Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 26 June 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

An Intolerant Attitude * . • ■ V. - , ■ TAt the southern end. of the Dominion, Bible-in-Schools League apologists have been driven to try and conceal since they cannot justify—the tyranny and intolerance of their proposals to coerce the consciences of teachers and of dissident taxpayers. Thus the Very Rev. Dean Fitchett, in his address at the Garrison Dali, propounded the brilliant theory that there is really no need for a conscience clause for anybody at all, because the Scripture lessonswhich in the Education Acts of New South Wales and of Queensland are described as ‘general religious teaching ’ or ‘ religious instruction ’ —are to be taught only as ‘morals,’ The suggestion that the teacher who administers ‘ as intelligently as any other lesson,’ the Scripture account of the Resurrection of our Lord— is included in both the New South Wales and Queensland manuals—is only teaching ‘morals ’ is self-evidently absurd. In the North Island, however, League advocates are more candid The Anglican Bishop of Wellington, for example, if he is correctly reported, has just let out the brutal truth—that the League proposals are to be defended on the . entirely un-Christian principle that majorities have a perfect right to ride rough-shod over the most sacred rights of conscience of the minority. Against this pagan doctrine, a secular paper, the liangihkei Advocate, in its issue of June 14 enters an emphatic protest. • • * We cannot believe,’ says our contemporary, ‘that the address at Masterton of the Bishop of Wellington Dr. Sprott, has been correctly reported, for he would surely not take up such an intolerant attitude towards the religious belief of others. But, of course, it is possible tor enthusiasm in a cause such as that which is attempting to destroy our national system of education to carry even reasonable men to extremes. The Bishop however is reported to have said: “In matters of conscience the majority should rule lest the consciences of the majority be tyrannised over by the consciences of the minority.’’ Passing over the absurdity of the suggestion that the minority could possibly tyrannise over the majority, we believe that very few in these enlightened days will subscribe to the declaration that the majority must rule the conscience of the minority If that were admitted then the Protestants in Ireland W ° uld ™ ruled *>y the Catholics and be compelled to attend Mass, and in Wales the Methodists would convert the churches into chapels. ... It is an open question whether it is worse to maim and slaughter the body than to fetter the mind, obscure the soul enchain the spirit, and destroy the freedom of the thought of man. In this free country the people must make a bold stand to retain the freedom that has been won, and must remember that “eternal vigilance is the pride of freedom.” While we cannot ‘believe that any Anglican Bishop would seriously propound that a majority should be the keepers of the consciences of the minority it is evident that the so-called Bible-in-schools movement must be very carefully watched.’ An Offensive Story A correspondent has sent,us a page taken from the Canterbury Times of May 14 containing an alleged !t°iJ from th i The Awakening of Alphonse Legrand.’ It is, from the Catholic point of view, the silliest, most disgusting, and most offensive story that has ever come our way and that is saying a good deal. The ‘ plot ’ turns mainly on the crimes of I drunken priest, who after dishonoring ‘ a poor half-witted village girl,’ comWhen at 1 “f P " y and P ay absolution!’ When l at length, reduced to starvation, she declares that she can pay no longer, and threatens that unless “ e gives ner free absolution she wi« tell ‘the good people of Beauxpres ’ (sic) that he had ruined her & the priest calmly stabs her to death in the confessional ’ and puts the blame on an innocent man. Eventually the

