THE LIQUOR POLL

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2067, 13 December 1919, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE LIQUOR POLL

BY The Right Rev. Henry W. Cleary, D.D. Bishop of Auckland.

The Liquor Poll.

The Coming Battle. The old war-horse scents the battle from afar and lifts eager eyes and nostrils towards the fray. So the moneyed interests and the volunteer bands are getting them ready for the great coming tussle between the Beer-barrel and the Water-waggon. This time it is to be a contest after the manner dear to the heart of Captain Marryat; a triangular “ duel,” in which Continuance, National Prohibition (without compensation), and State Purchase and Control (to cost some £10,000,000) will fight for the mastery at the general elections in the coming Christmas month. In the columns of “The Month” we have already several times set forth our views, on these hotly-debated issues. Hereon we stand for the freedom of conscience of Catholic electors to vote on these issues of the liquor problem as their conscience may dictate; we condemn as false in moral teaching and in fact the notion (so long sedulously propagated by “ the trade ”) that the Catholic Church either in or out of this Dominion—is, in some way.

Reprinted from “THE MONTH” (A Journal devoted to Catholic Interests in the Auckland Diocese) SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1919

chained or spancelled to a Brewer’s Vat; and (speaking for ourselves personally) a long experience has convinced our inmost soul that the evils of the drink traffic, within our Diocese, have gone far beyond the limits of toleration ; and that the worthy. God-fearing, and law-abiding people in the business have about as much power to reform it as a dozen bottles of rose-water have of sweetening the air of a soap-factory. We have long ago abandoned hope of such a reform of " the trade ” from within; and with our dying breath we would declare it our conscientious belief that there is a real, solid hope in National Prohibition for the deep physical and moral and economic mischiefs of the licensed and unlicensed traffic in alcoholic liquors. That is “the penn’orth of our thought,” in tabloid form. We never had faith, nor have we now, in electoral no-license “islands” bounded by Beer. Such “islands” may be high; they are not "dry”; seepage and percolation are botii extensive and peculiar there; and in no place., perhaps, does the traffic touch, deeper depths of shame. There is high hope in the high seas as the frontier of a sober nation.

Some Nutshells. There is no need for us to deal in any detail with the grounds of the views which we have expressed above in compressed and summary form. It is, perhaps, no easy matter for the average elector to pick or squeeze his way through the barbed-wire entanglements of the arguments of the three rival parties to the liquor issues. Financial and trade interests, zeal for reform, sentiment, and other considerations will all play an important part in determining the question on polling-day. But there are certain evils unquestionably arising out of the traffic, such as, for instance, the following;— 1. It is the occasion of a serious amount of vice and crime. 2. It gives rise to a considerable amount of disease; and this, in turn, to a specific death-rate, the full extent of which is not at present ascertainable. 3. It occasions a grave amount of domestic strife and misery. 4. It occasions a serious total economic loss in such directions as the following: (a) In the homes of the intemperate; (b) in the extra provision required in police, in courts, in prisons and reformatories, and in State and Church orphanages, for the direct and indirect victims of drink; and (c) in lowered industrial efficiency and extra industrial and other accidents arising out of ovcr-indul-ence in alcohol. Whether (as we personally believe) (he total elimination of alcoholic liquor as a beverage offers a real remedy for these evils; whether (as we also believe) the extent of these evils is so great as to justify a majority of the people being deprived of the ordinary use of alcohol as a drink; these are questions which must be decided by each individual Catholic elector as his knowledge may suggest and his conscience may dictate. We have previously dealt with the Church’s attitude hereon. It may be fitting to repeat some of our observations here. 1. The Catholic Church rejects as a heresy the Manichsean doctrine that alcohol is, in its nature, an evil thing. 2. The Church recognises a right use, and thunders against the wrong use, of drinks containing alcohol. In her eyes, for instance, intemperance is a sin, and the supplying of drink to intoxicated persons is a crime of deep turpitude. 3. She believes in prohibition for individuals or communities who cannot or will not use alcoholic liquor in moderation. 4. The Church steadily counsels her children to practise total abstinence. Pius X. and other Popes have enriched with special blessings, indulgences, and other privileges the various total abstinence movements in many lands. But the Church declines to violate charity by looking upon total abstinence as a necessary mark of a good Christian or (as Mohammed taught) a condition of eternal salvation. (We may here remark that intemperance is very little known among the purely wine-drinking populations of Catholic countries in Continental Europe).

