Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.