Joke?

After reading "D.A.P.'s" article on Psychology Scorned I came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a joke or at best an effort to rouse some discussion. However, if the author meant to be serious I am surprised to see such a low intellectual standard in a university newspaper or does "Salient" follow a policy of printing all contributions?

The author obviously knows nothing of the subject he attacks and his demand for a return to Christian Truth (just when has his Christian Truth ever been much in evidence) shows an unrealistic approach to the problem. Psychology is not perfect but even at its worst it does present an intelligent rationale to evaluate; something which "D.A.P." could do well to imitate.

Help!

And even after reading all this I am not a Socialist. I don't like Communism. I don't believe in the liquidation of opposition. I am the product of a Capitalist state.

I hope I am not a dirty Fascist swab.

I know Russia is wonderful, that we must exchange visits and that I must try to win her friendship. I know that her "sputnik" and her little dog were up in the sky before anyone else's, especially before the unmentionable American capitalist one.

I know I ought to think, if not to shout "Down with the enemies of the People" and I know that I ought to forget that General of the U.S.S.R. Serov has killed over 20 million Russians because the Fascist Himmler killed 12 million Jews and others.

Perhaps that is an imperialist lie anyway.

But it's all so sad, and I wonder if any of your kind readers can help me to come into line and join the Party?

I have dreams at night, too. I had the misfortune, in England, to see the filthy B.B.C. television production of 1984" (which, of course, Orwell never wrote, or if he did, it was because he was a war-mongering saboteur of a swinish Fascist reactionary bourgeous capitalist plotocratic deviationist worm with indigestion, and not a true Socialist).

I must try to believe that black is white when I am told it is, and that peace is really war, and that the days of decadent Western capitalist democracy are nearly over, and that 2 and 2 make 5. . . .

I must practice shouting Long Live the People, Long Live Our Leader (not old windbag Nash, who isn't a true Socialist either).

May I humbly suggest a new Faculty to help sub-normal, backward scabs like myself?

Perhaps your contributor "S"—as anonymous as Big Brother, and whose blistering hatred of all that is bad stamps him as a true comrade in the struggle, will consent to a professorship to help me to hate, too.

Could we have Hate classes on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays? And Queen Anne Isn't Dead classes on other days?

No Ivory Tower

—I am a Socialist. I am a trade unionist. Unlike Mr. Gamby, however, I don't much care whether I'm Prime Minister, or not.

Even more unlike Mr. Gamby, I do not suffer from, on the one hand, contempt for my fellow man, or the type of crass ignorance which leads me into making sweeping statements about groups of people of whom I know nothing; furthermore, about whom, owing to the contempt mentioned above, I am likely to learn nothing.

In the first place, I humbly proffer myself, as a member of my union's Board of Management and a delegate to the Wellington Trades Council as having some hand in "Labour Party policy making." (I have been secretary and treasurer of the Socialist Club.

The L.P. candidate for Patea in the November elections has also been a committee member. There is a member of the Labour Party's Wellington Co-ordinating Committee who was on the committee for some years. I could cite others, too (Bob Tizard, M.P. for Tamaki, was present from A.U.C. at a meeting of delegates from Labour Clubs within N.Z.U.S.A. which I attended from Victoria, some years back.) This leads on to my next point that proves Mr. Gamby's ignorance further. To insist that (a) the working class thinks of nothing but refrigerators and washing machines and (b) that it's leadership is composed of nothing but old, embittered men, merely tells me that Mr. Gamby has never bothered to meet any workers. I could give Mr. Gamby examples of faulty leadership, drawn from experience, and not from the leader writers of "Freedom" or the "Dominion", but I occupy my time with trying to right any wrongs, not complaining.

Try again, Mr. Gamby. Think as you please, of course, but, until your ideas change, do not label those thoughts "socialist". My opinion of those thoughts has been very well expressed by a more able writer than myself, as "didactic, pompous, platitudinous, sententious, diffuse, verbose, periphrastic, pleonastic, pharisaical, casuistic—and wrong."

Cassandra, of the "Daily Mirror" was referring to John Foster Dulles, but I find the resemblance most striking.

The Bottom?

