Consolation, October 10, 1945

Download: PDF — Consolation, October 10, 1945

Contents

Why the Hierarchy Fights Free Worship in "Latin America

Latin America a Missionary Field?

“Good Neighbor” Policy Jeopardized?

Tuning the Tables

Missionary Theories Backfire

Grasping for Another Continent

Clerical Agitators of Ill Will

Hierarchy’s Real Reasons for Fighting

Free Worship

Thoughts on Religion’s Hell

'An Easy Way to Get Sick

“Thy Word Is Truth”

Beginnings of Bad Conscience

Gilead’s First Postwar Class Registers

Selecting, Growing, and Selling Plants

Coming Down from Minnesota

Ideas in Education

Wandered Because Starved

Plowed Up $7,500 in Gold

Tomatoes as a Health Food

The Castle-Holders of Boston

Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley

Bloody Mary Ascends the Throne

Hugh Latimer to the Stake

Catholic Encyclopedia Silent

Garbage Disposal at Fontana

A&P’s Control of the Eats

Published every other Wednesday by WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC, 117 Adams St., Brooklyn 1, N. Y., U.S.A.

OFFICERS

President * N. H. Knorr

Secretary W. E. Van Amburgh

Editor Clayton J. Woodworth

Five Cents a Copy

11 a year in the United States

11.25 to Canada and all other countries

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS

Remittances: For your own safety, remit by postal or express money order. When coin or currency is lost in the ordinary mails, there is no redress. Remittances from countries other than those named below may be made to, the Brooklyn office, but only by International postal money order. .

Receipt of a new or renewal subscription will be acknowledged only when requested. Notice of Expiration is sent with the journal one month before subscription expires. Please renew promptly to avoid loss of copies. Send change of address direct to us rather than to the post office.- Your request should reach us at least two weeks before the date of issue wfth which it Is to take effect. Send your old as well as the new address. Copies will not be forwarded by the post office to your new address unless extra postage is provided by you.

Published also in Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, and Ukrainian.

OFFICES FOR OTHER COUNTRIES

Argentina Calle Honduras 5646-48. Buenos Aires Australia 2 Homehush Rd., Strathfield, N. S. W. Brazil Rua Licinio Cardoso 230, Rio de Janeiro Canada 40 Irwin Ave., Toronto 5, Ontario, Canada England 34 Craven Terrace, London, W. 2

Mexico Calzada Melchor Ocampo 71, Mexico, D..F. South Africa 623 Boston House, Cape Town

Sintered as second-class matter at Brooklyn, N. Y., under the Act of March 3. 1879.

In Brief .

Another Tragic Case >'

♦ One more sad tale. Philip Suetter, gold-mining operator, Yfeka, Calif,, sold a 49-percent interest in five minirig properties to the “Most Reverend” Francis J. Beckman, Roman Catholic archbishop of Dubuque, Iowa, for 200 $1,000 notes on the archdiocese. The archbishop at length thought he smelled a rat and wanted to back out. He offered $20,000 to get his notes back, Suetter to take back the stock, and he actually paid half of that sum. When Suetter demanded the other $10,000, and threatened suit, the clergy straightway made it hot for him. Among the number were the “Most Reverend” Paul.P. Rhode, Catholic bishop of Green Bay, Wis. (interested to the extent of $30,000), and the “Reverend Father” Stephen A. Bubacz, Chicago Catholic priest. Suetter was arrested, charged with using the mails fraudulently. The next time he takes any Roman Catholic bishops into any-of his business enterprises he will be a lot older than he is now at 58. '

■ i

“Destroyed for Lack of Knowledge”

♦ I enjoy reading Consolation and only wish millions of people of the world could be able to throw off the ignorance in which they are living. It is pitiful and tragic that much of ^he world’s misery and trouble is caused by its ignorance and paganism. We see much of it here in the Latin countries. Why should the people be tolerant of what they know is wrong? Why did we not.hear anything about Hitler or Mussolini as being excommunicated, when others have been excommunicated for offenses not nearly so great? And why should a Protestant country like the United States be called upon to rule over the Catholic section of Germany, when Rome has millions stored away that was taken from the people and rightfully belongs to them and not to the Hierarchy ? —Contributed, Canal Zone.

CONSOLATION

“And in His name shall the nations hope.”—Matthew 12:21, A.5.V.

Volume XXVll Brooklyn, N.Y,, Wednesday, October 10, 1945 - Number 680

Why the Hierarchy Fights Free Worship in Latin America

< * r ET us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed.” (1 John 3:18) Up-service to a principle is cheap; actions speak more loudly. Words without backing carry the stamp of hypocrisy and brand their authors as hypocrites. Of such there is no shortage, whether in fields political or religious. For the past several years much harping has been done on the theme of freedom. Four particular freedoms, the second being freedom of worship, have been specially whooped up, and now that global war has been climactieally ended by the atomic bomb, war-weary peoples look hopefully for an era of peace and freedom. The statements and promises of their world leaders lead them to expect it. But even before the dawn of man’s new world of freedom, while it was still laboring and travailing in the birth pains of global war, disruptive forces were at work. In one breath religious freedom was eulogized and championed, and in the next it was struck a stunning blow. The attack came from a veteran fighter against freedom, and the world’s foremost saboteur of peace and unity, the cunning Roman Catholic Hierarchy. In word they love, sometimes; in application and deed they hate, always.