truth, of course, leaks ; out but the priest escapes immediate trouble by committing , suicide. ; ■ .; * ; * '.V; Surely there is not in New Zealand, outside of our mental hospitals, an editor or sub-editor who could imagine that this picture makes the faintest approximation towards probability or verisimilitude ; and surely, also, there is not. one so beetle-headed as not to see that such stuff must be extremely painful reading to every Catholic subscriber to, the paper. Regarding the ridiculous legend that Catholics pay for absolution which forms the 'warp and woof of this school-boy production—an Anglican. writer in a . recent issue of the Edinburgh Review states the position with simple truth when he says: ‘With regard to the vendible absolutions and indulgences, with her traffic in which the Romish Church has been so long reproached, we do verily believe that there are not ten individuals 5 who can read that really conceive that anything/ so utterly absurd or abominable either is, or ever was earned on with the sanction of the Catholic authorities.’ * It must, therefore, be presumed that the editor did not msert this literary daub because he supposed that it had any relation to fact, or actuality, or even to i emote probability. It must also, we should suppose, be presumed that the editor, being a man of average intelligence and common sense, would not wish to wittingly hurt the reasonable religious susceptibilities of his readers and subscribers. We have no knowledge of the past traditions of the Canterbury Times in this respect; but we have for years been readers of ,the morning paper issued from the same office—the Lyttelton Times— and have always regarded it as one of the best, if not the very best, daily in the Dominion, We can only assume, therefore, that this Maria Monk nightmare of a story got in in an off moment, through hurry, oversight, or inadvertence. But whether inserted intentionally or accidentally, its appearance is a disgrace to a reputable family paper. So far as Catholics are concerned there is only one course to take in all such cases. Where matter— such as that under discussion—which can reasonably and justly be regarded as insulting and offensive appears in any paper to which they subscribe, let them at once write to the editor drawing his attention to its objectionable character, and entering a respectful protest. If, after that, there is at any time a repetition of the offence let them promptly cancel their subscription. ‘lt iz no disgrace,’ says ah American philosopher, ‘tew be bit bi a dog,'unless he duz it the seckond time.’ Let Catholics see to it that they are not subjected to such treatment a second time at least not without hitting back. Freemasonry and Its Aims Our contemporary the London Universe has drawn attention in a recent issue to a somewhat striking article which appeared in the London Standard of February 27 on the ‘ Subversive. aims of French Freemasonry.’ The article is striking, not because its statements are new, but because they are true, and because it is new to get such facts from such a quarter. The substance of the article is thus summarised by our contemporary: ‘The article may almost be regarded as an historical event. It is— far as we remember—the first occasion on which an English daily paper has printed so frank an expose of the evils of Freemasonry and so vindicated the attitude of the Holy See in condemning secret societies. The Paris correspondent^—who sends the article in questionsays: “The aim of the Grand Orient is to destroy all religion,, beginning by stamping out Roman Catholicism in France, to pull down obnoxious thrones and establish a universal re- • public, but one, be it understood, where its own high priests should reign as dictators.” And again:— “The Freres Trois Points” —as they are commonly called . . . are credited with all the revolutions ofmodern times in France, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Persia, and Chma . , The objects of the Grand Orient, symbolised by the three dots, were the liberation of humanity from religious, political, and social points

of : view/-’ . . ;• .• Regarding which. the Universe makes the comment which would be made by practically ©very Catholic paper in the world : ‘ All this, of course, is stale news to Catholics. For long years we have been proclaiming these very things in' our press/ but have generally been considered as suffering from Freemasonry on the"brain.” Naturally, the Standard discriminates between Continental Masonry and the English variety; but while we are willing to concede that the vast majority of Freemasons among us are innocent of the subversive aims pursued by their brethren abroad, we are not prepared to give even English Fremasonry a plenary absolution/ * While touching on the subject'of Freemasonry, we may take occasion to remark that there are still to be found in this Dominion Catholics who seem to be unaware of the attitude taken by the Church— of the attitude which she . expects her children to take—towards this organisation. So far as non-Catholics are concerned, they view the matter from an entirely different standpoint and have entirely different fundamental principles from those of Catholics, and it is open to them, therefore, to become members of the fraternity without any sort of stigma or culpability attaching to them for so doing, except, of course, in so far as their motives axe sordid or unworthy. With Catholics the case is different. On the ground that the Masonic Order is a secret, oath-bound society, and on the further ground that it is a religious cult which substitutes a sort of religion of nature ’ for the definite creed of supernatural Christianity, Catholics are strictly forbidden to join the organisation under pain of forfeiting their membership in the Catholic Church. For the same reasons they are bound to avoid countenancing the Order indirectly, even where this would not incur the penalties attached to actual membership. We therefore remind our Catholic young people that when, either through carelessness, thoughtlessness,, or lack of knowledge on the subject, they take part in Masonicballs or socials, or in any other notable way lend their countenance to the Order, they are violating. both the letter and the spirit of Catholic teaching, and are civilm unpleasant scandal to their fellow Catholics. * r A Vicar of Bray In their anxiety to make good copy out of the proceedings , at the remarkable libel action brought against the London Times the other day by Old Catholic Bishop/ Mathew, some of our dailies have, by selecting certain statements and omitting others, contrived to convey an entirely misleading impression as to the general trend of the evidence given. In the Southland Daily News, for example, the evidence has been not a little ‘ hashed ’ in the process of condensation. In its issue of June 15, under the headings ‘ Secrets of the Church,’ ‘ Roman Catholic Priest Who Acted as Anglican/ the Southland paper has the following: ‘ Remarkable statements regarding the relations of the English and Roman Catholic Churches were made in Mr. Justice Darling’s court during the hearing of the libel action brought by Bishop Arnold Mathew, of the Old Roman Catholic Church, against the Times. Bishop Mathew, who complains that the Times published a translation of his excommunication by the Roman Catholic Church, admitted that in 1892, when he was a Roman Catholic priest, he acted as “assistant” at Holy Trinity Church, Sloane street, an Anglican church, and celebrated a marriage there. He declared that many Roman Catholic priests were doing the same thing to-day.’ The- full text of the evidence, as reported in the London Times, puts a very different complexion on the Anglican marriage incident from that suggested by this very summary condensation, and shows also that the further statement made as above by the plaintiff was not capable of being sustained. (1) It shows that on July 9, 1889, Mr. Mathew wrote to Canon Russell, stating, that he had ceased tooeneve in me Catholic faith, and had become a convinced Unitarian ; and that in the same year he formally resigned his charge and withdrew from membership in the Catholic Church. In the year 1892, the year of

