Suarez, and others. On this point I may conclude by quoting Father Wasmann: ' Person he writes, ' I am firmly convinced that the doctrine of evolution, considered as a scientific hypothesis and theory, is not at variance with the Christian theory of life, although the contrary is often asserted.' " As to the fact of evolution it is another story. It is claimed that the theory fits in beautifully with discoveries of scientists, but that does not establish the theory as a fact. And there are many men of note in the world of science who hold that evolution has not been proved yet. In a recent work, M. Vialleton, of the University of Montpellier, France, a scientist of acknowledged repute, contends that "the transformations postulated (by evolution) are absolutely impossible under the conditions and with the precision accorded to them. We must recognise that we (men of science) know nothing about the origin of life nor of the origin of living beings." Sir Bertram Windle, reviewing this book in the October Catholic World, agrees with M. Vialleton that evolution through small variations is absolutely inadmissible, and that while greater variations may have taken place at an earlier date, no one can prove that they actually did take place. One thing is forced on all biologists who keep their eyes open, and that is that there is a guiding power directing every living thing to its full perfection. This is exactly what Aristotle and St. Thomas taught, and what any student might have learned from them during past centuries. Gradually we are overtaking the knowledge possessed by writers in what used to be called the Dark Ages. Indian Catholic Paper Ceases We learn with regret that the Catholic Herald of India has ceased publication. It was announced in the issue for October 28, which came to hand this week, that there would be no other issue. This decision follows on the news that Father Gille, S.J., who edited the paper for over eight years with signal brilliancy, is not returning from Europe whither he sailed during the pastsummer. The announcement came as a shock to his friends and admirers of the Catholic Herald. It is regarded as a severe blow to Catholic journalism in India. His freedom in discussing questions of ecclesiastical policy in India and in ventilating publicly questions of the merits of which the general public could not judge begot many critics who held that the habit of criticism of the clergy by the laity required no stimulus in India. His Superiors were no -doubt influenced by complaints of this nature when they decided to retain him in Europe. But on the other

hand, he had warm supporters in India, and amongst them his own archbishops, past and present. The present Archbishop had already declared that if Father Gille ceased to be editor he would suppress the paper, which' has accordingly done. No greater tribute than this could be paid to the eminent Jesuit journalist. The Catholic Leader, October 15; has the following comment: V . 'Father Gille was the foremost, the most brilliant and vivacious Catholic journalist in India and the ban against his return is a severe blow to the cause of Catholic journalism in this country. For over eight years he edited the Catholic Herald with distinction and exceptional ability and under his editorship the paper became exceedingly popular and developed into an authoritative organ of public opinion. He was always bright and lively in his comments on the topics of the day and his notes were often reproduced by secular journals in India and by Catholic journals abroad. He was an undaunted optimist with the supreme gift of expression and humor. Out-spoken, spirited, active, and bursting with ideas, he found full scope for his views in the Catholic Herald. What he thought he said plainly and mercilessly with little or no reverence for established custom. "This innovation in Catholic journalism evoked great opposition against him but he found support in his Archbishop who was a staunch advocate of the liberty of the Catholio press within reasonable limits. To love journalism, wrote Father Gille once in his paper, one needs the skin of a buffalo and to love Catholic journalism one. needs the skin of a rhinoceros. This" is perfectly true in India where Catholic editors write for a motley crowd of people, each with his own tastes and inclinations, principles and ideas with regard to the conduct of a journal. The stormy career of Father Gille as editor of the Herald shows that whether he had the skin of a rhinoceros or not, he was almost impervious to the intermittent volley of criticisms that poured on him week after week. "Father Gille began his missionary career as Professor of rhetoric in the Papal Seminary, Kandy. Scores of students who passed through his hands can testify what pains he took to teach them the rules of composition, both in theory and practice, and what ingenious methods he made use of to enable them to acquire clearness in thinking and facility in expression. Father Gille left for Kurseong for his theological studies in December, 1909, and was ordained priest in 1912. After completing his theology and tertianship in Ranchi, he was appointed Professor in St. Xavier's College, Calcutta. He became editor of Herald in January, 1917, and in this capacity he travelled for and wide, Bombay, Goa, Madras, Mangalore, Malabar, and Burma. He investigated the conditions of the Church on the occasion of his journeys and wrote down his impressions in a series of fascinating articles, which were afterwards published in book form.

“We understand that Father Gille has been told not to return to India as regards his views on the question of the secular clergy, of whom there was no friend and supporter, more true, enthusiastic, and disinterested.”