Here is the statement, issued by the American bishops and archbishops on ‘Victory and Peace’, in November of 1942: '

Some nations are united in waging war to bring about a slave world, a world that would deprive man of his divinely conferred dignity, reject human freedom, and permit no religious liberty. The full benefits of our free institutions and the rights of our minorities must be openly acknowledged and honestly respected.

We send our cordial greetings to our brother bishops of Latin America. We have been consoled by recent events, which give a sincere promise of a better understanding by our country of the peoples of Mexico, Central and South America.

Citizens of these countries are bound to US by the closest bonds of religion. They are not merely our neighbors; they are our brothers professing the same faith. Every effort made to rob them of their Catholic religion or to ridicule it or to offer them a substitute for it is deeply resented by the peoples of these countries and by American Catholics. These efforts prove to be a disturbing factor in our international relations. The traditions, the spirit, the background, the culture of these countries are Catholic. We express the hope that the mistakes of the past which were offensive to the dignity of our southern brothers, their culture and their religion, will not continue.

This is merely the shattering thunderclap climaxing a series of ominous Hierarchy rumblings against Protestant activity in Latin America. The explosive power of this religious blow is eloquently testified to by the fact that momentarily it almost “resurrected Protestantism from the dead”. Inter-faith eulogies and back-slapping sessions of mutual admiration were forgotten in the defensive roar that arose from Protestant circles. Many editorials appeared in their journals and papers condemning the Hierarchy’s bid for a religious monopoly in Latin America. Indignant Protestants were joined in the protest by many others, not for religious reasons, but in the interest of freedom. More than a few of these additional protesters were themselves Catholies, showing that the vicious thrust at freedom of worship was pbwered by the Catholic clergy, not the Catholic laity. But despite opposition the hierarchs have pushed doggedly on in their drive to outlaw the second of the “four freedoms” and to isolate Latin America from any freedom ideologies df man's proposed postwar world. Just how good a case do they present for this new form of isolationism?

The Hierarchy’s Case

The Roman Catholic Hierarchy claims that Latin America -is practically 100 percent Catholic. With this pure assertion as a rather shaky foundation, she advances another highly debatable step in proclaiming that this makes Latin America a solidly Christian stronghold. Hence, she argues, these nations do not constitute a field for missionary activity ; any change in their religious status could only be in the direction of de-christianization, says she. Any who teach doctrine other than that peddled by the Hierarchy are accused of alienating the loyalty of the masses from their government and paving the way for what clericals brand “Yankee imperialism”. Having thus projected the issue from the realm of religion into the national political fi^ld, she blows it up to international proportions by saying that activities in preaching the Bible “prove to be a disturbing factor in our international relations”.

It is on this excitable note that the Hierarchy agitators continually harp. The preaching of anything but Catholicism, in Latin America jeopardizes the “good neighbor” policy, is the lever against which the clericals throw their full weight and exert pressure upon the political powers. Typical is the Catholic editorial statement, “If the government of the United States wants to retain the good will and friendship of the Latin American countries, these pernicious Protestant ‘missionary’ activities must cease.” The Roman Catholic Hierarchy has made this issue one for public debate. Let us therefore weigh her claims in the balances and see whether they are found wanting.

Latin America Catholic?

Is the Hierarchy claim that Latin America is practically 100 percent Catholic true? In Latin-American countries very large proportions of the student personnel and of the educated classes, including the new middle class, do not profess to be Catholics. There those people are traditionally indifferent and even hostile to the Catholic religion. To them to be religious and go to the Catholic church is the sign of inferiority. In fact, in some Latin-American centers influence of the Catholic Hierarchy was so radically opposed that all forms of academic garb in the schools have been barred. Says Hubert Herring, in Good Neighbors (Yale University Press, 1941), “The leaders in the business and professional and intellectual life of Argentina no longer accept the claims of the church with any seriousness.”

But what about the masses of the people in general? In Chile, according to a pastoral letter of the Roman Catholic Episcopate there (November, 1939), “barely 10 percent of the population of Chile attends mass on Sundays and feast days.” Chile has only one priest to approximately every 3,000 of the population. Peru and Mexico have one priest to approximately every 6,000; Argentina and Brazil, one priest to approximately every 9,000; Guatemala, one priest to approximately every 25,000. In the United States there' is one Catholic priest to every 600 Catholics, or one to every 3,600 of the country’s total population,regard-less of religious affiliation. In England there is one priest for every 400 Catholics, or one for approximately every 7,000 of the total population. These figures are supplied by the Roman Catholic Primer Congreso National de Vaca-ciones Eclesiasticas, of Guatemala, and argue that, judged by the proportion of Roman Catholic priests to the total populations of Latin-American countries, the United States is much more a “Catholic country” than any below the Rio Grande.

A census taken in 1944 shows that more than 20 percent of the inhabitants of Brazil are Spiritualists. Moreover, in Peru a recent census, shows a large proportion of the population declared themselves “evangelical” in identifying their non-Catholic religious status. In Latin America there are millions of Protestants; there are millions of Protestant sympathizers; and there are magy more millions who profess no religious affiliation. About half of the Latin Americans really profess to be Catholic. By tradition and culture these countries may be Roman Catholic; but not by number. The Hierarchy's claim of an overwhelming Catholic majority is not true.

Latin America a Missionary Field?

