A FOOLISH HUBBUB.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 182, 22 September 1876, Page 14

A FOOLISH HUBBUB.

The Protestant papers are making a foolish hubbub about the conversion of Lord Nelson's second son. The ' Standard' is scurrilous and abusive ; but, then, scurrility is almost a second nature with the * Standard' when it speaks of the Catholic Church ; and the ' Times/ which ought to know better, seeks comfort in the thought that such conversions must be rare, because " such weakness" on the one hand, and "such meanness" on the other, are not often to be met with in English society. The ' Times ' is mistaken, both in its facts and its inferences. Conversions, whether they betray weakness or not, are common in every grade of English society, and the zeal shown in making converts among rich or poor is not, as the ' Times ' strangely imputes to the Church, mean or misplaced, but a simple Christian duty. Let us briefly examine the charges brought against the Catholic Church by these reckless writers of the Protestant press, and by that distinguished Ritualist, Lord Nelson. The charges are (1) kidnapping children; (2) undermining parental authority; (3) a proselytizing spirit. We may dismiss the first, which, if true, would have been a grave offence, as a deliberate attempt to snatch a false verdict from popular prejudice, for the ' Standard' can scarcely have been ignorant that the "child" in question was a young man of twenty. Disregard for parental authority, the second charge, is shown to have been unfounded by Father Bowden, of the Oratory, who, in his letter to the ' Times/ declares that, though he does not consider parental authority to be supreme in matters of conscience, he, nevertheless, advised the son to communicate at once to his father the fact of his conversion. The third charge is more vague, and, therefore, more convenient for such a purpose as the opponents of the Catholic Church have at heart. We admit, of course, that every Catholic priest is not only zealous for the salvation of souls, but holds it to be essential for every one, whether High Church or Low, Protestant or Ritualist, to submit to the Catholic Chuich. ■ If this be proselytism, every Catholic priest is guilty ; but, then, so was St. Paul. It is not even pretended that any corrupt inducement was held out to Lord Nelson's son. The indecent haste with which, as it is alleged, he was received is refuted by the fact that the young man was a Catholic in heart, fully conversant with Catholic doctrine, and had only been retained in the Protestant Church by the moral terrorism exercised over him by his father. If any one is to blame for prompt and decisive action it is not Father Bowden but Lord Nelson himself, or the spiritual adviser to whose direction the son had been committed.

But enough of this special pleading, by which alone these charges are bolstered up. Let us look at the simple facts of the case. Here we have a young man, the son of a distinguished Ritualist, consorting all his lif e with Ritualists, attending " low or high celebration," going to confession, praying to the saints, habitually making use of Catholic prayer-books, taught, morever, by his spiritual directors to regard his Protestant bishops and archbißhops as traitors or time-servers abandoned by God, and the bulk of his fellow-Protestants in the Established Church as heretics ; who then, we ask, after this can be surprised at the upshot ? The common sense of the English people has already pronounced the verdict that such a conversion was the natural fruit of Ritualistic teaching. We need no other verdict. Catholics have abundant evidence from the returns made in every church and mission in London that Ritualism is leading men .back by thousands yearly to the Church. Many, indeed, are deceived by its pretences and assumptions, and remain to the end ignorant that they are no better than maskers at the play, but many throw off the delusion in which they have been wrapped, and refuse any longer to put up either -with counterfeit priests or with what Mr. Disraeli called " Mass in masquerade."

The English public, whom Lord Nelson has taken into his confidence, is apb to be blunt and outspoken ; at any rate, it has already been pretty plainly intimated to him that he is a fool for his pains ; for, had he not been himself a Eitualist, his son would not now have been a Catholic. Mr. Stanton — we besr pardon, "Father" Stanton, of St. Alban's, Holborn, as he delights to be called — has not mended matters by his ill-conditioned letter to the ' Times.' He acknowledges that three years ago, with Lord Nelson's sanction, he undertook the spiritual direction of the son, who even then wa3 in doubt as to the Ritualistic opinions in which he had been brought up. "Father" Stanton, whilst parading his claims, has shown his utter failure in the character of father confessor. If we mistake not, the Protestant public will come to the conclusion that the most unsophisticated and sensible, the most straightforward and honest person in this business was not Protestant father confessor at St. Alban's, or Lord Nelson, who still indulges in Ritualistic practises, but the youthful son, who, brought up a Ritualist, refuses to hold Catholic doctrines and remain in the Protestant Church. — ' Universe.'