New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1875. THE OTAGO 'GUARDIAN ' IRREPRESSIBLE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 98, 13 March 1875, Page 3

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1875. THE OTAGO 'GUARDIAN ' IRREPRESSIBLE.

Our contemporary ends a leader in its issue of the sth in3t., thus : "It may be some consolation to them at present to think that if the Pope is infallible, at all events the New ' Zealand Tablet is not." Whether this is, or is not, a consolation to certain people untruly calling themselves Catholics, to whom the Editor of the ' Guardian ' alludes in this article, and whom he clasps with unction and the air of a patron and comforter to his capacious editorial heart, it is quite clear that he; at all events, experiences immense relief in the thought that we are not infallible. And, indeed, two infallible authorities in one small Colonial city would be rather much of a good thing. The ' Otago Guardian ' is, and naturally enough, impatient of a rival ; and as he is, in his own estimation, most certainly always correct in everything he writes about the Papacy and the Catholic Church, concerning which however it is not unreasonable to think he could hardly know much, and concerning which we are profane enough to say he writes a vast amount of nonsense, he takes his revenge of cur presumption by assuring wouid-be Catholics and himself that , all may derive comfort from the conviction that the seat of Infallibility is not to be found in our office. But that which cannot be found in our office, is to be had over the way in the neighboring street ! and such as are in quest of Infallible teaching on the meaning of the doctrines of the Catholic Chnrch and the future policy of Rome, can almost every morning in the week obtain the genuine article for the very moderate sum of two pence, in the office of the ' Otago Guardian.' This newspaper is a wonderful production. Its writers, no matter what their shortcomings on other points, ore never astray when discussing the doctrines, aims, and doings of the Pope and General Councils. It would not cost these gentlemen much to confess that possibly they might make some few mistakes in reference to finance, trade, politics, and ordinary subjects ; but as to falling into any errors or blunders about the Catholic Church, it is preposterous to imagine the possit bility of such a thiug. Somehow or other, the ' Otago Guardian, when beating of this old and universally-spread Christian community, is wonderfully gifted with immunity from errors — never labors under a mistake ! And when we, in our symplicity, foolishly thinking we really do know something of ourselves and our religion, venture . to suggest to the Editor of the ' Guardian ' that he has stated what is quite untrue, he, in his horror and indignation at our presumption and irreve ence, hurries off bewailing our failings, and seeking solace for his afflicted mind, to consult two or three persona whose unbelief has placed them outside the Church in the same ranks with himself j and he finds comfort in the assurance they give him that he is of course quite right, just as he had expected. The Editor of the ' Guardian ' calls us his irate contemporary ! We are somewhat surprised that such a distinguished litterateur, and one so happy in adaptation of epithets, did not quote some of Cubkan's witty words and call us a hypothenuse. The latter term would convey as accurate an idea of the temper displayed in our last article, in answer to the 1 Guardian's ' leader on Infallibility, as the former. This is

not the first time that our contemporary has allowed his feelings to interpose an obstacle between his antagonist and his own mental vision, which has unfortunately occasioned a distorted view of facts. But as this is relatively a very small matter, it may pass without further comment. The Editor of the * Guardian ' " declines," he says, "to be drawn into a religious controversy, and shall set aside as unworthy of notice the unfounded charge made against him" that he *« desires to injure and insult Catholics." Well, now let us see what is the value of the two members of this statement. A stranger to our controversy, or one who had not read the Tablet, would conclude from the first that we had been making at least some efforts to draw our contemporary into a religious controversy, unless, indeed, he had been shrewd enough to divine from the studied care with which the ' Guardian ' abstains throughout from quoting our own words, that our contemporary was acting disingenuously and dishonestly towards us, and trying to make his readers believe us guilty of something of which we ought to be ashamed, but of which, nevertheless, we are entirely innocent. The Editor of the ' Guardian' knows perfectly well — none betterthat we have never even once made any effort to draw him into a religious controversy. Why does he not place before his readers the words of the Tablet, which prove us to be irate, and endeavouring to draw him into a religious controversy. He cannot; and of course, therefore it is not surprising that he does not. But it is very surprising, indeed, that our contemporary so persistently charges on the Tablet what we have not done. As to the second part of the sentence quoted, from our contemporary in the beginning of this paragraph, it is evident from his own words in his following sentence that we made no unfounded charge against him. The following are the words, uWe deny that we have assailed the loyalty of our Catholic fellow-sub-jects any more than Mr. Gladstone has done in publishing his Expostulation." Just so. The ' Guardian ' has only done what Mr Gladstone did. but he has done as much. This he acknowledges by saying he has not assailed our loyalty any more than Mr Gladstone. But Mr Gladstone has bitterly assailed our loyalty, and it is the complaint of the Catholics of the British Empire that he has both injured and insulted us. The Editor of the < Guardian,' therefore, lays himself open to the charge of having first insulted and injured us ; of having, when called to account, denied his having done so; and then of having not only admitted, but actually proved, that he has done so. Can the force of folly farther go 1 Were it not that our attention is directed to the remaining part of the leader from which we have taken the above beautiful extracts, we should probably say no. But when the « Otago Guardian ' scents Popery, or falls foul of the < New Zealand Tablet,' ordinary calculations are at fault. Under such circumstances facts Boon convince us that what we should not have expected, is easily realised by our contemporary. Let us see. The idea of the Guardian ' is, that the State is competent to legislate on any and everything, and that the moment its legislation touches any subject, or indeed is likely to do so, that subject becomes entirely political, and that consequently any action taken by the Church in reference to such subject is political. -If the State call upon us, not to obey the Head of the Church giving directions as to the preaching of the Word of God the administration of the sacraments, attendance at the Divine bacrifice, jurisdiction of ministers of religion, as is done at present by the Governments of Germany and Switzerland and the Pope says we cannot obey the State without grievous offence against God, according to the ' Guardian ' his action is then entirely political. In fact, in the view of the ' Guardian,' there is nothing above or beyond the competence of the State, there is nothing sacred, nothing safe from its intrusion, nothing that can be called distinct or apart from the State. All things, sacred and profane, are confounded in one universal chaos, and no man has a right to do anything but what the state permits. to But lest we may be said to exaggerate, we shall here set down, though at the risk, it may he, of being considered tiresome, the very words of our contemporary : " Where are we to draw the line between what is religious and what is not? Has not all conduct a direct bearing on our relation to God ; and if there be on earth an infallible representative of the Supreme Being, capable of pronouncing on all subjects what is the will of God, and demanding obedience— whatever the private judgment may be in the question- how can it be said that infallibility has not anything to do with politics 1 Without attempting to define the word too closely, may we