Is the Hierarchy, claim that Latin America is not a missionary field true? Puncturing the first claim regarding Catholic preponderance largely debunks this second one, but a little further examination clinches the matter. Morally, Latin America is far from Christian. In certain South American countries as much as 75 percent of the populations are of illegitimate birth. Rather than retard the degradation, the priests forward it. In this connection note what The Christian Century of September 2, 1942, said: '

The legend that South America is a Catholic continent still persists. But it is hard for supporters to make a clear case. It was not so many decades ago that a recommendation went to the Vatican that South America be declared a mission field, moral and spiritual conditions were that bad. But, of course, it was impossible to do that and not lose face. All churches and convents, however, in Ecuador 'were closed, and a group of German priests were put in charge to reorganize and reopen the work of the church. Last year the theological seminary in one of the most Roman Catholic of South American countries .was closed because of moral conditions and a group of Mexican priests were brought down to reorganize that institution.

These conditions exist after 400 years of the supposedly uplifting and Christianizing influence of Catholicism. In despair because of the deplorable moral and spiritual conditions in that “Christianized” a la Hierarchy continent, South American Catholics themselves petitioned the Vatican to declare the whole continent a missionary field. Tins proves that it is such, in fact. Furthermore, by its action the Hierarchy recognizes it as a missionary field. On this point The Converted Catholic of December, 1944, said:

Reliable statistics utterly confound the claim that Latin-Am eri can countries are almost entirely Catholic in population. Not only do Catholies in the United States proportionately outnumber those in Latin-American countries, but the proportion of priests to the population is much larger in the United States than in any country of Latin America. Catholic church authorities know this better than anyone else. They know' that Latin-American countries are very much a missionary field, with very few practicing Christians, and in immediate need of evangelization. Their fear is that Protestant missionaries, if allowed a free hand, will make it forever impossible to bring Latin America under the political control of the Roman Catholic Church.

Proof of all this may be seen in the feverish efforts now being made by the Catholic Church to send large numbers of missionary priests to Central and South American countries. While it is extremely difficult and often impossible to secure entrance for Protestant missionaries to those countries, a constant flow of Catholic priests from the United States to Latin America is being steadily maintained. Their departure is recorded not only in the Catholic press but even in our secular newspapers. Last July 31, the New' York Times reported the departure of “twenty-seven Catholic priests for mission posts in South and Central America this afternoon1’, after ceremonies in the cloister of Maryknoll Seminary at White Plains, N. Y. .

t ■ '

“bog in the Manger’1 Tactics

In her effort to hold on to the religious monopoly she has abused in South America for the! better part of 400 years, the gluttonous Hierarchy has bitten off a continental mouthful that is more than she can chew. She admits that she cannot serve the field herself, sends missionary priests to that land, and cries for more. Late in 1942 one hundred Catholic missionaries were sent there from Maryknoll. Only a few months ago Archbishop Spellman made an impassioned plea to 2,000 students assembled in St. Patrick’s Cathedral that they choose careers as missionaries. The Hierarchy admits her inability to adequately fill Latin America’s spiritual needs; yet this religious “dog in the manger” snarls and growls and backbites to keep others away from what she cannot handle. She draws priests from this country, where she is a minority, and shoots them off to a continent where she boasts an overwhelming majority. Strange procedure, that I Evidently “Catholic” Latin America needs Catholicizing more than Protestant United States. With tongue she says Latin America is not a missionary field; by deeds she declares that it is one. Tier claim that Latin America is not a missionary field is' false.

“Good Neighbor” Policy Jeopardized?

Is the Hierarchy claim that Protestant activities in Latin America jeopardize the'Good-Neighbor policy' true? It is apparent to liberals in South America, many of whom are nominal Catholics, that freedom and democracy can be advanced by a strong Protestant movement in their countries. After a long struggle the Latin-American republics have succeeded in getting constitutions patterned after that of the United Stated, and which guarantee religious liberty and stipulate a separation of church and state. The Catholic Church has stood for authoritarianism, totalitarianism and Fascism in South America; also the maintenance of privilege of the wealthy classes. Exercise strengthens; and freedom of worship and other freedoms written into Latin-American constitutions can become strong and virile only through use. Freedom-loving Latin Americans appreciate this fact, and welcome those visitors to their shores who anticipate exercising these liberties. Rather than resenting Protestant activities, they' view with disgust and indignation the attempt of the Hierarchy' to slap a spiritual quarantine over tiieir countries.

Spurred by the raising of this issue by the Catholic hierarchy of the United States, George P. Howard, citizen, of Argentina and distinguished Protestant missionary, toured Latin America to propound to jurists, statesmen, diplomats, journalists and educators, almost all of whom are Catholics, the question, “Are Protestant missions an obstacle to the Good Neighbor policy?” The responses were unanimous, and are set forth in detail in Howard’s hook, Religious Liberty in Latin America? (Published in 1944 by Westminster Press, Philadelphia) A few of the many are here quoted:

I have no hesitation at al] in declaring that as a result of continuous and attentive observation of the work Protestantism realizes in my country, I give it my unstinted applause and recognize that it has always contributed to the progress of our country and the moral improvement of our people. [Ex-President Alessandri of Chile]

You ask Trie to express my opinion regarding the campaign carried on in the United States against the presence of Protestant missionaries in our country. I understand that it is claimed that they are an obstacle to the Good Neighbor policy. I am not acquainted with the arguments on which such an opinion is based; but I think that it is extremely strange that anyone should hold such an idea .in his mind. [Ex-President Jaun Esteban

Montero of Chile]

