ARCHBISHOP O'SHEA AND HIS CRITICS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 266, 4 August 1920, Page 7

ARCHBISHOP O'SHEA AND HIS CRITICS

A number of letters arising out of the recent utterances of Archbishop O'Shea are to hand. Several of the letters cover practicallv the same ground. H. Sydney Bilby, Dominion secretary of the P.P.A., in the course of a lengthy letter says:— ■ "Dr. O'Shea ignores the questions which were asked him and offers no explanation of the disloyal and anti-Bri-tish utterances quoted from the 'Tablet,' and on this omission your readers are entitled to assume that the Archbishop,' having no answer to offer or explanation to give, admits ths soft impeachment. This being so, the reverend gentleman leaves little more to be said. He, however, asks a question, and though under the circumstances he is not entitled to do so, I have no hesitation in stating in reply that Protestants would 'be loyal to a Roman Catholic Sovereign as long as that Sovereign was loyal to tne British Constitution. As, to whether a Romanist king who owes allegiance to a foreign potentate, who is diametrically; opposed to . those free institutions which have made Britain first among the nations, can be loyal and remain Romanist •is for the Archbishop to explain. In tho Archbishop's suggestion of the possibility of the British Sovereign becoming Eoman Catholic, the wish' is no donbt father to the thought, but it would be quite as sensible for me to ask Dr. O'Shea if, in the event of the Pope becoming Mohammedan, he would still be loyal to the. Sovereign Pontiff." Turn, ing to the Archbishop's Temark that it is significant that his eritics have left unchallenged his statements about the wholesale robbery and exploitation of the people, Mr. Bilby comments on the utterances of certain of the clergy of the Eoman Catholic Church ' and their attitude towards tho British nation. "The P.P.A," he continues, "has consistently 6tood for the worker. In private no organisation has done more to gather evidence of profiteering and exploitation, and place this before. the proper authorities, nor has any organisation pleaded the right of the worker to healthier conditions of life and better remuneration more fincer.My than has the P.P.A., Bar' has any organisation more frequently, or in less measured terms, publicly denounced the tactics of those people or thos«' agencies which have operated to increase tho cqSt of living and make the lot of the people more difficult. The Archbishop woostho worker. Why? What are the conditions under which the people live in those countries where his jo-religionists predominate? What ha» Home done for the workers elie has -wooed and won in Australia or in Ireland? If he desires to justify his apparent concern for tho worker and to show that his zeal for him is in reality: something more than a dosire to make use of organised labour for the advancement of Romanism, _ let tho Archbishop answer these questions, in addition to those which he hns up to the present failed to reply."

"Orangeman," replying to the Archbishop's question of loyalty to a Catholic king, says: "f think that before an answer is possible to that question it wants amending a little. Tho word Catholic wants altering to read 'an adherent of fhs Churco of Rome.' Put. ting tho question that way, Sir, the answer must be 'No/ No jnan, kins or commoner, oan serve two masters. An adherent to the ChurcU of Borne places the Pope supreme, spiritually and temporally, and that potentate claims' to bo infallible, and that the law of the Church is above that of the State."

"Not an OrangemaV' writes in somewhat similar strain.

"Truth" comments as follows on tho ohhllenge issued by the Rev. KnowlesSmith to Archbishop O'Shea:—"l scf by to-day's issue of The Dominion that the Rev. Knowles-Smith has issued a challenge to His Grace Archbishop O'Shea which should mffie that gentleman retreat into his own spiritual lair, beaten and discomfited, and leave the political field to Mr. Smith and his friends. Yes, indeed! It was a great shame that King Albert of tho Belgians had to obefr tho Popo and oppose the Germans in their march through his country. What a lot of bloodshed and slaughter he would havo otherwise saved his people, but then as a Catholic King he had to obey the Popo and figlit the Germans. It is too shocking, and I quite agree that it would never do for our King to be a Catholic, as any day the Pope could compel him to form an alliance, say, with Germany against Russia or perhaps even against our late ally France. So far I agree wife Mr. Knowles-Smith, but when 1)6 asks the Archbishop whether His Graco could find in the Protestant Church, let alone in the Orange Institution, 'a ®tapanion fit to associate with.the priesi Jorger or Archbishop Afannix,' I am afraid I shall have to differ or perhaps make a distinction, In regard to Protestants, is it not too* sweeping a question altogether? I think that such Protestants as. say, Commander Kenworthy, M.P. Captain Wedgwood Benn. ALP., Mr. Brskine-ChiUlers, Gilbert Chesterton, and surely some others, should be considered fit companions to associate with such a great man aa Archbishop Mannix. I know that tho ex-Kaiser, though ho is a good Protestant, would not be, for ho d'd not like small nations. As to Orangemen-well, 1 am sorry to havo to say it, but I don't think thero is one of.them fit to associate with the ATchbishop of Melbourne, and ,1 have a good reason for my opinion, but the Editor might not like it, so I am unable to give it."

Thomas Prafrley, Whareama, writes:— "Finding tho Wrt is tho best temple. I worship accordingly. As a neutral in this great mid never-ceasing ecclesiastical warfare, it is not without grief that I realiso the lutterness that feeds the 6trife—challenge and counter-challenge— each doiny their 'best to damn the other, ever making opportunities if nono exist. It was reading Archbishop O'Shea's protest that inrnipted mo to write. If the marriage laws of tlae Church interfere with civil marriage laws, then there is need, of amending legislation. But if things are as Archbishop D'Shea Btates, thon why yorry?"

Mr. Howard Elliott forwards copy of a letter addressed to Sir Francis Bell, Lender of tho Legislative Council" on tho subject of tho investigation by the Statutes Revision Committee of tho attitude of a certain denomination towards our marriago lows and Archbishop O'Shiea's comments thereon. In thoeaunfc of this letter Mr. Elliott says:—"l bog ttspeetfully to suggest that the Statutoo

Revision Committee summons Dr. O'Shea i and any other representative of hie de- ; noniiahon whom ho may nominate, to give evidence before that committee. That • I will appear and request to be allowed j tho opportunity of questioning tho representatives of the Koman Church he- ■ foro the committee, and further that tho. Press be permitted to bo present to je- 1 port tho evidence adduced. Tho subject' is of such deop public concern and the scandal in connection therewith so grave,; that it is in tho public interest that tho; evidence on either 6lde bo made available • to the general public."