the Anglican marriage incident, Mr. Mathew himself married. When it is said, as above/ that he did certain things -‘ when -he was a Roman Catholic ' priest ’ the implication is that he was a priest in full and actual communion with the" Catholic Church. In that sense the statement, as the full was not truer (2) The full evidence shows that, according to Mr. Mathew’s statement, only one Anglican marriage was celebrated by him,; and that under the following circumstances: In 1891 he professed to be drawn--towards the Anglican Church, and proposed, if sufficient encouragement were given him, to take up clerical duty in that Church. To that end he visited the rector of Holy Trinity Church, Sloane street, who received him kindly, - and without formally' accepting him as curate or even ‘ assistant,’ seems to have allowed him to give a certain amount of help in clerical work. Mr. Mathew’s, exact statement in the witness-box was ‘ I was asked to take a marriage as the rector was going out, and I did so. I do not remember taking more than .onemarriage/ The statement, if it is true, shows a deplorable laxness op. the part of the Anglican rector, but otherwise it has no significance. (3) Mr. Mathew did not declare, as stated in the Southland News, that ‘many l Roman Catholic priests were doing the same thing, to-day.’ What he said was, ‘There are plenty of Roman Catholic priests in the Church of England now and even that statement he failed -to substantiate. ' s ■. ■ » . v - - The truth is that - ‘ Bishop ’ Mathew contradicted himself and the statements made in his own letters (which were produced) so often, that it became evident that none of his statements were to be taken very seriously. His ‘Vicar of Bray ’ career as a clergyman conveyed the same impression df lack of conscientiousness and reliability. Here is his record, ,as summed up by the judge. ‘ Being out of the Church of Rome, he tried to enter it again,’ said his Lordship; ‘ and being refused, except on terms he would not. accept, he tried the Church of England; not being accepted there, he turned to the Church of Utrecht, and got himself made a Bishop, and, having consecrated Bishops, he got himself made Archbishop by them.’ It only remains to add that the jury decided against the pseudo-Bishop on all points; and he obtained neither the verdict nor that ‘ rehabilitation ’ which he professed to seek. c ; Our Deaf Mutes The story of the social activity of our Divine Lord during His three years’ public ministry in Galilee has been condensed into a nutshell biography of a single sentence by the Evangelist who tells us that ‘ He was abroad doing good/ curing all manner of diseases and infirmities, And out of His many and manifold works of healing there was one which specially impressed the multitude, one regarding which, even on His most earnest injunction, they refused to be silent, but• ex- ! claimed in admiration : ‘He hath made the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak.’ He was the first that extended a compassionate hand to deaf mutes. Till His day they were left to their limited natural resources—left in ignorance of all that, could give a charm to the present life or raise their 1 darkened souls to the loftier heights of hope for the life to come. Their condition has been not inaptly described as that of automatons. * Following, as far as limited human effort may do, the merciful mission of Him Who made the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak, Catholic religious have taken a foremost part in teaching; deaf mutes articulate speech. In 1845 the Daughters of Providence were founded in Modena for the exclusive training of the deaf and dumb. The highest walks of Christian perfection are open to afflicted girls in the Order of DeafMute Oblates, which is annexed to the Congregation of the Daughters of Providence. Many other religious Orders have also devoted themselves, with signal success, to the service of the deaf and dumb, amongst whom an honored place must be given to the Dominican Nuns,