It is my agreeable duty to say to you that, as far as Chile is concerned, there is no basis or foundation for such an unjust accusation. Protestant methods of work have in them nothing which constitutes an offense to our national sentiment or the culture of our people. [Ex-President Carlos Ibanez of Chile]

The undersigned, being consulted regarding their estimate of the Protestant missionaries who have come from the United States and who work in Chile, on the basis of their observation as ministers of state, declare: That the total contribution of these missionaries to our country has been highly beneficial in a cultural, civic, and spiritual sense. . . . That, far from creating difficulties in international relations or being an obstacle to the Good Neighbor policy, they have promoted a feeling of mutual understanding and a spirit of practical co-operation without in any way interfering in political matters. [Statement signed by the incumbent Chilean president’s entire cabinet]

The presence of Protestant missionaries is not and cannot possibly be an offense to the people of Argentina in whose history, institutions and daily life freedom of conscience and of religious practice has always been held as something very precious. [Antonio Sagarna, member of Argentina Supreme Court]

I am amazed at the question of whether the work of the Evangelical church in Latin America is an obstacle to the Good Neighbor policy. . . . The work accomplished by English and American missionaries has caused no disturbance nor stirred up any incidents. [Amerieo Ghioldi, Argentine congressman]

Not at all; you should go where you are needed and not only where you are wanted. Jesus was not wanted in many places; they stoned Him at times; but He went on with His mission. There is a great field for Protestant work in this country. There are many Roman Catholics who are deeply dissatisfied with the spiritual condition of the Church.

[Enrique Jorge, Argentine lawyer and author]

The suggestion that South America should become a closed continent to every faith except Roman Catholicism is absurd. First of all it would be proof of an intolerance that is incompatible with the degree of civilization which we have achieved. [Francisco Filho, ex-president of the Brazilian Educational Association and professor of the University of Brazil]

Not at all. Those missionaries can only help that policy, as they are, in fact, doing. They preach the gospel, whose predominant note is that of the brotherhood of all men. It is absurd to think that they do not collaborate in a policy which has as its objective a fraternal relation between the peoples of America. [Helio Lobo, member of Brazilian Academy of Letters and of the Historical and Geographical Institute of Brazil, and former consul general in London and New York]

Missionaries are in no way an obstacle to the Good Neighbor policy. They are making a most valuable contribution to the moral and cultural development of our country. They help us understand the United States better and they interpret certain aspects of the life of that country to us. [Manuel F err az, president of the Court of Appeals of the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil] i

I do not consider that the coming of Prot-estgnt missionaries prejudices the work of Pan-Americanism and the Good Neighbor policy. Our Catholic clergy is not nationalized and any discrimination in the treatment of churches is odious in countries where the state is secular and separated from the church. . . . I have never known of any American missionary who was arrested as a spy. What I do know from trustworthy reports is that their educational work is highly esteemed in our country. [Roman Catholic bishop of Maura, Don Carlos Duarte da Costa, resident of Rio de Janeiro] .

In no way do evangelical missions constitute an obstacle to the Good Neighbor policy. A Catholic mission would hardly be able to do the truly democratic and spiritual work which is done by the Protestant pastors and missionaries. . . . National unity will not be destrayed by the entrance of creeds and philosophies different from those of the Catholic Church. One must not confuse unity with uniformity. [Hugo Artueio, member of the Uruguayan Legislature]

They are not. Furthermore, we are very .proud of the fact that our constitution stands (or religious freedom, and we are resentful df any effort to annul this liberal attitude. | Jose Varela, president of the National University of Montevideo ]

I have never heard of any difficulties being created for good inter-American relations by the presence of missionaries in our country. ... I caimot iriaginc why the presence of Protestant missionaries in Colombia should in any way mar relations between the twro countries. [Julio Carrizosa Valenzuela, president of the National University of Colombia]

Tt does not seem to me that the governments of these republics should yield to the pressure being brought to bear by the Catholic hierarchies for the purpose of obtaining a virtual monopoly in control over the souls of men. This converting of Latin America into a religibus “closed shop” would only revive in the age of bombing planes the old fanaticism of the Inquisitors, the Calvinists and the Puritans. [Enrique White, head of the Bogota (Colombia) public library]

Many more statements of'prominent Latin-American leaders in government and thought could be presented, as indeed Mr. Howard does in his masterly book Religious Liberty in Latin America? But since the Hierarchy's accusation is unaccompanied by evidence, since it is sounded only by prejudiced Roman clericals and a few toadying “fifth column” Protestants, and since its obvious design is not to reveal a truth hut is to rouse rabble and exert pressure on politicos, further refutation of it is not necessary. The Hierarchy claim that Protestant activities in Latin America jeopardize the Good Neighbor policy is false.

Turning the Tables

Shifting from the defensive to Jhc offensive, let us see just how impregnable the Hierarchy’s position is. Arc her skirts clean of the charges she so recklessly hurls at others ? Does she practice the principles she preaches for others? Or can her principles expounded to others be turned against her and thus convict her of hypocrisy1? Does the shot she fires at others zoom back to find the biggest target in her own vitals?

