Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 20 April 1911, Page 709

Current Topics

The King in Ireland It has been officially announced that the King and Queen will visit Ireland in July, soon after the coronation; and it may be taken for certain that there will be no lack of enthusiasm in the welcome which will be accorded to their Majesties on the occasion. 'The Liberal papers,' says America, 'interpret it as a sign that the King will subsequently grant Home Rule and thus make true his father's forecast that " a bright day is dawning for Ireland." The Unionist organs take the opposite view, holding that his presence in Ireland means the postponement of such a vexed question. He will travel from Dublin to the West and South, but so far Belfast is not mentioned in his itinerary." ' Some Figures Worth Studying We have been dipping into the returns of the votes recorded for the different candidates at the General Election of 1908; and in view of the coming contest this year some of the figures are distinctly interesting. We have jotted down the cases in which the successful candidate was returned by a majority of less than one hundred votes, and for the benefit of Catholics generally—and of those in the districts named in particular—we pass on the information. The figures given are taken from the Official Year Booh, and are in all cases the final result. We give them in tabular form : Dunedin North, — Thomson, G. M 3,382 Barclay, A. R. 3,376 Majority ... 6 Nelson, — Graham, J 2,896 Atmore, H ... 2,882 Majority 14 _ Oroua, — Guthrie, D. H 2,417 Pleasants, 0. C 1,476 Hornblow, R. E 926 Majority 15 Waipawa,— Hall, C. 2,507 Hunter, G 2.457 Majority 50 Kaiapoi,— Buddo, D 2,746 Moore, R. 2,669 Majority 77 Palmerston, — Buick, D 2,803 Wood, W. T : . ... 2,722 Majority 81 Geraldine, — Buxton, T 2.341 Jeffries, W 2,249 Majority 92 Otaki,— Field, W. H 2,024 Brown, B. P 1,931 Majority 93 From the above it will be seen that there are eight electorates in the Dominion in which the successful candidate was returned by a majority of less than 100; and that of these, ■ threo were returned by majorities as low, respectively, as 6, 14, and 15. . It seems absurd to suppose that Catholics could not in these ~»sesif they were solid, united and determined—obtain from the sitting member a promise to do justice to the Catholic body, or in the event :of refusal, prevent re-election, The figures are very well worth practical attention,