who, for a quarter of a century,, have been conducting ;an. institution at War at ah, N.S.W., which has, in the words of Cardinal Moran, , ‘ been doing grand work in the sacred cause of charity. The report of the institute covering,: the years 1911-12 is before us. It is an interesting record of extending work and wonderful success. ' .As illustrating the excellence of the management and administration at Waratah we may make a comparison with our own State institution at Sumner. ' The • number of pupils , in residence ' at Waratah for the year 1911 was 60, and the general expenditure was £1174 8s 10£d.. The number in residence for the same year at Sumner was 97, and the general' expenditure was £5103 12s 6d, the proportionate cost of management at Waratah being thus little more than one-third that at Sumner. ‘ * . _ ■ ■ Another interesting point of comparison, if not of contrast, between our Lew Zealand State institution and the Catholic institute at Waratah is as to the methods on which reliance is placed for bringing light to the darkened minds of the afflicted ones. According to the N.Z. Official Year-book, ‘ the method of instruction used at Sumner is the oral method, in favor of which there is a vast predominance of expert opinion/ And as regards the adoption of that system, the Minister of Education remarks, ‘ It cannot be too often repeated that in this institution the deaf, who would otherwise be speechless, are taught both to speak and to understand (from the motion of the lips) the speech of others, and that they are thereby admitted not only to the benefits of communication with ' their fellowmen, but even very largely to the conceptions involved in human intercourse.' These facts are not always understood or appreciated.’ The experienced Sisters at Waratah, on the other hand, contend strongly for the Combined Method and in support of their contention they are able to show that the weight of up-to-date expert authority is unquestionably on their side. Many there are,’ says the Report, ‘ who count themselves among the wise, who will say “Oh, that sign and manual system is out of date bring us the latest methods—the “ Oral,’ the purer the better.” But not so speak the teachers, the true artists who form upon the blank canvas of these untaught minds pictures of truth, of knowledge and love—these deft sculptors who, as it were, first unearth the rough stone, and by patient care and constant stroke of chisel and hammer, turn chaos into a work of art rare and beautiful. These instructors, these artists, will proclaim that far from being behind the times, the Combined Method — including largely the sign system— : s that which has been in the past, is at present, and will be as time goes on, the strong hand, the giant force, the search-light which wrestles with the darkness, tears aside the curtain, and sends in the brilliant rays to clear, to beautify and enlighten.’ After referring to the proceedings at the up-to-date Paris Congress of last August, at which French signs and finger spelling were the language of the Congress throughout, and at which the one important resolution was the unanimous and unqualified approval of the Combined System of educating the Deaf, the report proceeds to quote an address of the Rev. W. Bloomeneld Sleight, M.A., President of the British Deaf and Dumb Association, given in July, 1911. ‘ln it the President speaks at length on the best interests of the Deaf and Dumb. Part of his lecture, entitled ‘The Failure of Oralism,’ goes far to prove the truth of this heading. From it we shall quote a few passages, because we find it necessary to prove to parents and others interested in our Catholic Deafmutes that especially as regards teaching the truths of our Holy Faith to children, Oralism is a failure, when its results are compared with , the high standard of religious and other knowledge gained by the Combined System. The Rev. Mr. Sleight advocates the .Combined System, and remarks that as thirty years have passed since the fatal resolution was passed at the Milan Congress, insisting on pure Oralism as the only and, best means of educating the Deaf, the oralist advocates ought by now to be able to demonstrate the accuracy of that resolution, or else, in common honesty the oral teachers

ought in some way to modify the terms of the resolution or to rescind it altogether. To his thinking, pure Oralism, tested by results, is a lamentable failure. At public functions the show pupils, who possessed some remnant of hearing, were put in front to do the talking but what about the crowds behind !’ And yet another authority is added: ‘ Dr. E. M. Galffiudet, the founder of Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C. (the only college for, the , higher., education of the Deaf in ' the world), says —“ To c banish the language of signs from the schoolroom, and to limit ourselves to articulation, is like employing a gold key which does not fit the lock of the door we would open, while refusing to use the iron one made for it!” ; - / 'I;?: o '-I:

It is not necessary for us to dwell upon the enormous importance of having deaf mutes instructed as far as possible in the truths and practices of their religion ; ‘ and our object in drawing attention to this noble institute of charity is to urge upon those whom it concerns the desirableness of placing their afflicted ones under the fostering care of the devoted nuns at-Waratah the only Catholic institution of its kind in Australasia. On this point we pass on the following information and appeal, as we . find them in the pages of this admirable report: ‘No child with unimpaired intellect will be refused admittance 1 on account of poverty, .but parents and guardians are expected to contribute to the support of their children according to their means. A pension of twenty-five pounds a year is asked for all children whose' parents can afford it. /It is, however, to be distinctly understood that no child, capable of training, will be refused admission on account of. poverty. As the parents of Catholic deaf-mutes are often slow to. understand the duty incumbent upon them of providing, for the salvation of these children, it frequently - falls upon the pastor of. the district to use his , influence, in. having them sent to the institution at an early age from 7 to 16 being the most suitable time. If,” as writes an eminent pleader of the cause, “the parochial school cannot afford facilities for the education of the deaf, and if he himself (the pastor) is not in the position to preach to them and instruct them, it is reasonable to expect that he will do his utmost to have them sent to the Catholic institution and to help those who have assumed the burden of caring for the deaf of his parish.” ’ ' V