The American hierarchy’s statement on ‘Victory and Peace’ condemned nations that “permit no religious liberty”, and added: “The full benefits of our free institutions and the rights of our minorities must be openly acknowledged and honestly respected.” But that applies only where the Catholic Church is the minority; where she is in the majority religious liberty of minorities is neither acknowledged nor respected. Latin America proves this. “The traditions, the spirit, the background, the culture of these [Latin-American] countries arc Catholic,” whimpers the hierarchy, and for this reason says Protestant missionaries should stay out. By reasoning every bit as strong the Catholic Church should stay out of the.United States, because “the traditions, the spirit, the background, the culture” of this country are Protestant. But she doesn’t; and'freedom-loving Protestants and other Americans do not inconsistently ask that she stay out. In this country she gains converts ■ from among Protestants, and boasts about it. If, in the exercise of such freedoms as speech and press and worship, she can proselytize Protestants, well and good. It is her constitutional right. But Latin-American constitutions guarantee religious freedom, also. The procedure should work both ways. However, this quotation from the Baltimore Evening Sun, January 29, 1945, shows the Hierarchy does not think so:

A pastoral letter protesting against activities of Protestant sects in Latin America has been issued to the Catholic clergy and the members of all dioceses in Argentina by the cardinal primate, archbishops and bishops. . . . The letter asserted the Protestant organizations were waging an intensive campaign in Latin America to gain converts, “The audacity of the attack is such that it is well known that Protestant missionaries and pastors invoke our constitution and claim most absolute religious liberty,” the letter said. The letter declared that the constitution grants religious freedom, but this does not mean freedom to proselytize Catholics. ■

The Hierarchy thinks it right for her to invoke constitutional liberties to proselytize in Protestant countries; but what an audacious attack it is if Protestants exercise such liberties in a Catholic country ! This queer concept of religious freedom is most unfair and most Vatican-like and most Jesuitical. No liberal and honest Catholic agrees with it.

Missionary Theories Backfire

The United States is just about as much Protestant as Latin America is Catholic. lienee Latin America is as much of a missionary field for Protestants as the United States is for Catholics. But typical of the Hierarchy’s position in this matter is that taken in the pastoral letter of Peruvian^ archbishops and bishops, which states (December 18, 1943):

If our peoples were thus steeped in the oldest and most glorious of Christian cultures, what can be the aim of these stubborn Protestants in introducing their propaganda amongst the peaceful dwellers of these lands, who were born and cradled in the Catholic faith? Do they pretend to Christianize them as if they were heathen in some corner of Africa or of the South Seas? How is it that they prefer our territory for the scene of their evangelical aggression and forget the 75,000,000 of atheists which figure in the latest census in the United States? Can they be unaware of the fact that the gospel has been for centuries the very blood of our culture, the soul of our civilization and the heart of our great heroes? Dor its work of destruction and proselytism Heresy chooses, instead of pagan peoples, Catholic centers, which profess and practice the true faith, and thus in-sults our Christian traditions, our saints and our religious rites.

Thc^e arc not 75,000,000 professed atheists in the United States, but there arc about that many who are not churchgoers. The majority of them are nominal Protestants. They are as loyally Protestant as the majority of Latin-American Catholics are Catholic. But let this pass. For the sake erf discussion, let us accept this Hierarchy statement and see how strong are the conclusions she draws from it. View the matter from three angles:

First, in Catholic countries the Hierarchy counts as Catholic everyone who does not definitely profess some other religious belief, whether he claims to be Catholic or not. On this basis, the United States being a Protestant country, Protestants would be excused in calling these 75,000,000 “atheists” Protestants, since they profess no other religious affiliation. Hence it is not necessary for Protestant missionaries to stay home to convert them.

A second view: If there are 75,000,000 atheists in this land, why should Catholic missionaries trained in the United States desert these 75,000,000 “lost souls” and traipse off to Latin-American countries which the Hierarchy claims are already Christianized, are already practically 100 percent Catholic, where the “peaceful dwellers of these lands” were “born and cradled in the Catholic faith”? A strange waste of Catholic missionary man-power, is it not?

Third, ask yourself: Were all the Jews in Palestine converted to Christianity when Christ Jesus commanded His ministers to 'go and make disciples of all the nations’? Did the Lord’s holy spirit wait till all Jew’s had embraced Christianity before directing that the gospel should be taken to the Gentile nations'? (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 10:17-35) The answer is No, and by extension of that principle it follows that the 75,000,000 unconverted do not necessarily tie down Protestant missionary activity to the home front. The Hierarchy’s argument is unscriptural.

Grasping for Another Continent ■

The more one meditates on the fabric of argument the Hierarchy has woven, the more sieve-like it becomes. It does not begin to hold even a drop of water of truth. For instance, the Peruvian hierarchy scornfully says that “stubborn ^Protestants . . . pretend to Christianize them as if they were heathen in some corner of Africa”. Africa stirs memories. Early in 1944 a Catholic paper in the United States reported that “the Holy See requests the prayers of the faithful during the month of March for ‘The Preservation of Africa from Sectarianism5 That means preservation from Protestantism. The Hierarchy says Protestants should stay out of Latin America because it is'not a missionary field; then, on the other hand, she says they should stay out of the recognized missionary field of Africa. Where on earth does she think Protestants should go? Evidently to hell, or the grave, the condition of death; for the Hierarchy still clings to its. policy of “death for heretics”, to which category she relegates al} Protestants. Not content with posting Latin America with “No Trespassing” signs, she branches out in her wholesale religious censorship campaign by plastering the continent of Africa with “Private Property” notices. She restricts freedom of worship to herself; anyope who worships differently on this earthly ball is poaching on her domains. She is the number one enemy of freedom.

