« PrécédentContinuer »
comparison with the knowledge of Christ; and, in journeying often in perils of waters, in labour and painfulness, in much watchings, in hunger and thirst, he spent himself preaching the Gospel of salvation from India to Japan. At forty-six he died.
In her Life, of the Saint Miss Kelly has made use of the most recent critical biographies, and thus has been able to correct several errors that have hitherto passed current. Father Richards, S.J., New York, in the Preface that he has written, gives an appreciation which we may be permitted to quote: 'That the work has been performed in a manner worthy of its subject is guaranteed by the established reputation of the authoress, and also by the fact that it has been undertaken at the suggestion and to some extent under the guidance of the Reverend Henry Browne, S.J., the distinguished Professor of Greek in the Irish Catholic (?) University, and President (?) of the Irish Catholic Truth Society.'
BOOKS, Etc., RECEIVED
America : A Catholic Review (June).
THE I. E. RECORD for December, 1918, presents the strongest case_that the writer has yet seen made out for Prohibition. Rev. P. Coffey, S.T.L., Ph.D., is the advocate. The word clever applies to the article in every detail. The advocate hints where it is best to hint; he glosses over the points against him which it would be unwise either to omit or to emphasize; he characterizes as 'puerile' an adverse argument, against which he finds no better answer; and he presents his main contention in abstract terms which only a rash man would deny as they stand without opportunity given him for a lengthy explanation. This opportunity the writer proposes to take unto himself herewith. May he also take opportunity to make his plaint, that as in this article, so everywhere else in the controversy, it is assumed that cold, detached, scientific accuracy, the unbefange wissenschaftliche view, which the Germans of the higher criticism delighted in assuming as their own, is all on the side of the Prohibitionists, while the others are necessarily biased by inherited prejudices, personal likings for the winecup, and a great unwillingness to see the question objectively. May the writer first remind all concerned that there is an immense accumulation of knowledge about the use (for the moment transeat the abuse) of liquor ? It extends from Noah to the present day, and is the common traditional heritage of educated and uneducated alike. It may be said safely, that the broad conclusion of that experience is, that in the use—not the abuse-of liquor, there is much pleasure, promotion of good fellowship, help to digestion, brightening of the spirits, and no appreciable bodily harm or
1 Fifth Series, vol. xii. pp. 449 et seq., 'The Ethics of Total Prohibition.' FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XIV-AUGUST, 1919
degeneration. 'Let us wait and educate,' says the reverend Father pityingly. Will the education undo the experience of the ages ?
And if it does, alas ! shall we have unlearned an error, or merely have added another to our list ? For education can inculcate error as well as truth. Witness the Protestant teaching of History for the last four hundred years! As to the liking for the winecup, which is insinuated—not asserted—as one of the factors of error,' the writer respectfully recalls to the mind of all such objectors, that it is natural to the intellectual animal, termed man, and therefore forms an a priori presumption, that the upholder of fermented drink has the saner position, just as the natural tendency of men and women to mate furnishes a strong a priori presumption that the Manichean position against marriage is wrong.
Nor is the reputation of cold blooded, scientific objective conviction from the force of the facts, quietly assumed for the Prohibitionist, justified either by the writer's experience or by history. Not to go outside of my opponent's article, Father Mathew (God rest his soul !) had anything but cold scientific impersonal motives for his hatred of liquor. Enough of a disagreeable subject !
With this preliminary plaint off his mind, the writer again expresses his admiration for the cleverness with which the contributor to the I. E. RECORD has put Catholics in the wrong for not sustaining Prohibition. It was because they exercised their liberty in not sustaining it, that laws were passed prohibiting the Mass. It was when the Protestants discovered, to their surprise, that Catholics objected to these laws (or was it after Prohibitionists found that the courts would not uphold these laws ?) that the Anti-Saloon League declared that it had no intention of doing anything against the Mass. And then Catholics are reproved for not seeing how fair all this is, and warned to bear no false witness against their neighbour! My opponent may not know that, in America at least, though men may differ in opinions about the results of the Prohibition drive, about the methods used in the drive there is much more unanimity. A sentence of Cardinal Newman, with an altered ending, best expresses it: 'It is by -wholesale, retail, systematic, unscrupulous lying, that the many rivulets are made to flow for the feeding' of Prohibition.
