New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, APRIL 11. 1874. THE 'GUARDIAN' ON CATHOLICITY IN AMERICA.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 50, 11 April 1874, Page 5

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, APRIL 11. 1874. THE 'GUARDIAN ' ON CATHOLICITY IN AMERICA.

A wkek or two ago one of our " liberal " contemporaries told U9 that " the great problems of human society appear to be reserved for solution on the American Continent ;" l>ut he thinks the United States, " in some respects, the lea^t apposite illustration of the progress of civil freedom in combination with perfect religious equality to be found on the American soil."

He then, aa we expressed it in our reply, starts off to " Mexico as an example of the progress of civil liberty in combination with perfect rtligious equality." Our "liberal" contemporary seems to b« perfectly enamoured of the perfect religious equality which baaishes the Jesuits and plunders ecclesiastics and other religious persons. We took the liberty of laughing at our contemporary for his fully, and of calling " a spade a spade." For this our contemporary, in a subsequent issue, waxes very wroth, says uncivil things of us, and charges us pretjty plainly with an attempt to annul the commandment which says, •' Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,." This he, no doubt, considers very smart, and indeed it would be telling had it only a foundation in fact. We gave, aa we always do in similar cases, our content* . porary's own words, notliiug more — then drew the logical conclusions. And thi3 is what a Dunedin journalist calls, in language studiously not complimentary, the abrogation of the eighth commandment. Our contemporary says» " We respect every man's religious opinions. He may worship what he pleases, and how ha pleases, so long as he does not interfere with the civil rights of hi 3 neighbors. That, as we take it, is what the Mexican Congress has enacted; and the members of the religious order who were banished for the contravention of the law were not exiled because they were * devoted Catholics,' but because they were bid citizens, who preferred implicit obedience to an »lien authority to submission to the. laws of their country." These two pentencos show pretty clearly that in anything we have said of our contemporary's bigotry we have only stated the nnvnrnished truth. Our contemporary approves of the action of the Mexican Cougress of 1873. Is it a calumny to say sol lie also approves of the banishment of the Jesuits from Mexican soil Is it a calumny to say boI The * Otago Guardian' may wriggle, but these are piaip. facts!.' Our contemporary, h*wever, has his excuse — the Jesuits were banished becauso they were bad citizens, and the proof of their being bud citizens is that they obeyed a foreign authority*. Why, all Catholics in Mexico and elsewhere do this, and in a conflict of authority prefer implicit obedience to this alien aulk'jrity, and so it will be for ever. But is it true that the Jesuits were banished because they^ weie bad citizens'? In what duty of good citizenship did they fail i What law did they violate 1 Were any of them. summoned before tho tribun.ilsj tried, and convicted .of. breaches of the law? — or was their banishment effected by ordm.iy course of law, or the irregular intervention of arbitrary power exorcised by a revolutionary and usurping Government? In no country has any crime been proved ugainsb the J cauits ; not even has any specific crime been laid to their charge. Eu Prussia, the Government was challenged to prove a,ny ciune or any violation of the laws of the country against 1 these utuclly calumniated men; but' tho answer was a tyrannical

,ajpd order to leave the country. So it is, aUo, la Mexico and elsewhere. The truth is that of all men the Jesuits are the very men who meddle least in state or even ;woridly affairs. But they are amongst the most holy, learned, and able sons of the Church, and the most devoted champions 'at the Vicar on Earth of their Divine Master They are consequently a power and a terror to evil doers in high a 9 in low •ikces. No men more closely resemble their Master, and, therefore, no men are more hated and persecuted by the world and its votaries.

Our contemporary now showd the cloven foot without disguise* He can no longer lay the least claim to liberality or fair play. He applauds the banishment of the Jesuits from Mexico simply because they are devoted Catholics, and from no other reason. They were banished, he says, because " they preferred implicit obedience to an alien authority to submission to the lavs of their country." Although the 'Guardian' supposes a state of things which has had no existence, it is clear that he considers obedience to the Pope, when in conflict with the usurpation of the State, as a crime deserving banishment from their country, home and friends. The State, then, is infallible and impeccable, the State never does and never can do wrong ! What about the English revolution then ) What about Oliver Cromweu.l Suppose — what has not [really occurred — that the Jesuits opposed the Government of the hour more than other citizens, had they BOt as clear a right to do so, as Cromwell to take up arms against his Sovereign and spill his blood 1 or as the unnatural daughters of James tfs Second of England to aid and abet William of Orange to wage war against his uncle aud father-in-law, and deprive him of bis crown ?

But, whilst those who were traitors and conspirators against the State are applauded, the Jesuits, who have ever beea peaoable and loyal citizens, are banished and persecuted, Stfpply because they are devoted Catholics, and the ' Otago '{wuardian* claps its hands ; and then holds them up in solemn attitude to declare its own liberality and our unchristian conduct in calling attention to such an exhibition of ftrtly and hypocrisy.