There is a pensive and dreamy note in the Holy See’s wish concerning Africa. The pope thinks of glorious bygone days of crusading and his beloved crusader, the deceased Catholic dictator, Mussolini. He pines for this one referred to by a previous pope as “the man sent by providence devoid of liberal prejudices”. After Mussolini seized Ethiopia all Protestant missionaries were expelled. With the ousting of the Italian invaders they were invited to return. The pope doubtless dreams and yearns for an Africa converted as once was Ethiopia. And how was that? Information taken from the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Courier tells us:

Consider the Catholic church in Italy. The other day Cardinal Schuster Of Milan, one of its great princes, wished “peace and protection” for the armies of Italy which are murdering Ethiopians with air bombs and poison, and blessed them for “opening the doors of Ethiopia to the Catholic faith and the civilization of .Rome”, adding: “We must cooperate with God in this national and Catholic mission, above all at this moment when on the fields of Ethiopia the standards of Italy carry to triumph the cross of Christ to break the chains of slavery and open the paths for the missionaries’ gospel.”

At least Protestants do not use such bloody methods of conversion. Also, the “missionaries’ gospel” for which the way WTas thus opened excluded the gospel of Protestant missionaries, since these workers were chased out. Another papal inconsistency here presents itself, also. The Hierarchy says Protestant workers should stay out of Latin America because it is already Christianized. By like reasoning Catholic missionaries should stay out of countries that professedly embrace Christianity of a form not Catholic. Ethiopia had accepted Christianity, and was far advanced in it. But at the point of a sword the Hierarchy ‘robbed them of their Christian faith and ridiculed it and offered them a substitute for it, which efforts were resented by the Ethiopian people and professed Christians world-wide, and proved to be quite a disturbing factor in international relations’, to borrow some of the flowery phrases of the American hierarchy’s Victory and Peace’ statement.

“Good Neighbor” Policy

Charge Boomerangs

It is .actually the efforts of Catholic clericals that “prove to be a disturbing factor in our international relations”, that endanger the Good Neighbor policy. The facts prove it. About the time of the American hierarchy’s protest regarding

Protestant missionary activity in Latin America, charges were circulated freely that the United States State Department . was favoring Catholic missionaries over

Protestant missionaries in the granting of passports for Latin-American points. The State Department denied the charge, and presented facts and figures in support of its denial. At present there seems to he no discrimination shown by the State Department, despite heavy Catholic pressure. But note the reaction of some prominent Latin Americans at just the thought or possibility of discrimination against Protestants, and determine whether the presence of Protestant missionaries in those countries disturbs international relations, or whether it is the Catholic clericals’ attempt to debar them that endangers the Good Neighbor policy (these statements were made to George P. Howard, and published in his previously mentioned book, Religious Liberty in Latin America?) :

We are witnessing a “directed religious policy” which requires that the abundant flow of American functionaries to South America should fulfill, if possible, the prerequisite of being Roman Catholic. We Latin Americans are inclined to be distrustful. We ask ourselves : Why does a country which is predominantly Protestant send us delegations that are predominantly Catholic? Why does it try to hide its Protestantism? [Manuel Seoane, Roman Catholic lawyer and author, editor of Chile’s popular weekly Ercilla]

The influence of Catholic intolerance reflected in the foreign policy of the United States is considered by people of liberal spirit in this country as a dangerous symptom of the totalitarian leanings of the > United States. Therefore, there is a feeling of resentment among liberal sections of Uruguayan public opinion because of this surprising aspect of American policy. ... I have lived for two years in the United States and I hold a deep affection for its people. The foundation of democracy in that country is the small community of Puritan tradition. Evidently there, is a clerical revolution under way in the world to destroy the gains which up to the present have been made for democracy. This is especially dangerous in the United States. [Hugo Artucio, member of Uruguayan Legislature, university professor, member of “The Free World Association”, and author of The Nazi Underground in South America]

For many South Americans the attitude of the United States in strengthening political power of the Catholic Church in South America, especially in those countries in which that Church adheres to the autocratic forms of government, is viewed with alarm. The final result is the strengthening of dictatorship on our continent. . . , North American public opinion must understand that the Good Neighbor policy means concretely that the Atlantic Charter must also hold good for these parts of the world where there is much official talk of democracy and liberty but where people still live in subjugation. [Americo Ghioldi, Argentine congressman and editor of the influential Buenos Aires daily La Vanguardia]

The following extracts from an article appearing in the February 26, 1945, issue of The New Republic, by Samuel Guy Inman, shed further light on Catholic political machinations:

The United States government . . . seemed to think that the way to beat Hitler propaganda in Latin America was to channel our progress through the Roman Catholic Church. . . . According to reliable inside sources, the idea of using such channels seems to have originated about 1940. . . . The advice given to the State Department did not come from South American Catholics, but from an insistent group in the United States. They declared, as Father Joseph Francis Thoming put it in the Catholic Digest, that “The American republics will have no faith in an alliance without the benefit of clergy”. . . . This channeling of cultural exchanges through the Church was opposed by Latin Americans employed by the administration to advise on this subject. They declared that it would turn the democratic forces in Latin America against us. ... A prominent Havana review, Ultra, translated the Catholic Digest article and attacked the “effort to make Washington believe that all North American cultural contacts will be badly received if not made 'through the Catholic clergy”. The editor declared that such ideas “are completely false”-—offensive to Latin Americans—and that “much of the future depends on whether Washington understands this truth”.