Rome and Politics': O'Connell's Dictum We have been asked in several quarters whether the oft-quoted dictum ascribed to O'Connell to the effect that he ' would as soon take his politics from Constantinople as from. Rome,' is truly attributed to the Liberator or not. The popular notion that he really did utter these words is correct; the almost equally popular notion that the words were spoken with reference to Home Rule is wrong. The full text of the utterance, and an account of the circumstances under which it was made, are given in MacDonagh's Life of Daniel O'Connell; and we will allow that author to speak for himself. ' In .1799,' says McDonagh 'during the negotiations between the Irish Executive and the Catholic bishops on the subject of the Union, the trustees of Maynooth College, the famous training college of the Irish priesthood, consisting of ten bishops (including the four Archbishops), sent to Castlereagh a resolution declaring, on behalf of the Hierarchy, " that in the appointment of prelates of the Roman Catholic religion to vacant Sees within the Kingdom, such interference of the Government as may enable it to be satisfied of the loyalty of the person appointed is just, and ought to be agreed to." The fact that (some of) the Irish bishops were in favor of the Veto was first disclosed in the House of Commons during the debate on the petition of the Catholics for the restoration of their political rights in May, 1808. On the news reaching Ireland, there was a remarkable outburst of popular anger and repudiation. The laity, generally, led by O'Connell, revolted at the idea of their chief pastors being the nominees of a British and Protestant Government. They believed that under such a system the prelates of their Church would be chosen, not for. their spiritual worth, but for their subserviency to the Executive. The bishops held a national synod in Dublin in September, and firmly and uncompromisingly repudiated any right of interference by the Crown in the discipline and government of the Catholic Church. Twenty-six prelates were present. Three only (three of the bishops who had signed the declaration in favor of the Veto in .1799) dissented. An address of thanks to the Hierarchy for their resolution was signed by forty thousand laymen. Most of the Catholic gentry, however, were in favor of the Veto. . . . On one side were the aristocracy, led by the Earl of Fingall; and on the other the democracy, under the leadership of O'Connell.' . The Catholic Board of England, which consisted of a few peers* and country gentlemen, appealed to Rome for a pronouncement that there was nothing schismatic or hurtful to the discipline of the Church in the legitimate precautions which the British Government thought needful for the safety of the Kingdom by ensuring the loyalty of the Irish bishops. The Roman States had been annexed by France in 1809. Pope Pius VII. was a prisoner in the hands of Napoleon at Fontainebleau, and all the Cardinals had been expelled from Rome. But Monsignor Quarantotti. the secretary and vice-prefect of the Sacred College for the Propagation of the Faith, who was vested with all the spiritual and ecclesiastical powers of the Pope (except the power of appointing to vacant Sees), sent a rescript, dated February 16, 1814. to Dr. William Poynter, VicarApostolic of the London district, stating that the Veto had been carefully considered by the most learned prelates and divines in Rome, and that in their judgment it ought to be accepted by the Irish Catholics.* . . . The early discovery that the document was dated February 16—at which time the Pope was still in captivity—and that it did not bear the signature of his Holiness, had a soothing effect on the distracted popular mind (in Ireland). It was argued that the rescript did not carry Pontifical authority, as it probably had been issued without the sanction or even the knowledge of his Holiness. . . . O'Connell was in the forefront of the renewed agitation against the Veto, and from him came the sturdiest and most uncompromising denunciations of the rescript. He concerned himself not with the canonical and ecclesiastical but with the political side of the Securities.' At a meeting of the Catholic Board, held in Capel street, O'Connell protested against the attempt made to instruct Irish Catholics upon the manner of their emancipation '; and it was on this occasion that he uttered his vehement* and now famous dictum. ' I would,' said he, 'as soon receive my politics from Constantinople as from Rome. For the Head of my Church I have the highest respect; but in the present case I put theologyof which I know nothing, and desire to know nothingout of my consideration wholly. It was on the ground of its danger to civil liberty that I objected to the late Bill. It would have the effect, if passed into law, of placing in the hands of the Ministers a new and extensive source of patronage, and for that reason I would rather the Catholics should remain for ever without Emancipation than that they should receive it upon such terms.' V'".' .'*'-. ---.--- :'■•---■-•'.'..-• * ' In the end, the action of Monsignor Quarantolli was, to an extent, disowned by the Pope. The rescript was

recalled on the ground that it had been issued without due deliberation and in the absence of his Holiness and the Sacred College of Cardinals from Rome, and it was referred to the Cardinals of the College of the Propagation of the Faith for their mature consideration.' ' Happily for Ireland,' says MacDonagh, at a later stage of his chronicle, the popular opposition to the Veto in the end prevailed. The pastors of the Catholic Church in Ireland might have obtained, through the Veto, an increase in worldly prosperity, for the Veto would have been accompanied bv the endowment of the bishops and priests; but, as most* them recognised and as O'Connell was profoundly convinced, it would have led to a serious diminution of their spiritual influence with the people.'