5. In any and every legislative scheme of temperance reform, the Church would necessarily stand firmly for rights of worship, such as an assured supply of wine for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 6. We may add that there is no Catholic doctrine or principle which, directly or indirectly, asserts an inalienable right to the beverage use of alcohol. The Popes. Cardinal Merry Del Val (says an American contemporary) shortly after the pilgrimage to Rome in April, 1914, of the International Catholic League Against Alcoholism, wrote to its president, Baron C. Ruys de Beerenbrouck, Premier of Holland: “The Popes in these latter times have not failed to call attention to the deadly evil you are combating, and have proclaimed the necessity of prompt and efficacious remedies. Our Holy Father Pius X. lias heartily blessed the 200 pilgrims of the International Catholic League Against Alcoholism. His Holiness earnestly expresses the desire that the clergy everywhere encourage this work of social re-education and preservation, and that they put themselves, by their example, in the very van of the struggle against an evil which, especially in some countries, is sowing so much shame among the faithful.” “ Persona! Liberty.” We may here clear the ground of two argumentative entanglements which will, no doubt, be much in evidence during the last weeks of the triangular campaign. One of these is the question of personal liberty, the other that of wine for sacramental purposes. In our issue of March, 1919, wo remarked, in the former connection: “Over a wide area of social relations, personal liberty must yield to what the Pope terms ‘the general prosperity and the common good.’ Every law, both human and divine, is a restriction on the liberty of the individual, with a view to securing the greater liberty and well-being of all. jAnd such restrictions, by State law, are justifiable when they are for the common good and within the limits of the jurisdiction of the civil authorities.” This right of restricting personal liberty is exercised by the State in innumerable ways. For example, infectious diseases are notifiable and the patients are to be isolated. The strictest and most searching measures have been authorised for dealing witli the more intimate personal forms of contagious disease. Every phase of business, of pleasure, or of life generally is affected by some reference to the restriction of personal liberty, Few of our actions are free from some restraining influence of even the secular law w,hich is everywhere defining limits that may not be exceeded or prescribing conditions that must be complied with. Farmer, orchardist, apiarist, stock-keeper, dairyman, general vendor—all must comply with certain restrictive regulations that are framed in the interests of the general good. The State enforces laws for the destruction of pests, such as rabbits, codlin-moth, noxious weeds, etc. It insists that certain noxious trades and other industries shall only be carried on under given conditions. Examples could be quoted endlessly. All moral progress implies

submission to further restraint either internal or external. “ Freedom ” is a most illusive term. " Before we are educated, we are 'free” to think illogically, to write or speak ungrammatically, to disregard conditions of health and bodily safety and social weh .e. By education we learn to submit to the laws of ■’bought, the laws of language, the laws of morality, the laws of nature and social life.” The laws of the State, where they do not conflict with the law of God and the natural law, are entitled to our obedience. Generally speaking, they are readily accepted in that they are a condition or penalty of living in the security of an ordered community. Given due safeguarding of rights of worship (which are Crown Rights of God), and a proper regard for rights in justice, such further restrictions as State Ownership and Control, or National Prohibition, are equally a secular and “ civil political business,” which (on Catholic principles) the State and the public conscience may freely determine, as the common good of the people may seem to them to require. With these same provisos, it follows that the Catholic elector may vote hereon as his individual judgment may favour and his conscience may dictate. In regard to rights in justice: During the liquor-poll campaign last March and April, "the trade” officially besought the electors of New Zealand to vote against National Prohibition with Compensation, on the ple.a that they could have National Prohibition for nothing ip a few months* time, if they desired it. Sacramental Wine. Many Catholics were, during the last campaign, sincerely concerned lest National Prohibition might result in rendering it impossible to secure the fermented wine required for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the great, central act of our worship. With Catholics, such an apprehension —whether well or ill grounded—was a natural expression of their faith and devotion. The peculiar feature of this fear was the extent to which it was exploited by financial interests to which Catholics’ supreme act of worship has hitherto been apparently no more sacred than a game of poker. Was it the Walrus or the Carpenter that “wept like anything to see such quantities of sand ” upon the wind-swept shore? No matter. It seems to us that neither anxious Catholics, nor their troubled non-Catholic friends in “ the trade,” need “ weep like anything ” over the matter of sacramental wine, in the event of National Prohibition taking New Zealand as it follows the westward track along which the Star of Empire takes its way. The New Zealand Licensing Amendment Act of 1918, section 19, sub-section 2, says:— “ Nothing in this section shall extend or apply to the importation, manufacture, or sale, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor-General in Council in that behalf, of intoxicating liquor for medicinal, scientific, sacramental, or industrial purposes exclusively.” A: letter from the then Hon. Attorney-General (Sir Francis Dillon Bell) conveys the substance of the proposed regulation in the following words:—

