Page 6, 10th July 1936

10th July 1936
Page 6
Page 6, 10th July 1936 — LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Related articles


Page 6 from 17th July 1936

Catholic Or Nationalist?

Page 8 from 1st November 1935

Letters To The Editor Our Correspondents Are Urged To Limit

Page 8 from 18th October 1935

Letters To The

Page 6 from 2nd October 1936

The Pope And League Of Nations

Page 7 from 26th June 1936


THE POPE AND THE LEAGUE answer to Mr. Gerald Wynne Rushton's letter about the attitude of the Vatican to the League of Nations. I feel I can begin by referring to the clear views of the Osservatore Romano which were quoted in your issue of June 26 In my original letter from Rome of course I did not mean to imply that the Pope disapproved of the idea of a true League of Nations based on the Catholic conception of justice and charity. I only meant that Vatican circles do not appear to consider the League as it is constituted at present, as adequate either in principle or in practice. Perhaps the confusion comes from confounding these two ideas—the League as it is, and the League as it ought to be. So far as I know no accredited Vatican spokesman has ever accepted uncritically the League as it is.

This last statement of mine would seem obvious, I think, both in Vatican circles and amongst the largest number of con tinental Catholics. Rightly or wrongly perhaps, the majority of European Catholics view the League as one-sided and sectarian. But this did not prevent the hope that Catholics by working in with the League would be able to achieve some good work in the more successful side of League activities, e.g., the suppression of drug smuggling, or international prostitution. Also, it has always been felt that the presence of Catholics at Geneva would enable the Catholic outlook to obtain a hearing, even if the League, as a body, did not accept that outlook. 4, On the other hand, whether we think it a good thing or a bad thing, I can't see how it can be denied that the attitude of the Vatican has changed since Russia entered the League. I don't think anybody in Rome would deny that the Pope sees Bol shevism as the first world danger. His last speech, at the opening of the Press Exhibition, confirms what is public knowledge. Most of what I said on these points was not influenced by personal opinion, but was information gathered in Rome, largely from sources that cannot be questioned.

This lack of sympathy with the League of Nations which is perfectly obvious in Vatican circles is not, I think, due to a pro-Italian sympathy so much as to a suspicion of the whole basis of the League as it is constituted at present. This criticism, as I said, is not purely Italian or German, but is widespread amongst Catholics everywhere. For instance, at the Catholic university of Fribourg, in Switzerland, which is only about fifty miles from Geneva, I know npbody who does not think — and take it as obvious—that the League is working on entirely the wrong lines at present, and is perhaps as much a danger as a help. I think there that the majority of people feel that it might be better to start out afresh, rather than continus working along lines both false in principle and ineffectual in practise. By supporting the • ---Letague as it is, one may be diminishing the slender chances of making a League more in conformity with the principles of Justice and Charity. But this is a controversial point.

I have not read the article in the Month to which Mr. Rushton refers, but I would be more than surprised if the Osservatore commended the League uncritically in its historical form. Perhaps somebody could refer to the Osservatore article in question. But for good or ill, the attitude to the League taken by many Catholics in this country, and especially by two periodicals the Month and the Christian Democrat is in disagreement (or was) with the view of perhaps the majority of Catholics on the continent, and of the Osservatore Romano. This may be a good thing, and anyway, in dubiis libertas . . . One of the main reasons for my original letter from Rome was that I saw a danger that the highly independent and controversial views expressed in the Month and the Christian Democrat should be taken as official in a question on which we all have our differing opinions. The views of these two papers (which I mention as instances) ought to be seen as the very individualist views of thoughtful critics of the European scene. I do not think the Vatican view is in the least coercive, but is an important piece of evidence in helping us to make up our minds, BERNARD WALL. 47 Palace Court, London, W.2.

CATHOLIC ACTION AND INDUSTRIALISM StR,—Mr. Eric Gill's letter on private property is interesting, but it is a pity he is so obsessed with the idea that the tending and manipulation of machinery involves no intellectual or personal responsibility.

Modern machinery is exceedingly complicated, and the men in charge of it must have brains and use them. For example, it is ridiculous, not to say contemptible, to describe a railway engine-driver, or a motor mechanic, as " intellectually irrespon sible." Indeed, on a railway it is the engine-drivers — " sub-human machineminders," as Mr. Gill would call them— who are daily responsible for the safety of hundreds of human lives, and whose job is extremely interesting and personal, demanding great intellect and skill. In such cases, no amount of repetition will make the charge of "intellectual irresponsibility" anything else but absurd.

