New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1874. A. BUSY TIME.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 74, 26 September 1874, Page 4

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1874. A. BUSY TIME.

We have a busy time of it, endeavoring to keep'cur contemporaries within the bounds of common sense, and defending the principles of religion and Christian society from their almost incessant attacks. These enemies of Christianity and social order — albeit some of them know not what they do — led away by a prevailing tone, deceived by anti-social and auti- Christian theories, and blinded by their prejudices agaiust the Church, lose no opportunity of assailing her and the principles on which the Christian, social order rests. In defiance of logic and facts, notwithstanding denials and protests, in contempt of reason, many amongst these enemies reiterate, we may say, week after week the same falsehoods, and continue month after month, the same course of misrepresentation. Their persistency is wonderful, and would be admirable were it exerted in a good cause. Our work is a weary one, and were we influenced by no higher motive than a hope of success in our effort to convince men against their will, it would be most irksome and discouraging. Our attention is constantly distracted between the Dunedin daily papers and their correspondents, and our country contemporaries. At one time it is the ' Guardian ' that' calls for animadversion ; at another, the 'Daily Times' is provoking. The 'Evening Star' is frequently very pretentious and supercilious in its treatment of social and ecclesiastical questions, and requires a check. This paper takes great airs, and has often reminded us of an upper servant of a good family out of place. Then there is the ' Bruce Herald,' which, of course, imitates the

manners of its betters , but out contemporary of the Plain lacks the ability ot its leaders, and falls into great follies. It would occupy too much space, hovever, to give here a complete list, with their respective characters, of all those to whom we have to admininister reproof every now and then. The 'Bruce Herald ' is, we believe, the last that has made an onslaught on us, and the principles we defend. "We do not complain of being attacked, nor are we surprised to find our principles impugned ; but we do complain of unfair and shabby treatment. The editor of that journal, in his issue of Friday week, quotes — and incorrectly^ too — one sentence from our leader concerning Catholic teaching as to Church and State, and forthwith proceeds to deliver a Philippic on our intolerance and tyranny. The Tablet might say, in reply, retorqueo argtionentum. but will not do so in so many words. One or two passages, from the article, which the ' Bruce Herald ' unfairly suppressed will be more than sufficient for our justification. The editor of the 'Bruce Herald' begins his leader with the spicey and rather strong words — " Our contemporary, the New Zealand Tablet, exists for the propagation of intolerance." This is the thesis, and the only proof "brought forward is the following, from our issue of the 15th of last month, which, as has been said above, is given incorrectly by our contemporary : — " The Church, the guardian and interpreter of the natural" — not national-- " and Divine law, possesses i7ie right to control all the acts of the State, without exception, which necessarily "belongs to her under the point of their morality" ****** A little further on the ' Bruce Herald' makes a show to quote other words of ours, but in reality fails to do so, and attributes to us what we have not said. "We shall first give the words of the ' Herald,' and then our own :—": — " The Tablet lays down the doctrine that when a State make laws that the Pope disapproves of, and considers contrary to morality, it becomes a duty for the Holy Father to declare that such iniquitous laws can not only not bind the children of the Church in conscience, but that it would be a crime on their part to obey them." We ask such as feel an interest in the subject to be so good as to read our lender from which the above purports to be a quotation. It will be seen at once that we have not written what our contemporary attributes to us. Here are our own words : "If laws emanating from the civil authority, as not nnfrequently happens in our clay, should be in flagrant contradiction to the "Natural or Divine Law, not only has the Holy See the right to remonstrate, but in the cases where Governments remain deaf to such reinonctrances, it becomes a duty for the Holy Father to declare th?t such iniquitous laws can not only not bind the children of the Church in conscience, but that it would be a crime on their part to obey them. As His Eminence says further on : " To obey such laws would not' give to Czgsab, what belongs to Cjesak, but would rob God of what belongs to God." Such, then, is the doctrine, for maintaining which we are charged by the ' Bruce Herald ' with intolerance and tyranny. What do we claim, in this passage, for the Head of the Catholic Church, that every man in existence, Turk, Jew, Mahometan, Pagan, and Christian does not claim for himself, and that every Church that exists, or ever existed, does not claim for itself? Absolutely nothing. In the first place, does not every man and every church claim the right to remonstrate against laws which, arc in flagrant contradiction to the Natural and Divine Law ? Does not every man and every church consider it a duty to declare, if called upon to do so, that such iniquitous laws cannot bind any man in conscience, and that it would be a crime to obey thorn ? There can be no doubt whatever that such is the case, the history of religion and mankind proves it beyond a doubt ; and even though no history existed, the reason and instincts of humanity establish beyond the possibility of cavil, the justice of such a claim by men, considered both individually and collectively. Does the ' Bruco Herald ' mean to say that the civil authority can repeal the laws of God, and that meu are bound to obey iniquitous civil laws ; and, at the bidding of the civil power, trample on the laws giveii to men by God ? He must either mean this, or all the strong writing of our contemporary is absolutely without meaning, — wild unreason, sheer vulgar abuso. In this article to which tlio ' 'iruce Herald ' takes such exception, we have cla : med nothing for the Holy Father which every man, even the

Editor of the « Bruce Herald,' does not claim for himself. But in the claim set up by us there is a great security for civil authority, for which that authority ought to be grateful. According to our doctrine the ultimate appeal lies not to the individual, who may, not unlikely, be a partial judge in his own case, but to a high, learned, responsible authority, — an authority as old as Christianity, and respected, revered, and trusted throughout the World. Now we may ask which is the tyrant ? which is intolerant ? The N. Z. Tablet, or the ' Bruce Herald '—the man who denies to all Catholics, individually and collectively, — in their capacity as individual citizens, as well as in that of members of the most numerous, learned, ancient, venerable, and consistent Church in existence,— the rights he claims and exercises for himself; or the writer who claims these rights for all Christians, to be exercised by them under the safe guidance of an everlasting and infallible Church. But the • Bruce Herald ' will not, of course, grant that the Church is infallible. Well, at all events, it is a very numerous and learned body, the most numerous and learned in the world, and, at tliie lowest, must be as able to form a judgment on reason, law, and religion as the Editor of the ' Bruce Herald.' Again, how can it be intolerant and tyrannical in us to teach the doctrine which in all its essentials is taught and acted on, it may be said daily, by the Editors of all the newspapers in the world ? But so it is ; the Editor of the ' Bruce Herald ' is not the only man who has lost his head at the contemplation of the majestic fabric of the Catholic Church.