—As a spectator at the Easter Tournament, I had the opportunity to observe many of the sports and also had the doubtful honour of hearing the presenter of trophies say, "And the wooden spoon is again won by Victoria."

Why should Vic. always be at the bottom of everything? This is not true for all sports, but it is so near that the difference doesn't matter.

I think that the borer that will no doubt feed one day on our wooden spoon are already feasting amply on our student organisations. Have you looked at the notice boards lately? How many freshly drawn illustrated posters have we got—precious few. In their place our clubs lake the easy way out and use a typewritten poster. How uninspiring to freshers coming into a new life. Slightly above this level is the illustrated poster drawn to get cracking.

I commence by deploring the state of Vic's sporting showing at Tournament and have devoted most of my space to criticising the notice board.

Vic. is not a small university—it should be able to produce the equivalent number of competitors, yet everywhere I went I saw the same thing—a small group who were up to standard and the remainder well below. I believe that if all the students who compete in Wellington in sports joined our clubs then our standing would increase immeasurably. And how are we going to persuade all our students to compete for us? By showing them that our clubs have something to offer and that we have a lively, well organised group.

Club secretaries, yours is a responsibility far beyond the normal conception of your position. It is in your hands whether Vic. makes up its leeway or whether we drift for another year in the doldrums.

We cannot hope to recover in one year, but at least we can be in a position to look back and say: 1958 was the turning point.

Christianity is Irrational

So say the Rationalists. And what is a Rationalist? The Concise English Dictionary defines a Rationalist as "one who rejects the supernatural elements in the Old and New Testaments and disbelieves in revelation."

That, of course, rules out the Bible as the revealed word of God, rules out miracles, especially those of the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is not even room for God and, what's more, we can't know anything about God unless we can work it out and prove it, deductively and conclusively like a geometrical theorem.

We are not left with much, are we. But just think for a moment. Are you sure you are the same person you were yesterday? Of course you are. Can you prove it deductively? No, you can't, but that doesn't lessen your certainty in any way. Apparently we can and do accept as true some things which cannot be proved deductively.

Perhaps you are not such an extreme rationalist and sceptic after all. Even if a fact can't be proved deductively to be true, you are prepared to accept it as true if there is sufficient weight of evidence in its favour. But what about God?

"Perhaps there is a God," you say, "but he seems to be a sort of Sunday School God, suitable for small children and senile persons of a low I.Q. but not for the normally intelligent and thinking Varsity student." Is God only for those of lesser intelligence? Well, cogitate on this.

Half a century ago a man was born in Germany, he became one of the world's greatest organists and experts on Bach, was awarded five doctorates and was as claimed as one of the most brilliant men of the era, and then gave it all up and went to live in a foul, steamy, unhealthy climate in tropical Africa as a missionary doctor. Do you seriously think that Albert Sweitzer went to Africa to serve a childish God? His actions are pretty strong evidence to support the view that God means a lot to Sweitzer.

Perhaps there is something in Christianity, after all, for Sweitzer has not been the only one to give up position, wealth, comfort and even life for their God.

Rationalism sounds very learned and academic but what has it really to offer. Ultimately, nothing.

What does Christianity have to offer? Christianity offers, among other things, a new and fuller life, a life that is worth living, a life that brings inward satisfaction. Those that are living this new life feel a strong urge to tell others about it in case they miss out.

Early in June, the V.U.W.E.U. is running a mission for just that purpose. If you would like to hear just what Christ offers you as a Varsity student, come along to some of the meetings. It could make all the difference to your life.

Quiet Joy

—Typographical errors aside, "Salient" has made me flinch three times in recent weeks. The first time was Mr. Kelliher's editorial expressing quiet joy at the arithmetical increase of Catholicism in New Zealand. The second was Mr. Bollinger's reply, which, apart from displaying the incipient Bolshevism we have come to associate with Mr. Bollinger, implied that the increase is a dirty trick on the part of Catholics who won't play fair by using contraceptives. The third was another editorial by Mr. Kelliher imploring all "balanced Christians" to base their faith upon "the testimony of history" and "the discoveries of archaeological expeditions".