It is quite true, of course, that a number of jobs in modern factories are intellectually irresponsible, but here Mr. Gill ignores two vital facts: (1) There are and, I fear, always will be, a certain number of people in the world who are by nature incapable of doing any highly skilled work. It is therefore good and necessary to have some simple, unintellectual tasks available for these people.

2. Irresponsibility is by no means peculiar to machine workers. The plumber who forgets his tools, and such-like individuals, cannot blame the machine for their irresponsibility.

More important still, Mr. Gill's statement that " only when there is full control of the means of production can there be proper and suitable manipulation" surely implies that it is essentially unjust to employ a man for a wage; for.the wageearner does not usually own his materials —they are his employer's. This implied idea of Mr. Gill's is explicitly condemned in Part II of Quadragesimo anno.

Finally, in all his writings Mr. Gill seems to regard manual labour as the one and only honourable form of work; and his whole outlook is obscured by this unbalanced and irrational prejudice.

NOEL T. PURGOLD, B.A. The University, Liverpool.

QUEEN VICTORIA AND THE CARTHUSIANS An Answer from Father Gurdon SIR,—A cutting from a recent number of Catholic Herald (June 5) has just fallen into my hands. Under the head-line " Queen Victoria and the Carthusians," I read the following: " The story related last week about Father Gurdon and Queen Victoria should be supplemented. The monks had prepared a festa ' the contents of which, had been obtained from Paris, for their gracious guest. The Queen, however, declined everything, drawing out of her pocket instead a parcel full of sausages and boiled eggs."

Please allow Father Gurdon to state that this is quite inaccurate, the truth being that the royal party had lunched on their way, before reaching the monastery, and the monks had been informed they would do so. We nevertheless prepared tea and some refreshments—not brought from Paris—in the ladies' guest-house, and after the visit of the monastery, the Queen, Princess Beatrix, Prince Battenberg and the lady-in-waiting were conducted there and did honour to our hospitality, though sparingly on account of their recent lunch.

Needless to say that Her Majesty did not draw out of her pocket " a parcel full of sausages and boiled eggs," or anything of the sort. Is it likely that Queen Victoria, who was at least a well-bred lady, should have behaved with such gross, ill-mannered discourtesy?

EDMUND GURDON. Ord. Carthus. Certosa Di Pavia, Italy.

July 2, 1936.


SIR,—Mr. Morley, as he then was, in the " English Men of Letters," Burke, p. 12, wrote: " Mrs. Burke, like her father, was, up to the time of her marriage, a Catholic . . . She afterwards conformed to the religion of her husband."

Was she? Did she?

I happen to hear this week, from one of Burke's Nagle relatives—his mother, a Nagle — that, in the family the constant tradition is, that Burke's wife, daughter of Dr. Nugent (a member of Johnson's "The Club "), was brought up in the religion of her mother, Presbyterian; the father, Dr. Nugent, being Catholic; but, in mixed marriages, then, sons to father's religion, daughters to mother's. As in the case of Edmund Burke himself. He and his brothers were brought up in the religion of their Protestant father; his only sister (Mrs. French) in the religion of her Catholic mother.

But does any one know of evidence supporting Lord Morley in saying that Edmund Burke's wife changed religion? The saying has often been copied.

W. F. P. STOCKLEY. Dun Mahon, Cork.

July 1, 1936.

CHALLENGE TO PROFESSOR STOCKLEY SIR,—May I intervene to reply to Mr. H. P. Allen's query that : " If A.B.C. is shot dead by order of the Irish Republican Army, is it murder or is it not?" My answer is that such killing is murder.

What is the attitude of the R.C. Church, from the doctrinal point of view, with regard to the taking of human life in an endeavour to overthrow an existing form of government and set up another in its place? The Church says that any such taking of human life or any attempt to overthrow an existing order of government can be justified only if the form of government which it is sought to overthrow is unjust and tyrannical and that the attempt to overthrow it has at least a reasonable prospect of success. Otherwise the taking of human life in a political cause is murder in the sight of God, as well as in the eyes of the civil law. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as I, an Irish Catholic have always understood it to be.

Both of the above-mentioned essentials were, in my judgment, entirely absent when the I.R.A. launched its " War " against Great Britain in 1916. British administration then was neither unjust nor despotic, and the attempt to establish a Republic by force of arms was bound to fail, as it did fail.

As regards murder generally, may I quote from a prominent Catholic ecclesiastical paper : " Murder of every form, personal and collective, is based upon fear: it is cruel, inhuman, barbarous and unjust, and is no solution whatever for any human problem.