*■1 A Latin American who has been an intimate ^adviser to our government and a great devotee of the Good Neighbor policy, has just returned from a trip through Latin America, He reports that in all his previous experience he has never known such distrust of the United States. Tie believes that it results from the fact that our representatives have innocently believed that they could win Latin Americans by showing them that this country is, like themselves, Catholic, that our government will protect them from any Protestant propaganda, that we favor the reactionary dictators and ecclesiastics who control many of these republics and that we back Franco and the propagandists of Hispanidad. . . .

“I noticed something curious when I went tn the United States,” said the president of the University of Sao Paulo, a guest of the State Department on a visit to this country. “Everyone who had any official contact with me was an American Catholic.” A similar impression was reported by Dr. Gil Salguiro of Uruguay, another guest of the Department. Although he is not a Catholic and eame from a country where anti-clericalism is particularly strong, during his visit here Dr. Salguiro was sent to lecture exclusively in Roman Catholic institutions. ...

The accomplishments of the Good Neighbor policy have given me [the author of the article] one of the deepest satisfactions of my life. But that accomplishment is now headed for trouble. This time the cause is not military intervention. It is clerical intervention. It threatens not only the Good Neighbor policy but freedom of expression in every section of the globe.

Clerical Agitators of III Will

The Hierarchy endangers the Good Neighbor policy by injecting a religious issue into polities. They are: .not con-

cerned about Good Neighborism. They have not only a religious axe to grind, but a political one as well, and grind it they will, regardless of whether 'international relations are disturbed thereby or not. They have inflamed credulous people with rabble-rousing speeches and incited violence and murder against Protestants in Latin America, and, with diabolical cunning fostered along with their anti-Protestantism campaign, an anti-Americanism feeling. Then when the fires of hatred they have lighted and fanned become a raging inferno of violence and murder, with mock alarm and indignation they cry out, “Look what Protestantism has done 1” The following news dispatch from Mexico city (published in the Providence (R. I.) journal, November 26,1944) sho’ws the Hierarchy tactics in Latin America:

A call was issued here the other day by Catholic Archbishop Luis Martinez for a “crusade, as in the Middle Ages” against “Protestant penetration”. The prelate’s appeal spotlights a situation packed with dynamite and having explosive possibilities not only for Mexico internally but for Mexican-Am eri can relations. For, while it underscores the steadily worsening relations between Mexico’s minority Protestantism and majority Catholicism, one of its most disturbing by-products is anti-Americanism.

In the past six weeks, eight cases of attacks on Protestants by Catholic fanatics have been reported in scattered parts of the country. In each attack, according to information available here, anti-Protestantism was linked to anti-Americanism by the assailants. . . .It has also been substantiated that in several cases Catholic priests and other community leaders have not only incited the attackers, but have actually led them in their assaults. . . .

* More recently taken up by general magazines and by Catholics of every degree, ranging from Archbishop Martinez to rabid clerieo-Faseists, this written and oral propaganda program has exploited the latent anti-Americanism of many Mexicans and has become a matter pf grave concern to the Mexican

consolation government and the U. S. state department. . . . The primary purpose of this alignment is to regain for the Catholic Church at least part of the political and civic power it held for centuries in Mexico. . . .

Although high Catholic Church dignitaries have not publicly linked anti-Protestantism with anti-Americanism, many priests and virtually all of their followers among the nearly 18,000,000 Catholics in the country have done so. These followers include liberal laymen, fanatics, Fascist-style political groups, labor agents and reactionary politicians. According to Tiempo magazine, the priest conducting services in the same basilica gave his sermon such a political character that certain Catholics, alarmed at his lack of discretion, later criticized it sharply. In his sermon, he asked these questions: “Who bears the guilt that we have no gasoline J” “Who hears the guilt that we have no rice?” “Who bears the guilt of our misfortunes ?” The congregation roared in reply: “Los Estados Unidos . . . Los Estados Unidos!” [“The United States!”] _

, Here are some details of attacks:

' A Methodist mission official whose name is withheld confirmed today that a Mexican Methodist pastor, his wife and one of his church members were beaten to death Sunday at a village near here [Mexico city] by a religiously inflamed mob which later dynamited or burned homes where several Mexican Protestant families lived. [AP dispatch published in the San Bernardino Sun, May 31, 1945]

Recently, in the town of La Gloria, the church bells began to ring violently and the Protestant s of the village-knew that something was being planned against them. Then the priest preached a violent sermon, demanding the expulsion of the Protestants from the town. The population was stirred to a frenzy and drove 40 Protestant families from the city. They took refuge in the forests. They are attacking Protestants with clubs, knives and other weapons in numerous places, crying, “Death to Protestants!” Protestant women are being outraged, and many persons are being wounded. Four were recently killed. [The United Presbyterian, October 23, 1944]

Another Sinarchist band sprayed gasoline on the Church of God temple in Totalco, Veracruz, then set fire to it while the worshippers were still inside. When the congregation fled screaming, many of them with their, clothes in flame, the Sinarchista shot at and stoned them. These Sinarchists, “who have learned how to keep clean mentally and physically,” as Rev. Francis Heltsche recently insisted in a letter to the New York Times, threw the body of a dead Protestant child into a pigsty as “fit treatment for an infidel”. [The Protestant, July-August, 1944]

The Pathfinder of January 8, 1945, gave the reaction of the general Mexican public to these clerics who incite these outrages, saying:

Mexican Archbishop Luis M. Martinez’s latest letter condemning the “evil penetration of the country by Protestants” met with unfavorable response from the Mexican public. Both Catholics and Protestants voiced resentment over the archbishop’s charges that Protestantism uses U. S. money to weaken Catholicism. Martinez’s fellow churchmen branded the attack “productive of intolerance and disunion”.

