CATHOLICS AND PROHIBITION.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 March 1919, Page 6

CATHOLICS AND PROHIBITION.

FATHER CRONIN AT THE EMPIRE THEATRELast night's meeting, under the ana-1 piees of the Efficiency League, in connection with tlie campaign for the prohibition of the liquor traffic, at which Father Cronin and Mr. C. Todd, of Dunediu, were the speakers, drew an audience which filled the Empire Theatre within a few minutes of the doors being opened. Arrangements had been made for the use of the Good Templar Hall, which was also crowded, and both speakers appeared at the two halls. Mr. W. B. Fitzpatrick presided at the Empire Theatre, and in introducing the speaker-, Baid that from the signs it appeared that 1919 was going to be an historic year for New Zealand, and it looked as if the temperance party would "deliver the goods" on April 10. Father Cronin, who was very' warmly received, jokingly remarked about the stories which were being circulated' about Mr. Todd and himself, but said he thought they were pretty well overtaking them, in spite of their untruthfulness, and the start they had had. He then proceeded to quote a number of Catholic authorities in relation to the temperance que_stion, showing that in advocating prohibition he was in the company of some of the best t and leading men of his church. The first authority was the "Catholic Encyclopaedia," which said, regarding the subject of alcohol: "From the sociological standpoint we are compelled by incontrovertible evidence to acknowledge that alcohol is of all causes the most frequent source of poverty, unhappinoss, divorce, suicide, immorality, crime, insanity, disease and death." (Applause.) He named also Pope Leo XIII, who lived still in the memories of democrats, because he led the world when he published his Encyclicals on the Labor question. Pope Leo had spoken often on the drink question, and so did his successor, Pius X. He also quoted from the speech Cardinal Mercier made at Liege in 1908, at an international congress against alcoholism. Cardinal Manning was held up as an advocate of the elimination of the liquor traffic. Father Cronin then proceeded to deal with the Moderates, and those who came before the public as the advocates of the Moderate League's programme. He had' wondered why they called themselves moderate, and with whom they were in league. He had heard them speak, and thought the audience could well judge whom these men represented. The speaker then proceeded to state that he had formed his opinions of the liquor traffic not merely from the words of his church leaders, or from books, but from the book of his own experience. He had seen the effects of the drink trailic in different countries, and especially in the slums of the big cities of England and Ireland. He had spent the six years after his ordination in Lancashire, and he believed that if every person listening to him had had the experiences he had had in connection with liquor, every one of them would be a downright prohibitionist. The sights in the slums of the big towns of the Old Country were more barbarous than could be seen in the heart of Africa. Some would say that the cause was poverty. He did not deny that poverty was one of the causes. Drink, would be neither cause nor effect if it' were removed. The men of the Moderate League were fond of saying this was a beautiful country—"God's Own Country"—but it was not the liquor traffic that had made it beautiful. He was prepared to admit that comparatively speaking this country was a sober country, but we must not wait till it should "become like the Old Land. To do that would be to wait too long. If the bulk of the people in Britain wanted prohibition, could they get it V They could not get it; the vested interests were too strong. When Cabinet Ministers and other people high up in the Church and State were against them, what power had the people? If we are looking for example in the matter, we should look, not to the Old Land, but to countries where conditions were more similar to conditions here—countries like the United States and Canada. If prohibition was a good thing for the United States, it was a good thing for New Zealand. (Applause.) In speaking of the Popes, Father Cronin said he had said that they stood for temperance, and probably some people present would say that temperance was quite a different tiling from prohibition. He contended that it was not. The total abstainer's ideal was just the same as the prohibitionist's ideal,, and he thought he could prove it. Any individual in the country had the right to bind himself by a pledge of total abstinence. It would not require much of a social sense to follow this reasoning: If the individual had the right to bind himself not to take drink, so had the community the right. (Applause.) On the question of Catholics and prohibition he gave the opinion of a citizen of New York, who edited a paper called "Catholics and Prohibition"; "Wherever Catholics and Protestants work together for prohibition victory is assured." (Applause.) He was very glad to see that :-.1l were agreed on that point. He asked that Protestants of every sort should remember, after Prohibition was carried on April 10, that the Catholics deserved their share of the credit. (Applause.) From Christchurch to Invercargill he had meb scores of Catholics who had told him how they were going to vote. Here, also, the speaker showed that Catholics were free to vote as they thought they ought to vote on such a question, and quoted from the latest issue of Bishop Cleary's magazine, as follows: "The No-Man's or Any-Man's Laud, of which we have just 'written above, is a region of complete freedom of personal opinion and action. And of that freedom abundant use has been made on every side, both by our bishops, clergy, and people. A great part of the Catholic hierarchy of Canada, for instance, favors national