Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 24 July 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

A No-Popery Harangue The twelfth of July functions in New Zealand now pass off so quietly that the great date comes and goes almost without the public being made aware of the existence of the well-known fraternity. Not that the effervescing Orangeman has ceased to effervesce; but he has found his level. The more influential and reputable dailies have learned to appraise him at his true value, and his celebrations./ are now for the most part dismissed with the most inconspicuous and briefest . possible par. The Orange organisation is ignored by an enlightened public opinion,- in the first place, because of its intrinsic insignificance. It is ignored, in the second place, because its methods—of noisy vituperation, coarse abuse, and underhand and unscrupulous attack—are recognised as being out of place in a reasonably civilised community. And it is ignored, in the third place, because its causethat of fomenting religious strife and of keeping alive sectarian animosities which should have no place in this new land —is one which does not, and which never will, appeal to broad-minded New Zealanders. *

" Seeing that the respectable secular papers almost uniformly decline to give publication to the wild and inflammatory harangues of the Orange orators, it is certainly not for us to bother our heads about them, or to give them free advertisement, and an importance which does not really attach to them, by according them serious notice. For this reason we do not feel called upon to waste time and space on a detailed reply to the fierce no-Popery tirade delivered by the Rev. W. E. Giilam, vicar of St. Matthew's (Anglican) Church, Auckland, at the recent ' church parade' of the brethren in the northern city. The Anglican vicar's deliverance was an extraordinary hotch-potch—-ranging from an ignorant denunciation of ' papal pretensions ' and the bull U nam Sanctum down to a disquisition on the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the bogey of Home Rule. It was from first to last mere vitriol-throwing and tom-tom beating —a fair deadlevel specimen of the vulgar and abusive tirades of the usual type of twelfth of July Orange ' oration.' The clergy of the Church of England as a rule are cultured gentlemen, who are not only willing but anxious to dwell in peace and amity with their fellowcitizens of other creeds; and we refuse to regard the Rev. W. E. Giilam as representing his fellow-clerics in this vituperative ou' burst. The paper which published his address did him, in fact, the greatest possible unkindness. It is the Rev. W. E. Giilam —and not the Catholic Churchwho stands discredited and disgraced by such an ebullition. The Poet Laureateship Speculation had been busy for some time past as to Mr. Asquith's probable choice for the Laureateship; and considering the' number of names that had been suggested in one or other of the English papers there is bound to be in some quarters a feeling of disappoint—not to say surprise at Mr. Asquith's final decision. As we learn from the cables, Dr. Robert Bridges has been appointed to succeed Mr. Alfred Aus'ion as Poet Laureate. Dr. Bridges is not very widely known as an author; but the laureateship, like kissing, goes by favour rather than by merit. Poet and Poet Laureate are often, if not usually, two widely different things. The late Laureate, for example, Mr. Alfred Austin, could only be called a poet by courtesy; and Dr. Bridges may be safely trusted to at least rise to the level set by his predecessor. England's crowned heads have had a sort of traditional regard for the small poets. Sir John Denham, for instance, who was a literary ancestor of Mr. Austin, was in high favor with Charles I. In one of the frays with the Roundheads, Withers —a Puritan officer who was,the writer of an unconscionable amount of prosy doggerel—was taken prisoner by the Cavaliers.

He;:,was condemned to die by the halter. But Sir John successfully besought the King to u spare the wretched versifier's life, ' because - —as a quaint old history : naively puts —' so long as Withers lived, Denham could not be accounted the worst poet-in England.' '

-, . -' ■■' * ' s 'v. . : '\' ". "i Although no less than fourteen names had been mentioned as being 'in the running' for the Laureateship, there was something-very, closely approaching a consensus of opinion in favor of the predominant:claims of the well-known Catholic poet, .Mrs. Alice Meynell. The London Tablet has -gathered together the utterances of a number of authorities on the point, from which we make a selection. Of past critics, it is pointed out that Rossetti knew Mrs Meynell's sonnet ' Renouncement ' by heart, and thought it one of the three finest ever written by women. Ruskin wrote, 'The last verse of that perfectly heavenly "Letter from a Girl to Her own Old Age," and the -end of the sonnet, "To a Daisy," are the finest things I have yet seen or felt in modern verse.' Coventry Patmore described her as one of the very rarest products of nature and grace—a woman of genius,' and in a letter to the Saturday view definitely claimed for her the succession to Tennyson. • Of great names amongst the living we turn to that accomplished critic, Mr. Garvin, who a few weeks ago said in the Pall Mall Gazette, ' By her best, Mrs. Meynell is far the first of living poets,' and again, speaking of the banquet given in her honor by the Poetry Society, Mr. Garvin wrote: It is one of many signs recognising the real place in English letters held by the woman who has been by much our greatest poet since the death of George Meredith.' Strangely enough, Mrs. Meynell had also the support of the paper which most directly represents organised Labor. The Daily Citizen —the Labor daily,—after mentioning several names, said: 'There is one other name that at such a moment cannot be ignored—of Mrs. Alice Meynell, who has enriched English verso mora notably than perhaps any other member of her sex, living or dead. If it were thought well to confer the,Laureateship on a woman-poet—and why not?—not only would the best traditions of the office lose nothing of their dignity, but a recompense would be given for the obstinate denial to woman of a vote.' Even the Nonconformist bodies, who are supposed to be very influential with the Government, gave their strong support to Mrs. Meynell's nomination. Sir Robertson Nicollhimself a great literary critic and authority—wrote in the columns of the British Weekly :—-' Who is to be the new Poet Laureate ? - Happily, we have' poets among us well worthy of the distinction, but would it not be a graceful and righteous thing to put the wreath on the brows of a woman poet ? I will not go so far as Mr. Garvin and say that Mrs. Meynell is the greatest of living poets, but I will say that she ranks with the very best, and 1 believe there will be no disposition to dispute her claim. It may be recalled that before Tennyson was made Poet Laureate the Athenceum, much to its credit, suggested Mrs. Browning. Why not make Mrs. Meynell the Poet Laureate?' *