May I ask Mr. Kelliher whether Christ instructed his apostles to base their campaigns on vital statistics? Or were they imbued with a less arid doctrine? It is beside the point to argue, as Mr. Bollinger argues, that the Catholic increase is due to birth control among Protestants and an adverse balance of trade in immigrants. A more appropriate comment would be to assert the good fortune of Catholicism in increasing when it has such poor advocates as Mr. Kelliher. Why doesn't Mr. Kelliher chuck his census report under the copper and remember the existence of sceptical students who must by now have classified him as a backward child? He might then draw more responsible and helpful comment than that offered by Mr. Bollinger, for whom contraception is clearly an unqualified boon.

Mr. Kelliher also tells us we should subscribe what he calls a "rational faith", based on historical and archaeological proofs, for the "leap in the dark". Bat has he as sure a grasp of these proofs as he makes uot? If he has not investigated the proofs at first-hand, as I believe he has not, then he must have received them at second-hand from a book. Any reputable historian will tell you that to do such a thing is in only a very limited way rational—is, as Mr. Kelliher himself might say, a "leap in the dark". Moreover, if Mr. Kelliher is to decry simple faith and silent prayer and to advance a grasp of history and archaeology as a prerequisite for "balanced Christianity", then he has to wipe half the Christian saints off the calendar. Can we expect this in the next issue?

Naive

—As a Catholic I wish to disassociate myself entirely from the bigoted, highly personal, and extraordinarily naive interpretation of Christian belief given in your editorial of 27/3/58.

In the first place the terminology is unsound. "The testimony of history"—what does this mean? The testimony of others? (Historians have written a frightful lot of tripe.) ... Or the pronouncement of some oracle that floats through the passage of time and mysteriously records events? If so, my faith is as little based "on the testimony of history" as it is "upon the discoveries of archaeology." The Christian faith, thanks be to God, has a far more rational foundation than that.

Secondly, the proposition that a Christian can have "only" one of two "opposed" foundations, viz., either rational or non-rational, is surely the most manifest heresy as well as the most arbitrary dogmatism. Man is not so self-sufficient that he can concoct a supernatural faith from the purely rational foundations of his own reason, and it is an arrogant pride to claim he can. Even if, after the manner of Boling-broke, one made the attempt, one could never accept such a rational fiction, that is submit oneself to it, without taking some kind of "plunge in the dark"—sign a blank cheque of commitment. The living experience of the act of faith (and surely "T.J.K." should at least have heard that "without faith it is impossible to please God"—Heb. XI, 6) is a great mystery. By its very nature it is supranational. (C.f. the constitution "Dei Filius" of the Vatican Council, placet 24/4/1870.) It seems that there are more rationalists around than "T.J.K." would like the testimony of statistical evidence to lead one to believe.

The labelling of non-rational foundations of faith as "a naive sort of belief", "a sort of nonsense", "childish", consisting of "strings of empty phrases" is irredeemably dotty and nothing short of sheer blind and credulous bigotry. It is sure to offend any who (unfortunately) in all sincerity entertain very real doubts abouts the validity of Christianity's rational foundations. Shame! Elementary courtesy should surely restrain one from entering the inviolable sanctuary of other men's consciences and pronouncing so rash and so rude a judgment.

Lastly, I think that to refer to the bodily remains of the dead (temporarily-vacated temples of the Holy Ghost) as "a few old bones", and to campaign in the name of Christianity for the defence of alcohol and betting and for less silent prayer in favour of more social activities in the materialistic society of which this university forms part—all this is a sure sign of the perversions to which notions of a purely rational Christianity necessarily lead.

In future editorials, I beg of you: more sympathy, more logic, and a generous measure of a humble and healthy tolerance.

Statistics

—"Rationalism on the Decline." As this discussion turns to a certain extent, at any rate, on statistics, I think it should be pointed out that the figures of religious allegiance contained in censuses are by no means completely reliable. While I have no doubt that the rationalist, in the nineteenth century sense, with his belief in the inevitability of progress and the benevolent powers of science, is a pretty rare bird these days, I think that the number of sceptics, agnostics and persons who are indifferent about religion has increased considerably, in New Zealand as elsewhere. But for various reasons this development is not accurately revealed in the census statistics; some are vague about what constitutes religious allegiance, while others feel that somehow there is something disgraceful about admitting that one has no religion.

