A Slander—but no Apology

New Zealand Tablet, 13 August 1908, Page 10

A Slander — but no Apology

Bishop Creighton said of the English schoolboy that ' the j only means to make him learn is at the point of -the bayonet. " ■ Which is, of course, not quite fair to the English schoolboy. But there "are other people besides the. English schoolboys jthat learn, as the Scot is alleged to joke, ' wi' deefkulty.' And .one of - these is the typical reverend enthusiast who indulges in the. barnstorming order of oratory what time the circling year brings around the annual insanity of. 'the glorious twelfth.' But? difficult as it is for these - reverend exponents of the 'yellow' variety of No-Popery to learn the lessons of experience, there ; s, we rather think, one at least of the fraternity in Victoria who has ' come a cropper ' that will serve him for-many a day. We refer to the Rev. S. Pearce Carey, of Melbourne. As related in our last - issue, his reverence sanctified . the Lord's day by stating to his saffron-sashed hearers .and (through the press reports) to the general public that there was such a frightful mortality among the infants in a Catholic- Foundling- Home near Melbourne (that at Broadmeadows is the only one in Victoria) that ' somebody -should hang for it. ' There never was, perhaps, a more overwhelming refutation of an Orange or non-Orange slander than that which (reproduced in our last- issue) \\as malu by the Vicar-General of Melbourne. , But the-advocate.of hanging appears to have well learned and -carefully applied the principle of Orange polemics laid down by Grand Master- Snowball in. th a course of a letter published in the Riponshire AdvocaU (Beau fort, Victoria) in 1904 — namely, that lodge ,. orators may not ■ properly be called upon to prove accusations made against Popery ' on so important an occasion as the twelfth of July.' w » The other chief guiding principle of lodge polemics lia'g-lik^-wise been carefully followed in the present -instance": that no apology is to be made, no regret expressed, 'however thorough and complete the vindication of the innocent or the refutation of the slander may be. Herein, the ' glorious "twelfth ' orator finds a backing (which he will no doubt appreciate if these lines ever meet his eye) in .the example of no less -"a . light than DoctcMartin Luther. Luther once most foully slandered Duke Georgof Saxony^ He, however, obstinately refused-to express apology or regret when -he found he. fiad -cruelly wronged the Duke, and,"' for the purpose of justifying himself; -constructed a sorites or - chain of logic (so-called) which is as delightful for its labored self-deception^ as it is-- amazing for- its- audacity. -' I owe no apology tor the Duke,' said he, 'for ■ rages against me and' •my doctrine. Now I am bound to believe - that - a man who rages against me and my doctrine rages, against God and His ~ Christ. And I am bound to believe that a man who rages against God and His Christ is possessed >of the devil. And 1 am bound to believe that a man who is possessed of the devil is always meditating every possible mischief; *' -.Thus, on Luther's comforting (though rather Mahomedan) principle/ you may reason that if Victorian Catholics did not perpetrate- a wholesale slaughter of infants at Broadmeadows— but ' quite the reverse to the contrairy,' as Artemus Ward phrases it— they did something else", i

that equally deserved hanging. And therefore' the Rev. S. Pearce Carey is excused ''from- all- obligation of withdrawing the Herodian accusation of slaughtering innocents-. Jyhich ho made or -Necessarily implied. Quod crat demonstrandum!

Look-on that picture and look on- this ! At Lithgow (New South Wales) the Rev. D. Hudson (Anglican) frankly warned the brethren that they must not expect from him abusive talk about Gathofics. '--He-thought,*.says the newspaper- report,. 1 they might leave Sunday alone for the worship of God. -In conclusion, he wished 1 to suggest for-their consideration that -they • might learn lessons, from, the conduct of. their. Roman Catholic brethren, unlcss~they were bigoted. He thought he could prove to them • that, thejr .Roman Catholic brethren acted moj-e-wisery' fronutheir point; of-view of life and:duty than did.many, Protestants from their.point of view. • For instance, in attending .their-churches, they did it better than Protestants ; in supporting their-'-churches, they, gave better, than Protestants;-thirdly, -they-trained their children more, carefully-.in-religious instruction.-:.than did ..Protestants,, speaking generally.- Jo_ sum. .up, .he- thought j they .showed^mere loyalty to. their cause than did Protestants, The discipline-of the Roman. Catholic-Church was, better than-that of the- Protestant Church. The Protestant opportunities .-.and liberties were greater, but they had abused their opportunities .and liberties.- They shouted for* the open Bible,-.and kept-it closed. Men who.-boasted, of their opportunities.and refused to .use' them deserved to lose them. He urged: them to be sincerje,- to >be tolerant, to try, to see a little more_good in their jloman brethren,-and to keep their own-hearts and lives as in the sight,of God.' ■ ■ -..-"--,' --„ -