“ I am authorised by the Cabinet to state that, in the event of Prohibition being carried, regulations under sub-section 2 of section 19 of the Licensing Amendment Act (1918) will provide for the importation by the several Churches of wine for sacramental purposes, in such quantities as any Church may require for lengthened periods, the Churches being required to give sufficient security that the wine so imported shall not be used for other than sacramental purposes.” The Attorney-General gave an assurance that those regulations would be entirely reasonable and proper. The aim of the law and of the Cabinet is not to hamper religious worship, but to curb intemperance and its train of moral, social, and economical evils. It is feared by some Catholics that anti-Catholics may subsequently obtain supplemental legislation to cut off sacramental wine and thus make the Mass impossible. We do not think the use of sacramental wine is in the least danger. It has been recognised to be a matter of vital principle, not alone by leading Prohibitionists, but by the Prohibition Party as a plank of its oflicial platform. As we have pointed out some time ago, it received special consideration and exemption as such in the Licensing Amendment Act; public opinion would not be likely to tolerate the breaking of specific pledges and legal provisions; the practice of the chief Reformed denominations is a lightning-conductor for us; even the “ aggressive atheists ” in the saddle in France never dared to suppress the Mass; and, finally, if antiChristian fanatics ever rose to such overwhelming power in New Zealand as to be both able and willing to perpetrate such an outrage upon religion and conscience, they would not dream of seeking for a pretext in the provisions of our liquor laws. In “ Dry ” America. In the United States, as in the Dominion, the Prohibition Party stands for proper freedom in regard to the use of sacramental wine. And the highest Catholic authorities there have accepted as satisfactory the conditions laid down for ensuring adequate supplies. From an American Catholic contemporary (“ Catholics and Prohibition ”) we take the following quotation in point:— “ Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, in a letter dated May 5, 1919, to the Committee of Bishops, says: ‘The forces at Washington that are behind the Prohibition legislation have shown a disposition to hinder in no way the manufacture and distribution of sacramental wine.’ ‘Catholics and Prohibition’ of August and September, 1918, contains letters from the Hon. W. J. Bryan and other Prohibition leaders, declaring that American Prohibitionists never intended to interfere with the legitimate use of sacramental wine, Wayne B. Wheeler (one of the leaders of the Anti-Saloon League) said: ‘We arc going to leave the whole matter of sacramental wine in charge of a Catholic—Senator T. J. Walsh, of Montana, who is also a strong supporter of prohibition. The outcome ought to be very satisfactory to Prohibitionists and to Catholics.’ Deputy-Commissioner H. M. Gaylord,

who usually drafts the rules of the Internal Revenue Department , . . favoured the utmost accommodation consistent with an efficient law enforcement. Commissioner Roper expressed the same sentiments when he wrote to the bishops: ‘ The collectors of internal revenue will 00-operate with the bishops and local priests so as to reduce to the minimum the difficulties the members of the clergy may encounter in securing sacramental wines.’ The sacramental-wine clause met with no opposition. There was not a single negative vote.” Freedom of Opinion. The highest teaching authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, with or without a General Council. There is no Catholic doctrine or principle that (given freedom of worship) forbids or condemns Prohibition. The Church herein leaves Catholics free, and none may take that freedom away. And of that freedom abundant use has been made by large numbers of Bishops and Archbishops on both sides. There are Cardinals on both sides. Each Bishop or group of Bishops expresses honest and conscientious opinion on the facts known to them within their respective Sees. Such opinions carry weight on account of the position, zeal, and disinterestedness of the writers and the value of the facts and arguments upon which the opinions are based. But the stream never rises above its source. They always remain expressions of free opinion on a question which the ‘Church of God has left a matter of free opinion. They are matters of advice or recommendation; they are not matters of precept, binding upon consciences; and Catholics, in the exercise of their liberty, are free to examine into the facts and arguments on which such opinions (individual or collective) are based, to compare them with the facts within their own knowledge and experience, and then to follow, in voting, the dictates of their own individual consciences. In doing this, they exercise the freedom with which God and His Church have made them free.

Ourselves. For ourselves, we see no reason to depart from—and every reason to adhere to—our previously-expressed opinion—that the experiment of nation-wide Prohibition might at least greatly reduce the evils of the legalised and illegal drink traffic as it is carried on both in license areas and in small No-license “islands” surrounded by license areas in this Dominion. We hold, as before, that there are in the liquor-traffic a certain number of conscientious, highminded, and God-loving people. Basing our view on our own extended experience in our own Diocese, we hold, on the other hand, that the sins and scandals of a large and undesirable part of the drink traffic have long been maintained at a level of iniquity which the public conscience need not—and ought not —to tolerate; that the law has been (and is) powerless to reduce this iniquity to the bounds of reasonable moderation; and that it is idle to look for voluntary reformation of their methods by a mischievous class of licensees who, unfortunately, are so numerous in “the trade.” We are convinced that, for the wider public welfare, the electors of this Dominion would be amply justified in trying the experiment of ending a traffic which lies beyond their power of reasonable and proper restraint and control. The personal views expressed by us on the liquor question are placed before the people of the Auckland Diocese for their information, with the further intimation that it binds no conscience and leaves each Catholic elector free to vote according to his conscience—but treating his vote for what it is, as a sacred trust. Our opinion is expressed because of the years-old and long-drawn effort of “the trade” to make it appear that the Church of the Living God is leg-chained to a Beer-Barrel. This expression of our personal opinion hereon is a practical denunciation of a false and superstitious doctrine; it is an emphatic declaration of the Catholic Freedom of Conscience in the matter; it is. finally, a conscientious statement of our firm individual belief that National Prohibition offers the hope of a remedy for the intolerable evils of the traffic in alcoholic drinks.