" Murder merely perpetuates hate and crime; it is no heroism, it is cowardice and is the doctrine of defeatism. Murder always defeats itself."

J. T. P. July 6.

ENCOURAGEMENT FROM INDIA SIR,—I am most grateful for your kindness in offering to send me gratis your most interesting and informative weekly.

I feel sure that if you continue to live up to the ideals shown in your present numbers, success and wide appreciation is bound to follow.


Archbishop of Madras, NAZI AND ORANGE PROPAGANDA SIR,—For cool assertion of things palpably defiant of facts it would be hard to choose between Berlin and Belfast, or their respective spokesmen. The News in Brief of first February issue, 1936, published in English by the Deutscher Akademischer Austanschdienst E.V. (Berlin) recounts a lengthy interview given by Herr Kerrl, the Reich Minister for Church affairs, to the editor of the Niedersachsische Tageszeitung, in which he thus delivered himself : " The National Socialist State stands for a quickening of religious life, because it has built up the state on the basis of religion. A National Socialist must be religious, he must show reverence for the religious conviction of others, but the form of his religious life he is left to choose for himself. Everyone may be saved after his own fashion.' All assertions that freedom of religion have been interfered with in any form are sheer invention. Since the advent of the new regime nothing of the kind has happened anywhere or at any time. The 'Deutsche Glaubensbewegung' (German Faith Movement) is neither an atheist movement, nor has it anything to do with the Party.

" The state stands aloof from such matters, although it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order and is therefore obliged to take a stand against religious assemblies of a public character outside the church. Religion is, according to our view, not a political commodity but a matter that must be left to the appropriate religious bodies."

The famous ".purge " or " clean-up " is, we presume, an anti-Nordic invention.

By his own confession, then, religious gatherings are confined to the inside of church buildings. Of course no police spies ever intrude there, oh no! All assertions to the contrary are, of course, inventions. Let us open our mouths and shut our eyes.

The minister then proceeded to enlighten us on the nature of Christianity, which he identified to his own entire satisfaction with social service and patriotism.

" The conflict between the religious confessions is of a purely negative character; positive Christianity,' on the contrary, consists in striving to realise in practice the aims and principles of the Founder of the Christian Church so as to serve Jesus by acting in a true Christian spirit. There ought to be less debating concerning dogmas; instead stress should be laid on serving our fellow-men and nation in this Christian spirit. This is really positive ' Christianity. Tendencies toward atheism are strongly opposed by the National Socialist state because it considers that they endanger order and culture. Hence its fight against Bolshevism, hence its protection of the churches; hence also its demand that the churches shall recognise the state and identify themselves with the state of their own free choice."

This last sentence has a certain charm, like Henry Vial's gracious permission to cathedral chapters to choose, with all convenient speed, the royal nominee, and none other! Freedom slowly broadening down once more. I remember a character in some Irish satire who explained that under freedom " everyone will do as he pleases, and those that don't will be made to."

" Minister Kerrl then continued to explain his attitude toward the different confessions in .the following words: ' There exists absolute freedom of religion. The churches of both confessions enjoy in every respect the assistance and support of the state; it demands, however, that they confine their activi ties to spheres of religion. The state can under no circumstances condone occasional, more or less disguised, attempts at exercising political influence which can only tend to undermine national solidarity and discipline.'" Exactly. Religion is not persecuted by name, but its outward manifestations are declared to be treasonous gatherings, which the harassed state is reluctantly obliged to squelch. Quite Neronian! Quite Cecilian—or Craigavonian! But surely, if ever we denounce Hitler or Calks, we ought in common fairness and sincerity to add the names of kindred spirits in Belfast, shielded and subsidised by denouncers of Italy.

(Rev.) H. E. G. ROPE.

" HENRY VIII " IN THE OPEN SIR, — Your dramatic ethic, writing on the production of Henry VIII, says that " the Open Air Theatre is not suited to serious drama." I disagree. The absence of the customary theatrical aids of drop curtain, dresses, furnishings, etc., tend to make the play itself the thing of moment.

To particularise : Whilst not, I hope, being unduly swayed by the finely sensitive rendering of Buckingham by Gyles Isham, I think the natural open air setting for the execution scene eminently suitable.

Again, the following lines of the fallen Wolsey had an added relevance and point played out against the gradual darkening of the skies: " . . . I shall fall

Like a bright exhalation in the evening, And no man see me more."