Theory and Fact Professor Painter in his History of Education— writing obviously from a merely book knowledge of France—is lost in admiration at the high ethical spirit which he thinks obtains in French education at the present time. ' A very significant movement in French education,' he says, is the present earnest effort to give greater prominence to moral instruction in the primary schools. Though moral and civic instruction has stood at the head of the course of study since 1882, the Government has been recently forced bv external pressure, especially from the teaching Orders of the Roman Catholic Church, to meet the charge of immorality and to establish moral teaching on a more effective basis. As a result, the scientific spirit, which for a time dominated the secular schools, has given way to the ethical spirit, and an elaborate scheme of moral instruction has been adopted. The official programme says substantially that moral ' instruction is intended to complete, to elevate, and to ennoble all the other instruction of the school. While each of the other branches tends to develop a special order of aptitudes or of useful knowledge, this study tends to develop the man himself; that is to say, his heart, his intelligence, his conscience; hence moral education moves on a differene plane from the other subjects. Its force depends less upon the precision and logical relation of the truths taught than upon intensity of feeling, vividness of impressions, and the contagious ardor of conviction.' The carrying-out of this programme is left in the hands of the teacher. He is to 'impart moral instruction apart from religion, but in harmony with it.' * How far all this beautiful theory is carried out, and the sort of product which is turned out under the system, may be gathered from the following news item which we take from an English exchange. ' The trial of two boy murderers in Paris brings to light but one phase of the general tendency of the youth of France towards a life of crime and immorality. Tissier and Desmarest are accused of having murdered a collector in the service of the Societe Generale on September 30. After the murder, the two boys decked themselves out in gay clothes, visited different cafes and restaurants, and generally made merry. They informed the judge that they intended to "travel, amuse themselves, and have .an enjoyable time." Although we are considerably shocked when we hear of a crime of this nature, it will not do to omit to look for its cause. The boys themselves are more to bo pitied than blamed. Brought up under a system of anti-Christian education, which denies the existence of God or of a future life, and reduces morality to a matter of utility, can we wonder that youthful France is asking itself the question : "Why should we be moral?"' On the one hand we have the theory of the official programme; on the other, a multitude of facts such as that just noted sufficient to show beyond question that juvenile crimeof a very serious natureis practically epidemic in France. France is in fact at the present time the most melancholy example under the sun of the tragic failure of any attempt to teach morality apart from religious sanctions.

The Attitude in America In many countriesand notably in Professor Painter's own country, America— utter failure of this so-called unsectarian ethical teaching is now fully realised by leading educationists. 'Little by little (says America) they have come to realise that the end of education is a training, not to get a living, but to live right, clean lives; and that a scheme of studies from which everything implying a recognition of doctrinal religion is excluded does not and cannot achieve this purpose.' And our contemporary quotes, as valuable evidence in point, the statement recently voiced bv Andrew S. Draper, Commissioner of Education in the State of New York. Mr. Draper chose as special theme for his annual report of the State Educational Department for the year ending July 31, 1910 1 Religion, Morals, Ethics, and the Schools.' After what he terms a careful discrimination between the words religion, morals and ethics, the Commissioner shows how other

nations have handled the question, and discusses the attitude of New York State to the subject. Among other things he has this to say: 'lt will take more objections than the ultra-sectarianists or the few who pretend to think that they are opposed to all religion can ever offer, and more power than any government in America will ever have, to keep all religion out of the schools. With exceptions that are so rare that they do not count, the teachers are men and women who recognise" a Supreme Being, and, of course, that fact is continually expressed in the life of the school. The work of the school itself cannot be carried on without constant recognition of the relations between the created world and the Creator, which are accepted and felt by practically all of the people of the country, and which in one way or another enter into most of the activities of the country. The organisation and discipline, and the consequent feeling and spirit of the American schools, go deeper than mere toleration or only formal politeness, and enter the domain of reason and result, of cause and effect, whether wo wish it so or not. People in the schools, as out, will not divest themselves of their religion. "■'- The State will never ask them to do so.' * And among the brief and general statements in which Mr. Draper gathers up his thoughts in the summary with which his paper closes, this, is found: 'Fourth, that the substitution of formal courses in morals for religious training or for the religious influence in the schools will not settle the difficulties and meet the needs of the situation.' 'A Catholic will be, of course,' adds America, 'glad to note these remarkable admissions by one as prominent in the educational world as is Mr. Draper. It is a victory to glory in that so distinguished a public school man has come to realise that a school system which fails to give religious instruction a definite place in its programme -lacks an influence which may not be ignored.' -