Newspaper Page Text
February 14, 1912] T H E P
the term "heretofore belonging." It looks very
much as if these same schools belonged to the
same organizations and churches now as formerly
in the light of the report published by this
same Catholic Bureau of Missions. In this report
they admit the following amounts secured
'"rom the Federal Treasury for schools:
St. Joseph's, Keshena, Wis., $ 16,200
St. Louis', Pawhuska, Okla., 9,375
St. Mary, Quapaw Reservation, Okla., 972
St. John, Gray Horse, Okla., 8,125
St. Francis, Rosebud, S. D., 31,536
St. Francis, Rosebud, S. D., 864
noiy itosary, I'ine Kidge, S. D., .... 24,300
St. Labre, Ashland, Mont., 6,480
Immaculate Conception, Crow Creek, 5,400
Immaculate Conception, Crow Creek, 648
St. Agnes, Antlers, Okla., 4,320
St. Agnes, Ardmore, Okla., 4,320
St. Agnes, Ardmore, Okla., 4,320
St. Elizabeth, Purcell, Okla., 3,780
St. Elizabeth, Purcell, Okla 3,780
St. Joseph, Chickasha, Okla., 1,620
St. Joseph, Chickasha. Okla., 1,620
St. Mary's, Lawton, Okla., 324
St. Mary's, Lawton, Okla., 324
$ 128,308
In the light of these Federal appropriations in
1910 does it not look very much as if the government
had little to do with this entire matter except
to pay the money of the people against the
fundamental principle of separation of church
and state into the hands of Director Ketcham,
of the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missioas. It
is a violation of this much boasted constitutional
principle that this money is given out of the
Federal treasury and the government practically
has no oversight over the teachings of these Indians.
Now when Commissioner Valentine promulgates
his order against frocks and cowls and
priestly robes being used in so-called government
schools, the order is at once revoked on the
ground that the "questions presented by this
order are of great importance and delicacy."
The rennrt of the snirl Cnthnlie Rnrenn nf
Missions for 1910 shows that "during the second
session of the Sixty-first Congress the Bureau
secured the enactment of the following provision
in the Act approved June 25, 1910." Then follows
a list of thirteen (13)%Patents in Fee issued
for mission lands.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that in view of the
money given out of the Federal Treasury, the
money of a people who believe in the separation
of church and state as a principle de facto as
well as de jure, and in view of patents issued for
mission lands, that the Catholic Bureau of Missions
should place at the end of its report this
complimentary statement? "During the year
1910, with few exceptions, amicable relations existed
between the missionaries and all Government
officials in the field. At the seat of Government
(save the mark) the Bureau received cordial
and helpful consideration from Senators and
Representatives and all departmental officials,
and the oreatest sumnatlui and encouraacmcnt
have been extended to the Bureau and its work
by President Taft."
Amicable relations existed between missionaries
and government officials in the field and at
the seat of government when the demands of the
Bureau of Catholic missions are heeded. But
amicable relations' cease to exist when men like
Commissioner Valentine, following duty and
proper regard for constitutional principles pro
mulgate such an order as he did. He should
remember that these things are of "great importance
and delicacy," and he should also
( have remembered that Director Ketcham compliments
in his report only those who show
"i^rmpathy and encouragement. Compliments
RESBYTERIAN OF THE 80
have a cash' value alio, they may become
votes in process of time. Let us, however,
be mindful that these matters are
of great importance and delicacy. If the
Bureau of Catholic Missions needs over a Hundred
Thousand dollars a year of the money of
the people; if the Bureau wishes thirteen more
grants of public land taken away from the people;
if the Bureau insists that the government
shall have nothing to say against wearing religious
frocks and cowls and other papal paraphernalia
in certain schools used (!) by the
government, let us remember that these matters
are of "great importance and delicacy," for we
might not get a complimentary place in Di
rector Ketcliam's report. Certainly we believe
in the separation of church and state, most assuredly;
but then these matters are "important
and delicate." Nothing is more evident and
more pernicious, foreboding peril and unlimited
disaster than the activity of the Papal Hierarchy
in our political life. There are breakers ahead
for the ship of state and woe betide the pilot
and crew who undertake to steer this great craft
by a papal chart that has plunged other nations
into illiteracy, degradation and death.
Washington, D. C.
OUR NEW YORK LETTER.
The union of all branches of the Presbyterian
Church in one great organization and even the
wider union of all Evangelical Christians seems
to be in the air. But if two p.hiirnhfts en f>lnc?iu
affiliated and so alike in doctrine and polity as
our Northern and Southern Presbyterian are not
ready to unite, it seems chimerical to dream of
the wider union. Bearing this in mind, it may
interest many of your readers to have a few paragraphs
on some prominent features of church
work in the Northern branch which have not become
prominent, as yet, in the Southern. Among
these we may mention the experiment of a Department
of Church and Labor in our Board of
Home Missions. This was inaugurated several
years ago and placed in charge of the Rev.