No Mr. a Beckett, not even with the still vivid memory of Tyron Guthrie's production of the play at Sadler's Wells during the 1933-34 season, with Laughton, Flora Robson; Robert Farquharson and Ursula Jeans in the cast, can I agree that " the Open Air Theatre is not suited to serious drama."

Rowarr AUBREY NOALESt AN APPEAL FOR FILMS SIR, — I am permitted by the Superior Council of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to appeal on behalf of the Catholic deaf and dumb whose care is one of the many works of the Society. Strange as it may seem, the primary appeal is not for money. However, I shall not be offended if some charitable souls use that medium as an expression of their practical sympathy. There must be many readers who are amateur cinematographers, and who have an accumulation of 16 mm. films of general interest—mainly travel films—to whom I would appeal for the donation of films of which they have grown tired of seeing, but which to a stranger are fresh and novel. Various centres in England have clubs for deaf and dumb, controlled by the Society, where films of sermons, etc., in the sign language are shown. By introducing films of a less serious nature it would be possible to provide an occasional entertainment for those who, by the very nature of their affliction, are debarred from most forms of amusement common to the normal person.

Before the coming of the now universal " talkies " a deaf person could enjoy a more or less harmless -and instructive form of entertainment. Now that form of entertainment is taken from them. If sufficient films are forthcoming, it would be possible to form a library from which films could be drawn to provide frequent happy social evenings of spiritual and temporal interest. Obviously the greater the reserve the less chance of losing the interest by repetition of those we seek to entertain.

Please send 16 mm. films to me at 139, Rickmansworth Road, Watford, Herts. Money can be sent to the Secretary, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 66, Victoria Street, London, S.W.1. Any gift will be gratefully acknowledged.


BISHOP CHALLONER SIR,—At long last, I am glad to think that a movement may be started to give the great and venerable Bishop Challoner a worthy resting place. At present his remains lie in the Protestant Churchyard at Milton, Berkshire. Bishop Milner's sermon at Winchester on the Sunday after the bishop's death said : " When on every occasion I represent Bishop Challoner as a Saint, I say no more of him now, after his death, than all who knew him have said of him during his life."

The bodies of Cardinals Wiseman and Manning have been removed from Kensal Green Cemetery to the crypt in Westminster Cathedral. Why should not the body of Bishop Challoner be removed to the crypt in Westminster Cathedral? In the new Metropolitan Cathedral of Liverpool the body of Archbishop Whiteside, whose tomb is now in Ford Cemetery, is to be removed and reinterred in the crypt of the cathedral on September 13, Surely the body of so great a confessor of the faith as Bishop Challoner should find a last resting place in Westminster Cathedral.


Kirkdale, Liverpool.


Milan From Rev. Alberto Castelli, D.D., Lecturer in English in Sacred Heart University,

SIR,—I should like again to draw the attention of the readers of the letter published in your paper on May 29th., under the title: " Is Italy a Catholic Nation?". Prof. Crespi does not seem to have sufficiently considered a few facts, and some aspects of Italian life he seems to have, most unfortunately, completely forgotten.

I agree with Prof. Crespi in his defini tion of a Catholic Nation. In spite of what he says on " any state or nation being legitimately called Catholic," the points of his argument show that he is ready to apply this adjective to a people when the manifestations of its life are in harmony with Catholic principles. Consequently, he does not allow Italy to be called Catholic because the literary, philosophical and political manifestations of the Italian people during the last hundred years are anything but Catholic.

In the first place I do not think that Prof. Crespi gives, in his letter, a right picture of Italian thought in those three fields; secondly, literature, philosophy and politics do not constitute the whole life of a people, nor are they its most important parts.

As for the Italian writers of the last century, suffice it to say that Manzoni's Novel is considered, in Italy, as belonging to the same class of high literature as Dante's Divina Commedia. Therefore it is untrue to say that Manzoni is " quite obscured by the eminence of " those pagan poets whom Professor Crespi mentions. " I Promessi Sposi," the highest literary achievement of modern Italy, bears a Catholic mark.

The influence of Croce, Gentile and their Idealism, as, before them, that of Positivism, cannot be denied in the present Italy, or, better, in the Italy of some years ago. But the support that all the Italians give to the Catholic Univessity of the Sacred Heart shows to anybody who is " in touch with the best and the worst aspects of Italian religious life," that those philosophical systems are not the philosophy of the Italian people, which considers them as importations from foreign sources, and not compatible with Catholic ideas.

The whole attitude of Fascism towards the Catholic Church makes one wonder, when reading the last point of Prof. Crespi's letter.