prohibition. . So, too, do many Catholic bishops in the United States, while others are opposed to that measure, some of these (as also many bishops elsewhere) favoring one or other of the systems of State control. A considerable divergence of opinion also exists in Catholic journalism. For Catholics this question,;as stated, is a free one, to be determined, in its last resort, by the individual conscience" The speaker dealt with the question of provision for the importation of wine for sacramental purposes, and said that there was the guarantee of the people of the country behind the Act in which absolute safety in that connection was assured. He thought that if that pledge to the Church was ever broken Protestants would stand side by side with the Catholics in their protest. Any section of the community, therefore, that mistrusted the whole community in the face of the community's best guarantee put itself quite out of court. Father Cronin concluded by a consideration of the question from the scientific point of view, a|id also with the advice of the Moderate League to wait until December, and then vote for prohibition without compensation. He said he believed that prohibition would not only be carried, but that it would h# m -**&

by an overwhelming majority. He was sure that every voter who had the welfare of the community at heart would not fail to "strike out the top line" on April 10. (Applause.) Mr. Todd, who followed, put a good deal of vigor into his address, and showed tliat he was "all out" for immediate prohibition. He said that Father Cronin and himself were not the only Roman Catholic prohibitionists in the country, for he knew, from travelling up and down the land, that many of the priests and the laity would vote prohibition on April 10. Personally he had worked for the temperance since he had been sixteen years of age, and he had voted for it since he had a vote. He had travelled all over Australia, in the United States and Canada, and in Britain, and he had taken notice of the working of the liquor trade because he had always been keenly interested in the subject. He spoke of what he had seen in the lower quarters of the big cities of Britain. In view of the evils of drink the moderate drinker had no case for his demand that he should be allowed to have his glass. He was not out speaking in this campaign for fun, but because he believed in his soul that the cause was a right one. Business men knew that there was no greater enemy of efficiency and progress than liquor. On the financial aspect, Mr. Todd said the ever-present question was: "Where would the revenue come from?" His answer would be, "Who produces the revenue?" Hid the trade produce revenue? The traffe was merely a commission agent keeping for itself four times as mucli as it handed to the Government in revenue. It took from the people five million pounds, and handed a million to the Government. He was sure that instead of a loss of revenue there would be a gain of at least a million. He discussed the compensation question also, saying that he considered the exchange of the period of grace of four years and a half for the payment of four millions and a half would be a good bargain for the country. It would represent £4 10s per head of the population. If they all put into the Post Office Savings Bank 4kl per week for five years they would all have the £4 10s. He expressed the conviction that there would be a glorious I victory for prohibition on April 10, (Applause.) A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the meeting. CATHOLIC PROHIBITION LECTURES (Published by An augment). The following article is taken from the N.Z. Tablet:— The forces behind the movement for Prohibition are consolidating their phalanxes for a big battle. To Catholics we deem it necessary to say n few words. il) Remember"the warning sounded by Archbishop Redwood a few years ago about the danger to our religion if Prohibition is once carried. 12) The danger is very real; tlie trouble Catholics have had in certain parts of tlie United States all came from the NoPopery crowd behind the Prohibition movement We know what they are here. Only a week ago in a" Dunedin paper a writer of that brand spoke of the folly of holding that it mattered a hit whether or not fermented wine was used for religious purposes. Moreover, the official lecturer. Mr Hammond, lei the cat out of the bag when, lie stated openly that they hoped in time to prevent "even the use of altar wine in New Zealand " (3) No earnest Catholic ' temperance worker of note would advocate Probiittion. Temperance is a virtue; Prohibition is not. (4) Any State may assume the authority to enforce Prohiibtion: but it has not the right, any more than it has the right to prohibit football or cricket because accidents occur in them at time; (5) Prohibition is an encroachment on libel ty, and a democratic country is always foolish to allow a Government to restrict its rights. (f.) Cardinal Manning, n life-long temperance worker, condemned as oppt.ifd to Catho'ic. doctrine the assertion thai rt'ong drink i- in itself an evil thing, and said rightly that those who hold this an: heretics. 