Charles Stetzle, a man of great gifts, a versatile
genius, able to control and sway the most turbulent
and discordant elements at will when he
nrnoirlno r\xrr\r* fUom ir* n ...L - i.
l?v.oiuk,o ui\.i 111LU1 ill a lUCCllllg. eJ U?>L WIlUl WHS
to be accomplished by this department of
Church and Labor was never clearly defined.
Any implication the Church was ever
opposed to labor is unjust. Equally unjust
would it be to assume that the Church is
an organization designed for capitalists.
It has always held that there is
no distinction to be made in its ministrations to
rich or poor, to labor or capital. Since we have
in the Northern Church a department in our
Home Missions called Church and Labor, one
might ask, why not have a department of Church
and Capital. Workingmen in general may have
much to say against the use and have but little
use for it, but so it is with the theatrical profession,
and why not have a department of
Church and Actors. "With such a fundamental
error in its original conception it is not strange
that the embodiment of the idea in the Labor
Temple seems to have failed. This concrete embodiment
of the Church's work has been sustained
for about two years at a cost of nearly $30,000
ner nnnnm hpsidp? the frno ns? <->f a nlont
worth about $200,000, and has been under the
direct supervision of Mr. Stetzle himself. The
results have not led to the trial of any similar
experiment in any other Northern city, nor in
the South. It has been carried on with many
weekly meetings, Sunday moving-picture shows
and musical and dramatic recitals. Of the weekday
meetings, many have been of a social nature,
some given to public discussions of almost every
topio, social and religious. At many of the
#
U T H (155) 11
meetings, presumably to win the favor of thoe*
wbo are in avowed hatred to Christianity and
evangelical religion, there has been not even a
public prayer. The nearest approach to a profession
of faith as the result of attendance has
been a sort of vague, indefinite fellowship or
brotherhood pledge. No attempt has been made
to form a church. The end sought seems to have
been ethical, or sociological.
Well, after two years of this costly experiment,
some of our prominent and influential men have
come to the conclusion that results do not justify
the continuation of the great outlay. Or, to put
the matter in another form, the experiment has
proven a failure. A successor to Mr. Stetzle has
been appointed and it is said, and generally belieVfd
thnt nnmnrniiD ntion?n. ? ? 1
, ...MV viiuu^ua die 11111111116111.
Moving picture shows on Sunday and other
things are to lose their prominence. More attention
is to be given to the preaching of the
Gospel, and the organization of a church is to
be aimed at. But, what of all this in connection
with the underlying principle of the Department
of Church and Labor. While Mr. Stetzle withdraws
from the superintendency of the Labor
Temple, he will continue at the head of this
department. But there seems to be no other
logical conclusion than this: Having failed in
the concrete, the whole plan of winning Labor
for the Church in this fashion must be abandoned.
One experiment may not be sufficient to
cause the abandonment of the idea, but is any
other experiment likely and, "What can the
man do that cometh after the king?"
Another matter of interest to Presbyterians
in both North and South has recently been
l - -
urougnt 10 lignt in an article published in The
Presbyterian, in which it appears that some
Ruthenians, claiming to be Presbyterians, and
supported by the Home Board of Missions, are
indulging in a form of worship largely antiProtestant
and Papal. Besides lighted candles
and vestments of a Greek Catholic priest, and
processions, there had been prominent use of the
altar and the analogion, the kissing of the cruci
fix, the crossing of themselves by the worshippers
fifty or a hundred times during the service,
bowing the head to the floor and even kissing it
and use of holy water in sprinkling the altar and
even prayers to the Saints and the Virgin. The
article as published, was sent to the Board of
Home Missions for a reply before its publication,
and both Dr. Charles L. Thompson, the Secretary,
and Mr. Shriever, the Superintendent of
the Department of Immigration, made reply, but
no answer, i. e., not a single allegation or detail
of the Papal character of worship was denied or
challenged.
Through the Southern Church there has long
been an idea that in the North we have outstripped
our brethren of the South in tolerating, if
not welcoming the doctrines of the Higher Critics
and for this reason, if for no other, it would be
useless to talk of organic union. May it not be
that in matters of worship we are also ready to
take a big step forward? If so, there are some
who would anxiously ask: Will our brethren of
the South follow!
And so we look forward to the next meeting
of ou- General Assembly and the report to be
presented by a special committee on the relation
of Union Theological Seminary, of New York
City, an institution which one has aptly termed
a "heretic Hatchery," to the Assembly. Is there
any good to come of it! Well, we must wait and
see?confident of this one thing, the remnant
"shall know whose word shall stand, mine, or
theirs."
If we are going to let our lights shine simply
to illumine our own faces we might as well let
them go out.?A. J. Jordan.