Newspaper Page Text
16
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
NO RELIGIOUS PROSCRIPTION IN A DEMOCRACY
Under the above heading October 1 Oth, The At
lanta Journal carried a remarkable plea for fairness
to Catholics in Georgia. The author, Rev. Dr. C. B.
Wilmer, is rector , of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in
Atlanta, and has shown himself to be a broad-gauged
American who stands for fair play. The editor be
lieves he deserves the thanks of every Catholic in the
country, for in these days of antagonism to Catholics
in the South; in these days when every blatant poli
tician with more mouth than brains seeks to climb
into office by Catholic baiting, while the professional
newspaper bigots endeavor to stir up hatred for us,
it takes a man of real courage to raise his voice in
defense of the hated few.
Dr. Wilmer’s article, after reciting the principles
of religious freedom that should obtain in Georgia,
passes from generalities to the concrete case. He
says:
“Georgia is predominatingly Protestant. It has a
right so to be. But, unfortunately, there is a spirit
abroad that would proscribe our Roman Catholic
friends. It is a spirit that practically denies to them
the religious liberty on which this country is founded
and which we claim for ourselves. And I feel that
some one not a Roman Catholic should say a word
or two in their behalf.
“The first word is the obvious one that a citizen
of the United States and of Georgia has just the same
right to be a Roman Catholic that any other citizen
has to be a Baptist or anything else. And the second
word is this, the Roman Catholic Church stands for
certain elements that we can ill afford to lose in this
great Republic, and especially at this hour, when all
institutions founded on God and law and order are
threatened. Just the other day a mob was dispersed
in a Western city by the simple word of a Roman
Catholic priest. That word was ‘Sanctuary.’ A
volume might be written on that word. Let the reader
look it up in an encyclopaedia. It means some place
of refuge. It existed in the old Jewish law, and even
among heathen nations. It played a great part in
medieval history. Historians tell us the right of
asylum was abused. No doubt it was. Most good
things are. But is it necessary to destroy things in
order to prevent their abuse? Suppose that today
a hunted suspect, who might be guilty or innocent,
no one knows, could flee into a neighboring church
building, and there be safe until the law could come
to his rescue and examine into the merits of the sus
picions directed against him. With what a trumpet
tongue of eloquence they would speak of the influ
ence in our State of the Church of the living God;
of the respect on the part of the p.eople for that
word of God which forbids mobs and revenge! I do
not know a more pathetic word that has been spoken
in these days than that by Chesterton, to-wit, that
‘there is no sanctuary’; there is no place and no
truth that is held sacred and secure from sacrilege
by all! You may say, my ultra Protestant friend,
that you do not believe in sacred places and that
any such belief is superstition. You may ^consider
yourself emancipated. All right. I will not argue
the question with you. I will only ask you one ques
tion: Do you believe in those sacred truths for which
the sacred place is witness? Do you believe in this
truth taught by our Lord Jesus Christ, viz.: Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Do you
believe in St. Paul’s exposition of that text, that
‘The powers that be are ordained of God;’ and that
‘whoso resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of
God?’ Do you believe that when a mob by violence
takes a prisoner away from a sheriff (who is, in St|
Paul’s teaching, ‘the minister of God’), and murders
him, they are calling down on themselves the judg
ment of God? If that is a sacred truth, on which the
very security of our lives and liberties depend, would
it be such a bad idea 4fe have a place to bear witness
to that truth, at any rate for the sake of such imma
ture minds as are not capable of the lofty idealism
which may dispense with such aids?
“In this connection, it is interesting to read what
was said nearly one hundred years ago by that bril
liant student of American democracy, deTocqueville,
about the Roman Catholic Church. He thinks that
the (Roman) Catholic religion has been erroneously
looked upon as the natural enemy of democracy. On
the contrary, he believes that Roman Catholicism, by
virtue of its leveling all distinctions at the foot of the
altar, makes for the democratic doctrine of equality;
while Protestantism makes rather for that other dem
ocratic doctrine of independence. I am disposed to
think there is, at least, a measure of truth in this
observation.
But of one thing I feel profoundly convinced:
while the Roman Catholic Church does not, accord
ing to my understanding of her teaching, put that
same degree of emphasis upon human liberty and
upon individuality that Protestantism does and with
which I find myself in agreement, the Roman Cath
olic Church does something else which is sadly needed
to correct an over-emphasis upon liberty; and that
is, she teaches the necessity of obedience. I, there
fore, welcome her as an ally in the effort to estab
lish a self-governing and God-fearing republic in
America; and I feel perfectly sure that if it ever
comes to a showdown between the forces of right
eousness, law and order, on one side, and the hell-
spawned forces of anarchy on the other, that our
Roman Catholic friends will be found fighting side by
side with all lovers of God and humanity. I, therefore,
deplore all misrepresentations of them, all abuse of
them, all denial of their political rights. That there
is anything inconsistent between the allegiance of Ro
man Catholics in this country to the Pope across the
seas and loyalty to American government is indig
nantly denied by men whose characters we are bound
to respect.
“Moreover, they point to the declaration of Pope
Leo XIII: ‘God has divided the charge of the human.