The original ending of Newman's sentence calls to mind the first of a long chain of presumptions against Prohibition from a Catholic viewpoint. My opponent need only consult his own list of the countries which have adopted it, to recognize that the movement is essentially Protestant. Now, if Protestantism has originated one good movement, history fails to show it. It has indeed carried on good movements which it took over from Catholicity; for example, the suppression of slavery. But what it originates, like the originator, has been merely destructive. "Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint.' *Granted !' my opponent may say, ' but let not that stand against it, in God's name, when it has originated a good one!! But has it originated this one? It has not. Within the times of historical Christianity, the movement for Prohibition has twice appeared markedly in the world. Its originators, the Manicheans, were condemned by every Roman emperor, who stood for the civilization of the Western world, from Constantine the Great to Theodosius the Great. They were forbidden by Imperial decree to bequeath or inherit. Their property was confiscated. "This kind of men,' says one decree, has nothing in common with other men either in customs or in laws.' The Dualistic doctrine of the Manichees about God, and their teaching that wine is the creation of the Evil God, is commonplace historical knowledge. Though the Manichean writings have been all destroyed by Imperial order, as baneful, the writer has not the slightest doubt that the Prohibitionists give a pretty accurate reproduction of them as far as liquor is concerned. They have, in America, dropped all the usual names which define and distinguish the various fermented liquors, and picked up a slang expression from the gutters to serve for all, and at the
at the same time to reprobate all, booze.' "The demon rum, * The demon rum,' 'the devil's brew, the
' ' drink devil,' are the ordinary characterizations of liquor, and that from Catholic temperance orators, as well as Protestant. The distinction between the use and the abuse of a good thing is made seldom, if ever. In fact, the word good, in any reference to liquor, is sedulously avoided. All this is plain Manichean. A good cause,' my opponent reminds me,
may be championed (and injured) by bad arguments.' Without doubt! But it is precisely the * goodness' of this cause which is the question at issue.
It is no argument for it to put the epithet 'good' in front of it. And the universal use of the Manichean epithets and reasonings to support it furnishes a strong presumption against its goodness. My opponent, even, though he
' carefully disclaims any Manichean bias, has not quite cleared his lungs from its mephitic gases. He puts the question,
Could it possibly be right or lawful for the State, in the warmer winegrowing countries, for instance, where wine has been the staple daily drink of the people from time immemorial, to enact a law which would interfere so gravely with their personal liberty and give such a violent wrench to their habits of life, destroy a great industry, and entail a world of turmoil and confusion ? To which the prudent Prohibitionist will reply that, in the case contemplated, a Total Prohibition Law would have no chance of passing.
But why not make the obvious reply that, since in the wine-growing countries the abuse of liquor is almost unknown, the pretext of an excuse for prohibiting a good is away. Why say, “Moses, by reason of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you ’? Why bring other reasons forward, when this great one stands knocking at the door, unless the Manichean error sits inside reluctant to open it ? 'Alcoholic beverages are not intrinsically evil,' he concedes elsewhere in the article. Why use two negations to express an affirmative, except that he is reluctant to say plainly, ‘Alcoholic beverages are good’?
Again, he asserts that many of the popular beliefs, still widely prevalent in these countries in favour of alcoholic indulgence, are inherited prejudices, long since scientifically exploded.' He seems to forget that the doctors of these northern countries (not, so far as the writer is aware, the physicians of the south), are taking a position against the universal medical tradition of the ages! Why not mention that the sons are in rebellion against their medical fathers, and that the chances are, to say the least, equal that the past is right and the present wrong ? He might even strengthen this argument by mentioning a few of the many fads which medical science has adopted and rejected, within his own memory. For instance, a few years ago, physicians vehemently advocated prepared milk for babies in preference to the natural sustenance from the mother. That, they have already given up. Again, infant specialists have been advocating a regime