Thus, I think that it is generally recognised that the figures of the Church of England are grossly inflated, due to the aura of "establishment" and social prestige which it possesses. But this situation is by no means confined to New Zealand. For instance, I read in the "New Zealand Tablet" (2 April, 1958) that the total population of Brazil is 52 millions, the Catholics numbering 48 millions, while the number of persons professing no religion is 400,000. From information derived from other sources, I would say that if the Catholic figures were reduced by a third, they would be more accurate.

If these considerations are valid, then it is rather dangerous—to say nothing else—for religious groups to be made either self congratulatory or dejected by census statistics. It would be far better if we were to pay less attention to quantity (interesting though this may be) and more to the much more important matter of quality.

Light

—Mr. C. V. Bollinger's attempt to throw ridicule on your factual statement has fallen rather flat.

The first reason he gives for the increase in the Roman Catholic population is not only ridiculous but extremely vulgar. However, his second reason is valid for a large percentage of the sharp increase in the Catholic population.

On the other hand, I would remind him, Sir, that the increasing number of converts must also be taken into account. We live in what is called the Atomic Age with scientific conception of the Universe as the basis of the modern thought. The inquirer today has a sceptical and radical outlook on things theological. The increasing number of converts are not entering the Church bindly, but are proving for themselves that the fundamental truths of Catholicism are based on scientifically proven pacts which have withstood the ravages of man and time and are not, as many would have it, based on mysticism, fear and ignorance.

It may well be, Sir, that we are entering into another "age of light" which may lead to the eventual salvation of the world.

Gloating

—Doubtless the Roman Catholic population of this country (including yourself, are gloating over the increasing numbers of adherents to their faith.

I myself, in common with most New Zealanders, view this increase with anything but pleasure; the aims of the Roman Church to recover its lost supremacy (both political and spiritual) by sheer weight of numbers, are sufficiently evident, especially in Australasia and the U.S.A., to cause concern to anyone wishing for the dawn of a more enlightened age.

The Church of Rome has a grisly record of promoting wars and bloodshed which extends over many centuries, and which culminated in Catholic acivities prior to and during the Second World War.

It was Pope Pius XI who hailed Mussolini as "a man sent by Divine Providence", forbade Italian catholics to oppose his rise to poyer, and concluded the Lateran Treaty, which cleared the way for Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia; this same invasion, notorious even at a time when such acts were relatively frequent, did not provoke one word of censure from the Roman Hierarchy.

Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic; and the support of the Pope, who ordered the German bishops to instruct their clergy to support Hitler, proved the decisive factor which enabled him to seize power in Germany. It was (and for that matter, still is), Vatican influence that enabled so many ex-Nazi leaders to resume key positions in Germany only a very few years after the war. (See "Lest We Forget", in "Salient," 27/3/58.)

The Vatican promoted one of the bloodiest civil wars of modern times, when Franco's (Catholic) minority party, aided significantly enough, by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, plunged Spain, who was at last making the first steps towards democracy, into three years of strife, resulting in the enslaved and backward country that is Spain today; the enormity of this crime becomes even greater when it is realised that even by 1910 two-thirds of the Spanish people were no longer Catholics.

Roman Catholic interference is still active in affairs of foreign countries; Malta is an excellent example of this; and the present fiasco with Mr. Mintoff is only a repetition of the Lord Strickland case in 1930. Strangely enough, both these men are Roman Catholics, and it is well known that the Vatican does not wish Malta to be integrated with Britain. Conclusions are obvious.

Your call for State Aid for Private Schools (for Private . . . read Catholic), and your implied claim that lack of religious (also presumably Catholic) teaching in schools is responsible for our juvenile delinquency I found no less surprising than your pleasure at Catholic increases in the population.

Why Roman Catholics, or any other sect, for that matter, feel justified in demanding State Aid for their schools has always been beyond me. A perfectly adequate education is provided by the state, and if any group wishes to educate its children by some different method, surely it is up to them to pay for it themselves. If Roman Catholics have a right to state aid, then so has every tin-pot group of fanatics and cranks that care to ask for it, to say nothing of the twenty-five or so religious groups represented in this country. Furthermore, why should the bulk of the population be taxed to provide for the special education of a minority group?