171 Many people who demand that a small majority should have the right to destroy the liberty of a great minority are of the class who hold that a fourfifths majority of Irishmen have no right to demand legislation in favor of their freedom. (H) There are many ways of promoting the virtue of temperance wjith.v.it having recourse to State tyranny, which never did and never will lesriski? morality into a people. (9) The "dry" districts in America are certainly not more moral or in any wav better than ihnse that rejected Prohibition. THE TABLET IN REPLY TO MR TODD PROHIBITION. Mr Todd's letter published in our last issue calls for a few remarks. We will deal with it as briefly as possible. First let us say that we are ntt prophets, and we did not say that after reform is earned fermented wine will not be admitted for sacramental purposes. We said that behind Prohibition there was a strong party who hate Catholics and who would leave no stone unturned to prevent us from having altar wine in New Zealand. We do not say that the whele party is of this kidney, we know very,well that men like Mr Todd would never join in such an attempt; but of such it is not too much to say that they are in very bad company- As for other chnreoeS; we have much evidence lately that many of their ministers are quite ready to cease using fermented wine: and considering the Catholic doctrine of the Mass, we make bold to say that it is a question that affects Catholics chiefly. The great majority of people do not lend themselves to persecuting others, but the great majority of people will not go fir out of Iheir way to prevent others from being persecuted. We now .Time to Mr Todd's comments on our articles: — (ll Mr Todd begs to differ from Archbishop Redwood- No more need be said on tii.it matter. We leave It to our readers to select what authority, they will follow. ( : 2) Mr Todd quotes a few Cath'olic Temperance advocates us being Prohibitionists. Kvcn if thr-y were they arc in a small minority on a nuestion whHi is not theological except so far lis the danger to th« valid celebration of Holy Mass is roncerned Beyond that it is an ethical question about which opinions mav be freely held. Archbishop Redwood is our <ruidc here: Cardinal Manning was the highest authority in England; the Archbishop of Sydney is the occupant of the most important See in Australia; Cardinal Gibobns is trie Head of the Uuirch in America. They are all opposed to National Prohibition, and the names quoted by Mr Todd carry little weight compared with theirs. As for- Dr. Cleary's words, they inculcate total abstinence, which is a very different tiling from Prohibition (3) Mr Todd says that nobody asserts differently from Cardinal Manning's words in condemnation of alcohol as an evil thing in itself. Mr Todd is.wrong. And when be says that "it it an evil

practice to use alcohol as a beveaige" lie i 3 accusing Christ and the Apostles of evil practice. (4) We have quoted Father Loeking-ton-flnd Father McNamara on. the morals of "Dry Districts." They have studied tlie question on the spot and they do not by any means find that Etatistics are against us(s) Mr Todd says that it is misleading Catholics to say that on principle they ought to vote against Prohibition. Archbishop Msssmer lately found it necessary to pass a law to prevent Catholics from being mislead into voting for Prohibition. The danger to the Mass is real enough to make it. tlie duty of every Catholi; to oppose any legislation that might possibly become a weapon against us in that respect; and it is very conceivable that the Catholic who support Prohibition is helping to do an injury to the Church.. Mount the water waggon by all means; but keep clear of the Prahiibitionists. Mr Todd has not had the opportunity of feeling the strength and the intensity of the hatred of all tilings Catholic which would infallibly urge many of bis most ardent supporters to make Prohibition an instrument for attack-ins the Church. Wn know wha£ his happened in the United States, and we shall have the same experience here some day if Prohibition is carried. The following statement made by the United States represents the feeling of many of their brethren here: 'lntelligent (people had long ago given up the SUPERSTITION that intoxicating wine is necessary to the proper observnnce of the sacramental duty." Mr Todd writes in good faith: hut he does not realise as we do, and as Archbishop Redwood did when he issued his warning that ProhiWtion is a danger to the Catholic Church- We here quote a passage on the subject from St. John Ohrysostom, who was certainly an authority on Catholic matters, and who was not likely to mislead bis hearers: "I hear men say when these «excesse« happen, Would there were no wine! O folly l O madness! When other men sin do you find fault with God's gifts Did the wine, O man. produce this evil? Not the wine, but the intemperance of such as take an evil deiight in it. Say then, Would there was no drunkenness, Ino injury! But if you say, Would there was no wine! you will go on by degrees, Would there was no steel, because of the murdorer; no nights, because of the thieves; no light, because of the informers; no women, because of the adulteries; and m a word you would destroy everything. But do not so, for this is a sign of a satanical mind. Anil when you have found this same man sober, shew him his unseemliness and say to him, Wine was given that we might be cheerful, not that we might behave ourselves in an unseemly manner; that we might laugh, not that we might be a laughing-stock; that we might correct the weakness of our bodies, not cast down the. might of our souls. (Horn. LVII. in Matt.). These words of a Doctor of the Church go right, down to the ethical grounds on which Catholic temperance ■ advocates oppose Prohibition on principle. On that same principle—leaving the danger to the Mass out of the question altogether—we oppose the movement i\s an unjust aggiession on human liberty and a sign of the present-day tendency towards the Servile State. As far as the effects of Prohibition are concerned we have referred to the passage from a newspaper published in a State I in which Prohibition had been the law for years; and we recommend our readers to take Father Lockington's own figures in conjunction with that as evidence that Prohibition is a failure. Mr Todd triumphantly appeals to Invercargill as a nroof of what Prohibition would do for the Dominion. We have had .an opportunity of consulting two Southland priests on that point this week, end their opinion, based on a long acquaintance with the district is a specimen of what Prohibition would do, the sooner Prohibition is killed the bet-ter-—Advt.