It may be that the- suffragette agitation. has soured Mr. Asquith against women, or that he deemed that the butt of wine—which, together with £7O, is the emolument attached to the officemight prove an embarrassment to a lady laureate. Whatever may have been his reason, the Prime Minister has lost an excellent opportunity to honor, and at least partly conciliate, a whole sex, and to give fitting public recognition where recognition was well deserved. The Federation and Politics At the important meeting of the Dominion Executive of the Catholic Federation called for July 27 which, by the way, may be, and we venture to hope will be deferred to a slightly later dateconsiderable discussion will doubtless , be devoted to the question of the relation of the Federation to politics, or rather to the politicians. At,the last annual meeting of the Australian Catholic Federation, held in Melbourne, a resolution was passed declaring that ' politicians'

should be excluded from office and from the meetings of the Federation. The definition of politician,' for the purposes of the Australian resolution, extended only 10 members of Parliament. . The object of the provision was, presumably, to prevent ambitious or self-seeking individuals from cap curing the Federation and making use of it merely as a stepping-stone for their own advancement. If that be so, the resolution was obviously inadequate. For to shut out sitting members of. Parliament, and at the same time to admit non-sitting candidates to membership and office, was practically offering a premium to the latter to use the Federation for the purpose objected to. The suggestion that New Zealand should follow the Australian precedent will doubtless be considered at the forthcoming meeting; but so far as we can see the feeling in the Dominion is strongly against the proposal. To exclude only sitting members of Parliament is, as we have said, an inadequate provision, and fails to attain the object aimed at. The only way to compass the desired end — far as methods ox regulating the membership are concerned—would be to place a ban upon all candidates, both political and municipal; and this would be to deprive the Federation of some of the very best material ,to be found within its ranks. For ourselves, we are satisfied that the Catholic laity are as quick as any other people would be to see when their organisation is being made use of, and we are confident that they will be found quite capable of dealing with self-seekers of the sort. In a word, the price to be paid for the deprivation involved in such a regulation as that suggested is out of all proportion to the gain that might bo expected to accrue.

In regard to the general relation of the Federation to politics, the position is made perfectly clear in the exis;ing constitution, which says: 'The Federation is not a political party organisation, and does not seek to influence the political views of its members, nor to touch politics except where polities touch religion. It stands for the Christian life of the nation; for the Christian education of youth ; for the repression of Intemperance: for the sanctity and indissolubility of Christian marriage: for the safeguarding of the Christian home, and of Catholic institutions ; and for the suppression of indecent, objectionable, and anti-Cath-olic literature, pictures, films, theatricals, and advertisements.' Wherever politics touch any of these or kindred questions, the Federation is bound to - make its influence felt. Outside of questions affecting religion, morality, or Catholic principles, participation in mere party politics is definitely excluded.' '"For this position wo have direct authority from the Holy See itself. In rules laid down long ago for Catholic "Associations, the late Holy Father, Leo XIII., set forth our guiding principles in the following admirable words: 'We deem these Associations peculiarly fitted as auxiliary forces intended to support the interests of the Catholic religion; and We approve, therefore, their object and the energy they display; We ardently desire that they may increase in number and in zeal, and that from day to day their fruits may bo more abundant. But since the object of such societies is the defence and encouragement of Catholic interests, and as it is the Bishops who, each in their proper diocese, have to watch over those interests, it naturally follows that they should be controlled by their Bishops, and should set great value on their authority and' commands. In the next place, they should with equal care apply themselves to preserve union, first, because on the agreement of men's wills all the power and influence of any human society depends, and next, because in the societies of which we speak that mutual charity should especially be found, which necessarily accompanies good works, and is the characteristic mark of those whom Christian discipline has moulded. Now as it may easily happen that the members may differ in politics, the// should recall to themselves the aim of all Catholic Associations, and thereby prevent party feeling from disturbing their cordial unity. In their discussions they ought to be so penetrated by the purpose for which they.