It is also difficult to see just what the Catholic schools have to recommend them; for example, in Catholic Spain, children are taught that Liberalism, liberty of conscience and freedom of the Press are grave sins. A group which operates the in famous Index, and which has been responsible for centuries of ignorance and deliberate suppression of knowledge can hardly lay claim to an enlightened education system. The Index is worthy of a closer examination:

The first Index was published in 1559, and has gone through more than one hundred editions up to the present day. The punishment for a Catholic who reads a book on the Index, unless his ecclesiastical rank is that of a bishop or above, is eternal damnation. The Index covers a range of books from all translations of the Bible made by non-Catholics to Gibbon's "Decline and Fall", and includes writings of Luther, Zola, Rabelais, Erasmus, Leibnitz, Defoe, Descartes, Flaubert, Anatole France, Heine, Kant, Maeterlinck, Pascal, Lord Acton, Bacon, Hobbes, Bertrand Russell, Richardson, Addison, Victor Hugo, Goldsmith, Dumas, Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Milton, Chaucer and Dante. The Index of 1900 contained 7,200 names, 3,000 fewer than its predecessor; the 1930 edition contains between seven and eight thousand. More than 5,000 books in English are forbidden. This is scarecely a recommendation for the Liberalism and high educational aims of the Catholic Church, much of the world's most enlightened literature and thought absolutely condemned.

Your comment about the lack of Christian (again, I infer Roman Catholic) teaching in schools, also deserves a few words. One would, going by your remarks, expect Catholic countries to have a high standard of moral behaviour; this is unfortunately not so: in Italy itself, prostitution is controlled by the State, which makes a tidy revenue out of it, and there are hundreds of brothels in the very seat of the Papacy. Spain is in a very similar position, and in Brazil, a super-Catholic country, over 90% of the population has, or has had, venereal disease, while in Paris alone there are 100,000 prostitutes.

Incidentally, your remark about "spring knives" recalls to mind an interesting series of coincidences: Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by a Roman Catholic; a Catholic attempted to assassinate Bismarck because of his anti-Catholic laws; the President of Mexico was murdered in 1927, the day after he declared he would enforce the Mexican page 6 constitution of separation of Church and State; Lord Strickland, P.M., of Malta, who was acting contrary to Vatican wishes, suffered an attempt on his life in June, 1930; in Italy in 1948, a Catholic tried to assassinate Togliatti, leader of the Italian Communists; in August, 1950, two Catholics murdered the Communist leader of Belgium, who had spoken against the return of Catholic King Leopold. It may be a consolation to some to know that it was a Catholic who tried to murder Hitler.

In view of the exciting series of events related in my last paragraph it is with considerable trepidation that I sign myself—

In Reply

It was with the deepest surprise that I read Mr. R. G. Hall's extraordinary document which attempts to gloss over well-documented facts, thereby producing a most one-sided account.

Re the claim that "the Church of Rome has a grisly record of promoting wars and bloodshed": The writer omits to mention that at the last annual meeting of France's cardinals and archbishops a statement was issued calling for an end to the conflict in Algeria. The statement warned those in authority "to avoid excesses contrary to natural law and the laws of God". May 18 was set aside as Peace Sunday. A similar appeal for peace in Algeria was published in a pastoral letter by Archbishop Leon-Etienne Duval of Algiers. Recently, too, the Vatican weekly, L'Osservatore della Domenica, deplored the French bombing of the Tunisian town of Sakiet-Sidi-Youssef earlier this year. In Cuba, the Catholic hierarchy recently appealed to the Cuban dictator, Batista, to establish a "government of national unity" to end the two-year civil war. The statement expressed the view that "we exhort all those who today fight in enemy camps to cease the use of violence and seek as soon as possible effective solutions to bring back to our country the material and moral peace that are so lacking". When the proposal was turned down the Catholic Church then formed a four-man commission for National Harmony to act as a mediator between Cuba's government and opposition forces. Here, then, are two recent examples that refute Mr. Hall's claim.