Those who have read the Lateran /Treaty and who have followed its devel opment must grant that the present government has understood that the religious soul of Italy is Catholic, and that it legislates accordingly. So much for those aspects of Italian life which Prof. Crespi takes into consideration. But there are many other manifestations in the Italy of the last hundred years, which, far better than literature, philosophy and politics, show the vitality of the Catholic Church in this country.

For instance, sanctity, which shines in so many Italian Saints, and the charitable works which had in Italy their beginnings and which Italian people support with love and generosity. Let me mention Don Bosco and his Salesian Society, St. Joseph Cottolengo with his Little House of Divine Providence; and let me put here the names of two holy priests whose spiritual sons played an important part in the marvellous Catholic Renaissance of the England of the 19th century : Antonio Rosmini and Vincenzo Pallotti.

Another proof of the Catholic spirit which permeates Italy is to be found in the organisation of Catholic Action. In its Italian form it is a model to all other nations. It trains, in Italy, souls of the spiritual beauty of P. G. Frassati and Vico Necchi, to mention only two figures which have been recently made known in England.

ALBERTO CASTELLI. Milan, June 24th, 1936.

CATHOLIC ACTION SIR,—May I put in a small protest against Father Quipn's letter concerning the J.O.C.? I feel it is so unwarrantably isolationist to talk about " this continental movement " and " importation " when referring to what the Pope calls " the ideal form of Catholic action," and when this form, the J.O.C., already extends miles beyond the confines of Europe.

Moreover, the Pope has expressed his desire that the J.O.C. should spread to all countries, and surely to ignore yet another of his wishes because, in England, we have the C.W.L. and the K.S.C. would be rather short-sighted? The overwhelmingly quick and excellent growth of the J.O.C. since its birth about ten years ago (it now has over 100,000 members) shows that it has an elan which most organisations of Catholic Action lack.

To call the movement un-English is merely to say that we in England have not yet started it. It is adaptable to every country as palpably as the Church herself, and it seems very obvious that if English workers are organising a movement, that movement has to be English whether it was originated by a Belgian priest or not. I should like Father Quinn to state his difficulties about an English J.A.C., J.E.C., etc., more in detail. Many people in England seem to have overlooked such difficulties.


THE LITURGY AND THE PEOPLE SIR,—This age will be marked by the restored love of the Liturgy by the Catholic people. Yet, as you remark, in your stimulating article of last week's issue, the response to the Church's wishes has been very slow.

Our people must be brought to realise, by constant instruction, that however good other forms of prayer may be in themselves, they can never attain the sublimity of Liturgical prayer.

It is not that the laity have a natural dislike of an active participation in the Liturgy but that they are ignorant of the incomparable treasures which ore their rightful possession. Again many have no knowledge of the Church's mind in this matter.

SIDNEY G. REEMAN. Campion House, Osterley, Middlesex.

PILGRIMAGES AND LUXURY SIR,—I was glad when the pilgrimage to Walsingham was restored, and went there under the leadership of Cardinal Bourne two years ago, confidently expecting that a similar opportunity would be my privilege in years to come. I think there must be many beside myself who are disappointed of this hope: many, that is, who lack both the leisure to walk (or even bicycle) to Walsingham and the money to pay for—if indeed they desire—the incidental luxuries that are a sine qua non of the principal pilgrimage announced this year.

Luncheon and high tea (including tips to the waiters) in a locomotive restaurant is doubtless a bargain at seven shillings, and good luck to them that like that sort of thing and can pay for it.

For every Catholic with an income that gives him the freedom of dining cars there must be thousands for whom the bare railway fare at excursion rate entails more or less sacrifice.


TWENTY £100 POUND NOTES Why Not 100,000 £1 Notes?

SIR,—The Archbishop of Westminster has received one magnificent donation— more power to the generous donors—but why should not we Catholics of Westminster give him 100,000 £1 notes? We COULD do it.

There must be 100,000 households which could afford to save 6d. a week. If we did this, we could send to His Grace at the end of the year during which his appeal is to run £1 5s. each, and be able to say, firstly, that we had helped to save the Faith for some little one who is in danger; and secondly, that we had personally helped His Grace, who is doing so much to help us.

My suggestion is that each household should buy a 6d. Savings Stamp a week, stick it in a book provided by the Post Office, and then send the book as it becomes full (or even not qnite full) to the Archbishop.