meet as to seem of no party, remembering the words of the Apostle, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Thus by the exclusion of party rivalries, all will be enlisted in the service of the one cause, the highest and noblest, about which no disagreement can exist among Catholics worthy of the name.' The « Literature ' and • * Morals ' Theory When is religion not religion is the query naturally suggested by. the tortuous tactics of the Bible in State Schools League. And the answer would seem to be that religion is not religion whenever a League apologist chooses to say that it is not. In the early stages of the present agitation in New Zealand an official League pamphlet, written by the Rev. A. Don, in answering the question, 'ls the "general" instruction (provided by the New South Wales system) worth while?' was frank enough to declare: 'As for the "general religious instruction," that given by the school teachers, the writer will never ask the question again. With trained teachers, able to command absolute obedience, and having a clear vision of their high calling, there seems hardly any limit to the possibility for good.' Finding, however, that this candid admission as to the existence of a State-established, State-endowed, and State-taught creed has left the League open to very deadly and unanswerable attack, its apologists calmly turn round and now brazenly declare that the teachers do not give -any religious instruction at all, but that the Bible lessons are taught merely as 'literature' or as ' morals.' The obvious absurdity of the pretence that a teacher who administers lessons which are set before the child as part of the inspired Word of God, and which embody such facts and doctrines as the Atonement, the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, and the necessity of union'with Him, is not teaching religion, has been more than once exposed both in these columns and in those of the daily press. Owing to considerations of. space and to the exigencies of controversy, however, the work has had to be done more or less piecemeal and disjointedly. In the letter which appeared in the Ota go Daily Times of Friday last, and which is reproduced on page 23 of this issue, Bishop Cleary has gathered up into a compact, comprehensive, and exceedingly handy form the crushing evidence available on this point; and we recommend readers to cut the matter out as furnishing a ready reply whenever the 'literature' or 'morals' theory has again to be combatted.

* As amplifying and rounding off the treatment of this question of the nature of the 'religious teaching' given to the children under the League's scheme we quote the following extract in point from the lecture delivered by Bishop Cleary in Dunedin some weeks ago, and which may also with advantage be pigeonholed. 'What,' asked the lecturer, 'is the type or character of this "religious teaching"? The. question is soon answered. (1) The Government manuals of ■'religious instruction" are taken mainly or altogether from a sectarian version of the Bible (the Authorised Version). (2) The Scripture lessons are explained or interpreted on the sectarian principle known as ' the right of private judgment'—a principle which is honestly and conscientiously rejected by Catholic and other taxpayers in this Dominion. The Government thus officially takes" sides in a doctrinal dispute which has divided Western Christianity for over three hundred years. (3) „ ' Within one Book each seeks to read The tenets of his private creed.' If you are allowed to hack and mutilate the Holy / Scriptures, and interpret them at your own sweet private will, you may (as we well know from history) evolve therefrom almost any type of religion or irreligion. Well, here are two sets of Government Scripture lessons, as used in the public schools of Queensland and New South Wales. Both ' have been hacked and *

mutilated, on an obvious sectarian plan, for a sectarian use and purpose. In these manuals, for instance, the Government suppresses, for a sufficient manifest reason, practically the whole' of the following great body of New Testament texts and incidents to which Catholics notoriously appeal in support of doctrines and practices of their faith: Matter relating to the constitution of the Church unity, authority, perpetuity, inerrancy ; its relation to - the written and unwritten Word of God; the Petrine texts; . the Eucharistic doctrine, as set forth at length (and, to Catholics, so luminously) in John VI. and in I. Cor., XL; the several texts relating to fasting and to the power of forgiving sins in the Church the texts relating to the anointing of the sick with oil (James, V.); and the praise of the celibate state in I. Cor., VII. . . But there is an even more deplorable, story of the sectarian mutilation of the Bible for use in the public schools. The Queensland Government manuals of ' religious instruction' have been lauded by .League leaders. Well, in these manuals the Government has "-flung aside the narrative of the Virgin Birth of Christ; it has practiced a gross deceit upon the hapless little ones in the public schools, by giving to them an Ebionite Christ, not the Christ of the Gospels. Yet so ardent a Leaguer as Rev. Dr. Youngman. stated in the Wellington Evening Post of February 12, 1913, that these manuals have met with the approval of the Protestant Churches " ! God forgive the Protestant Churches that ''' approve '' of this shocking mutilation or the life of the Saviour of the world ! But that is not all. The Victorian Bible-in-schools League of 1900 flung aside the Virgin-Birth of Christ. The New Zealand Bible-in-schools organisation, in 1904, flung aside the Virgin-Birth of Christ from the manuals which they selected for use in the public schools of this Dominion. And Bishop Averill (now a vice-presi-dent of the League) indignantly described their textbook as 'an emasculated caricature of the Bible. I mention these deplorable matters just to give you some idea of the amazing lengths to which the misnamed "i?i&Ze"-in-schools party —both in Australia and Now Zealand — prepared to go in mutilating and caricaturing the Bible, for sectarian purposes, at the cost of the public purse.'