Page 6 Advertisements Column 1

Taranaki Daily News, 10 April 1919, Page 6

BISHOP CLEARY FAVORS PROHIBITION ■Et Bishop's House, Ponsonby, Auckland, *. - ' March 31st, 1919. My Dear Dean Cahill, —I cannot see my way to comply with the request of you and others for advi ee as to the attitude which the clergy and laity of this diocese should adopt regarding national prohibition, continuance, or State purchase and control. My rekson for affirming the clergy and the people's freedom of opinion and of vote on these issues were set forth in detail in "The Month," the diocesan organ, for JijJy, 1918, and March, 1919. The rights of religion, as it seems to me, are reasonably safeguarded by the sections of the Licensing Amendment Act legalising the local manufacture, the importation and the sale of alcoholic drinks for sacramental, medicinal, scientific and industrial purposes, and in the official written pledges of the Cabinet and of the Attorney-General in regard to regulations thereon. Personally, I se» no present or prospective grounds for anticipating State measures detrimental in any way to Catholic, Anglican or other worship, but if in the future if any anti-Democratic Government in this Dominion were strong enough and vicious enough thus to penalise the religion of large bodies of people, it would do so irrespective of the state of om; liquor laws saving our spiritual rights. L The root issues of the present liquor problem are these: What is the LEAST AMOUNT of drink traffic evils that the State MUST tolerate befo re it can rightly take over the traffic or suppress it f What is the WORST STATE of drink traffic evils at which the State is MORALLY BOUND to take over the traffic or Jo suppress it! Neither the Catholic Church nor Catholic theology has defined these things. They have not de fined what is the LEAST ACTION which the State is bound to take in dealing with the evils of the drink traffic. Neither has the Ca tliolic Church nor Catholic theology defined the EXTREMEST ACTION which the State must not exceed in dealing with the gvils of • the drink traffic between the LOWER LIMIT and the UPPER LIMIT of State interference. Herein THE STATE'S ACTION IS WHAT THE BODY OP THE PEOPLE WILLS THAT IT SHALL BE, in the words of a great Catholic theologian. Public opinion (or the "public conscience") thus becomes, in a sense, "the guardian of public morality." In such undefined matters as the issu ts of the licensing poll of April 10, the "public conscience" decides such free issues in accordance with its sense of the requirements of the public good. SAYING SPIRITUAL RIGHTS. The Catholic Church has thus left Catholic electors free to vote on these issues as their knowledge may suggest and their conscience may dictate. This freedom of Catholic opinion and Catholie action is widely practised in the Church. The ablest and most zealous and saintly of our prelates of every rank —the most devoted of our clergy—honorably and conscientiously take different sides —even opposite sides—on the debated issues of the liquor traffic. In taking these diverse views they are acting ( blamelessly and in good faith, in the freedom which the Church accords to them and to us. They, are free to support continuance or national prohibition or State pur-, chase and control The exercise of their freedom herein is a matter between their individual consciences and God. ; [The clergy of this diocese are not to disturb the laity's freedom hy advice or appeals MADE IN THE COURSE OF, THEIR OFFICIAL MINISTRATIONS IN THE CHURCHES. Out: side of this my clergy are perfectly free to advocate the cause that their conscience may approve, but 1 earnestly hope that whatever cause they may espouse they will maintain the dignity, the decorum and the moderation that befit their sacred calling. • They are not, of course, canonically free to neglect or abandon their spiritual duties, or (without proper ecclesiastical sanction) to become {.aid employees of any of the secular organisations engaged in the liquor controversy. My personal view (which you ask for others) can be of comparatively little outside interest. For months past it has been known to members of my Diocesan Council, to many others of my clergy, and to not a few of the laity of this diocese. To my, mind neither the law nor the many excellent and high-minded people in the trade have been able to reduce to reasonable limits the evils attendant on licensed and unlicensed drink traffic in tliis diocese. Consequently I feel that the public conscience is fully justified mor-. ally in trying the experiment of national prohibition with compen-. sation, My conscientious view on this matter, of course, binds no one, and it implies no reflection whatsoever on the support which ovher Catholics will give with different opinions and knowledge, and with equally good faith and honor, to continuance or to State purchase and control. As my clergy and people sufficiently know, I have always objected to the circulated notion that the conscience of the Catholics of this diocese is in some sense committed to the brewing and other liquor interests, irrespective of circumstances Such an idea has no foundation either in fact or in any Catholie principle of moral obligation. Those most interested must feel that this fiction can now no longer be maintained, and these in view of their long-standing entente or alliance with the ruling forces of an organisation which is working to injure our rightful liberties, assailing the most precious honour of our womanhood, and not even sparing our dead within their graves. 'Up to this date (March 31) repeated remonstrances by Catholic lay supporters have failed to affect this strange union. This ciicumstance in no way affects my personal view. It is mentioned merely for its bearing upon a traditional claim upon Catholics, involving, more or less, the motion of moral obligation. , If you nil agree you may bring the contents of the letter to the knowledge of the clergy and laity of the diocese before polling day— April 5. ; s I remain, my dear Dean, Always s'neerely yours, HENRY W. CLEARY, Bishop of Auckland.