not say that all questions which are within the limits of legislation are within the region of politics." Precisely ! and in the view of our contemporary are not all subjects, without exception, within the limits of legislation. Set aside a Supreme and Infallible Authority in religious matters, who can limit the subjects of human legislation and control legislators 1 Private judgment 1 a poor guide and powerless master. The constituencies 1 What have the constituencies done in Germany and Switzerland 1 Is there anything that human legislation has not attempted, and is not at this moment attempting 1 The inhuman penal laws of England, and the hardly less cruel laws of Germany and Switzerland at this moment, give an answer that cannot be mistaken. Was it wrong, is it wrong, in the victims of these laws, to pronounce them to be cruel, ultra vires, not binding on any man's conscience, and that they ought to be disobeyed in most instances ? Is it a crime, is it a treason, an usurpation in the Head of millions of men subjected to such tyranny, to raise his voice to direct, strengthen and console his spiritual children, suffering under such evils as these to which we have alluded 1 The idea of the ' Guardian ' is, that it is monstrous — a blasphemy against the supremacy of the infallible and omnipotent State, to question its power, its justice, or its prudence. In fact, as against the Church the State is always right, and to be obeyed ! The Church has no right to remonstrate against injustice and tyranny, and is bound to fall down and adore the infallible anl always just majority, which is so powerful and endowed with such wonderful privileges, that it has the right to depo3e even the Government itself. This is modern liberalism which commends itself so highly to the admiration of our contemporary. We must ask our readers to come back with us and read again one part of our last quotation from the ' Otago Guardian ' :—": — " And if there be here on earth an infallible representative of the Supreme Being, capable of pronouncing on all subjects what is the will of God, and demanding obedience, &c." There is no such representative. But the ' Guardian ' wishes to make it be believed that the Pope claims the power of pronouncing infallibly the will of God on all subjects. fs it not strange that our contemporary should so constantly show himself absolutely incapable of stating the nature of this claim of Infallibility made by the Church for the Vicar of Christ 1 Who has ever said, except the * Guardian,' that the Pope claimed to be able to pronounce infallibly as to the will of God on all subjects ? We never heard of such a claim. We never read of it in any work, theological or secular. We never heard any man make such a statement. We never saw an insinuation as to such a claim, till we read the leading article in the ' Guardian ' of the sth inst. This is not the Catholic Doctrine, nor is it anything like it. The doctrine of the Church is that the Pope is Infallible when teaching all the faithful, doctrine on Faith and Morals, and when condemning errors opposed to this doctrine. Outside this, there are thousands of subjects on which the Pope pronounces no opinion, and concerning which he has no more right to teach than other men. As we often suggested to our contemporary, we would again say to him, study the subjects on which you write; and before you again deliver an opinion" as to the Pope's Infallibility, learn the meaning of the doctrine. If you will only study the question you will soon come to see that a Divine revelation given for all men, necessarily implies aa Infallible Church to preserve and interpret it to the end of time ; and that an Infallible Church necessarily implies an Infallible Head. Cculdwe only persuade the Editor of the ' Guardian ' to take ordinary, trouble in this matter, we should not despair of seeing even him, at no distant day, a fellow-member with us of the grand old Church, and a strenuous defender of the Pope's Infallibility.