ETHYL M. JOLLEY., 33, Norfolk Street, Strand, W.C.2, THE TEACHING OF BIOLOGY IN SCHOOLS The Advice of Father Bede Jarrett SIR,—May I be allowed to express t gratitude to your correspondents who ha noticed a recent letter of mine whi offered evidence of the desirability of ; curing for our children the Catholic a proach to the study of Biology, i.e., t scientific study of life in all its relat forms?

In that letter I should perhaps have ma it clearer that I used the word Biology the sense just indicated : certainly not a synonym for sex. Biology, as I uncle stand it, includes or enters into Nate Study, Botany, Zoology, Physiology, Ge graphy, etc., scientifically considered, a is no more exclusively or even mainly cc cerned with the processes of sex than matt matics with the process of multiplicatic Instruction in " the facts of life," as t Reverend Stephen Rigby reminds us, properly to be given by parents, in accor ance with the teaching of the Church; ai happy is the child who receives it, normal and wisely, from parents such as Fath Bede Jarrett describes in his C.T.S. pat phlet, The Catholic Mother.

But all parents are not like that: mal to-day find themselves insufficieni equipped to undertake this great duty.

Moreover children are sent to sellers even to boarding school, at a progressive early age. It is therefore almost inev able that a share at least of this duty mt fall to " teachers," that is to say to thc who have the charge and training of chil ren for three quarters of each year of the long school life. Teachers, then, as w. as parents must heed Father Bede Ja rett's warning. This knowledge (of t facts of life) must not be given in a cla " for children cannot be graded in tt knowledge as they can in other knowledi This must be given individually by sonone who knows intimately the particul child's mind . . "

Why then should we seek to add Biolo to our already overcrowded school ct riculum? Miss Susan Cunnington su ports my contention: because biologic phenomena as such are being constant forced upon the attention of our childr from non-Catholic sources. If they—t parents and teachers of the future—cann escape the consideration of life under ti aspect, surely it should be well that th should learn Biology from Catholi( themselves scientifically instructed al prayerfully aware.

ELIZABETH RENDALL. Rye St. Antony, Oxford.

SIR,—I feel that my close friend Fath Rigby in wishing to stress the truths th Catholics have an infallible guide in clue tions of moral teaching, and that it is t duty of the parents to instruct the chi in the mysteries of its origin may seem overlook other aspects of the matter. Mc parents neglect their duty in this as in many other matters, and the few who t their hand it it often fail to do it wt through inexperience, lack of understan ing of their children, or more general through embarassment. In any case t.1 ordinary school course in Biology cor pletely ignores the question of hum reproduction.

The primary reason why Biology shou be taught in schools is for its own sak just as History or Chemistry, that is, something interesting to the pupil, curie ing his mind, and in certain cases prepa ing him for his career in life. For Cath, tics there are additional reasons. Throui the medium of popular books, wirele talks, and films, Biology is being broug inescapably before the public. Much it is sound, but, as is always the case, good deal is no more true science tin the hasty materialism of the last centur Only by the sound teaching of true bit logical science can we train catholics distinguish true from false. In my vie the biggest danger of the future is pr cisely here. We must arm against th danger with accurate knowledge of ti subject, and by taking our part in ti active prosecution of research, not by rut ning away.

Notwithstanding the developments c modern physical science there is still a goc deal of antiquated materialism abou Biology provides an excellent antidote fe this. The study of living things brings horr clearly how real is the problem of ti origin of life, how far from a solution the question of evolution, and how real thing is design in nature. The surest at swer to false theories is in the study c living fact.

My experience has been that boys neve connect sex in plants and animals wit human life. They talk about it in a mo matter-of-fact way and with no suggestio of embarrassment. Only to-day when ci on a tree-naming walk we came across toad, whereupon I was asked quite natal ally, " Do toads bring forth their youn alive, or do they have eggs?"

In conclusion, if it be not an impertir ence from one who only teaches a ver little Biology and is really only a chemis might I draw attention of those intereste in the topic to Father Waddington's recer excellent book Principles of Biolor which provides a sound text book fno: attractively written.

THOMAS SHERLOCK. St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, Ware.. July 4th, 1936.

RUSSIA'S CONSTITUTION SIR,—There is bound to be a swing o the pendulum in Russia. Is it wise, there fore, to condemn in advance the new drat convention, which promises religions free dom? May we not see in it an indioatioi that the red lamp of the sanctuary, extin guished by the red flag of Communism, i going to be rekindled?


A number of letters on Catholic Action and Industrialism and on other sub jects are unavoidably held over,

blog comments powered by Disqus