Re German and Italian Fascism: The writer, Mr. Hall, conveniently neglects to mention the condemnation of Nazism by eight Bavarian bishops in 1931, Cardinal Faulhaber's sermons in Munich cathedral in 1933, the papal condemnation of Nazism and Fascism in 1937 in the encyclicals "Mit brennender Sorge" and "Non Abiamo Bisogno", and the imprisonment in Germany of 5700 priests between 1933 and 1939. I would refer the writer to the article "Crucifix v. Swastika" which appeared in "Salient" on 12/9/57, and to Michael Power's book "Religion in the Reich."

Re the allegation that the Vatican promoted the Spanish Civil War: I remind Mr. Hall that the first uprising in Spain was instigated by the Communist-Socialist Alliance. This was the armed uprising in the Asturias beginning on October 4, 1934. The "Communist International", in the issue of November 5, 1934, itself states that "the workers of the Asturias fought for Soviet power under the leadership of the Communists". In dealing with the United Front, or Fronte Populaire, one must remember the words of G. Dimitrov, Secretary-General of the Communist International, in his speech at the VII World Congress of that organisation: "Only the Communist Party is at bottom the initiator, the organiser, and the driving force of the United Front". Let me refer our readers also to the actions which characterised Spain "who was at last making the first steps towards democracy." On July 23, 1936, prisoners in the courtyard of the gaol at La Campana were shot down and petrol was poured on both the dead and alive, and set fire to. (Attested by A. L. Martin, F. J. Martin, and A. F. Leal of La Campana.) At Almendralejo, some 38 prisoners, including children, were nailed to the wall of the prison yard, then saturated with petrol and burnt alive. (Attested by Feliz Corlia, Rua duz Soviano, 44, Lisbon.) At Lora del Rio, cartloads of residents were taken to the cemetery and made to dig a huge grave; they were then shot in the legs so that they fell in agony into the grave. Some were buried alive. (Attested by Don Eugenio Martin, a magistrate, C. C. Granados and J. M. Linon.) I would refer those interested to the various editions in the 1930's of the London "Times".

Re State Aid: To get a knowledge of Catholic educational justice I would refer the reader to Maclean's magazine, 28/5/57. I have a copy which I am prepared to lend. The article compares the measure of State Assistance given to Catholic private schools with that given to Protestant private schools in Catholic Quebec. This is what Dr. James Paton, secretary of the provincial association of Protestant teachers in Quebec, has to say: "We're well treated here. We get our full share of tax money; the Catholics go out of their way to be fair and even generous to us. We're only embarrassed because the Roman Catholic schools in other provinces don't get the same break". The Quebec case is an example of educational democracy and provides an answer to those who regard the situation in modern Spain as the usual Catholic policy.

Re the Index: What few critics of the Index realise is that it creates no problem to a serious student in any particular subject. I understand that permission to read forbidden books can be fairly readily obtained from one's parish priest or confessor. In any case students automatically qualify for a special dispensation to read any books connected with their course. The truth is that the Index exists not to stifle thought but rather to guide thoughtless people in their reading.

To make a more positive approach, I would just like to mention some of the recent Catholic contributions to the world's literature as a vindication of the Church's "high educational claims". The first half of this century was almost dominated by Belloc and Chesterton; to quote Dr. Reid from Auckland University: "Now that the shouting of controversy has died down, Belloc is being recognised as one of the greatest prose writers of this century and Chesterton as one of its finest and most original minds". In contemporary England the Catholic Church is represented by the formidable trio of Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, and Bruce Marshall, not to mention J. B. Morton, Compton McKenzie, Christopher Sykes, Antonia White, and Archbishop Mathew. In contemporary France one finds an equally imposing list of Catholic writers—Mauriac, Bloy, Bernanos, D'Aurevilly, Luc Estang, Daniel-Rops, van der Meersch, Julien Green and Jean Cayrol. Each one is a living witness to the inspiration and creative urge that Catholicism provides.

I would also like to mention that the claim that 90% of the population of Brazil have, or have had, venereal disease is self-evidently absurd.

I would suggest that in future Mr. Hall sends letters of this sort to the New Zealand Rationalist or to the publication of the Loyal Orange Lodge.

Editor.