One last item, before ceasing to “turn the tables” on the iniquitous Hierarchy. They claim that Protestants bring with them “Yankee imperialism” and undermine the national governments of Latin-American countries and border on sedition. They accompany their charges with no evidence, but look at this notice in the March 19, 1945, Newsweek:

Elections were scheduled for March 17 in Colombia. Last week it was discovered that an unscheduled curtain raiser had also been planned. More than 50 persons including retired army officers, one clergyman, and several Christian brothers were arrested on charges of planning a revolt for election eve, when Bogota garrison troops would be scattered through the country. “As all indications pointed to the fact that one of the several arms caches of the seditious elements was hidden in the cathedral,” the announcement said, “the government this morning invited church authorities to carry out an investiga-

tibn, with the result that several hundred explosive bombs and hand grenades were found near the organ.” [This is far from the first time that Catholic churches have been used, as (arsenals and ammunition dumps, but it is one of the more recent plots of sedition.]

• Hierarchy’s Real Reasons for

i Fighting Free Worship

The reasons the Hierarchy has advanced for preserving Latin America as her religious “sphere of influence” have been proved unsound. They were only smoke-screens, anyway. She cares nothing about Good Neighbor policies; her actions prove that. What, then, are her real reasons, her underlying reasons for fighting against freedom of worship1? Here they are:

The-Catholic religion is based on tradition, priestly interpretations, and papal pronouncements. Her doctrines, such as “trinity”, “image-worship,” “purgatory,” “eternal torment,” etc., spring from ancient Babylon ritual. The Catholic Church inherited them at her birth at the time of her union with the emperor of pagan Rome, Constantine. Her teachings are not based upon the Bible; hence, as Jesus said, she rests upon a foundation of sand. When waters of truth heat against her structure, it cannot stand, and at Armageddon's storm it will completely fall. (Matthew 7:24-29) This does not mean to say that Protestantism is a source of truth waters, for she clings to many of the false doctrines taught by the Hierarchy. However, with Protestantism comes a wide circulation of the Bible. That is the truth source; that is what the Hierarchy well fears. Truth has no cause to fear error, but error has good cause to fear and hate the truth. Jesus said:

Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. [John 3:19-21; see also Isaiah 28:17-21; Jeremiah 23:25-32; Matthew 10:26; Ephesians 5:13]

Many7 reports coining out of Latin America indicate that the circulation of the Bible in the language of the people is the thing that so riles the clericals. The Bible is the great Book of Freedom. Jehovah favors free speech: “Let all the nations he gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they7 may be justified: or let them hear, and say7, It is truth.” (Isaiah 43:9) A wide circulation of the Bible promotes freedom. Protestantism encourages liberalism, which the Hierarchy brands,“heresy”. So the coming of Protestantism and the circulation of the Bible not only spoils the Hierarchy's pastures of religious monopoly, but also collides with her political power and autocratic aims. Tt breaks her strangle hold on the masses.

Her grip is further loosened by the educational work of Protestantism. Catholic countries are notoriously illiterate. Catholicism thrives in squalor and poverty, superstition and credulity, ignorance and darkness. The Reformation was a popular movement bringing the Bible to the people in their own tongue and forwarding education and freedom. It marked the dawn of modern democ racy7 and caused a light to break that dis-spelled the gloom of the Dark Ages. The Hierarchy7 still nurses this 400-year-old sore and hates it bitterly. She fears that the handwriting on the wall foretells a modern version of the Reformation for Tjatin America.

The Hierarchy’s desperate attempt to invoke civil power on her behalf by injecting the Good Neighbor policy into the religious dispute reminds one of the words of Benjamin Franklin: “When religion is good it will take care of itself; when it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one." Destitute of Bible truth with which to fight her battles, the Hierarchy, like the Jewish religionists of Jesus’ day, has to trump up political charges to bring into play on their side worldly governments.

This controversy is not a case of gangland mobs respecting territory boundaries in the pursuit of their racket, as the Hierarchy’s attitude seems to indicate. If each is convinced that his faith is right, then he feels that all others are not the true roads to Christianity, and he feels the need that they be enlightened. Whether right or wrong in his opinion of his own faith, he is none the less driven to proclaim it if he is sincere. If all do this freely and all are given equal opportunity to be heard, then the people can hear and determine for themselves the issues in an atmosphere of true religious freedom. The erroneous Hierarchy fears this procedure; but truth need not fear that error will prevail. And as for Good Neighborliness, it can only be forwarded in such an atmosphere. Does not God’s Word declare : “Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour?” (Zechariah 8:16) By such deeds does one prove his love for truth and freedom of worship, and not by lip-service alone.

Thoughts on Religion's Hell

FROM eyewitness accounts; from those who escaped;, from official motion pictures, has come a horrible picture of human depravity. I refer to the cremation camps set up by the Nazis in Europe. A normal mind recoils in horror and loathing from the tales that have unfolded. The account of thousands loaded ■ alive into cars with quicklime, sealed in and permitted to suffocate, to starve or to be eaten alive by the corrosive action of the lime, is especially repulsive. There is the tale of the girl cast alive into the cremation furnace of the camp at Lublin, Poland. The imagination pictures the flash of fire that swallowed her hair, and hears the terrible scream fade into silence, lost in the roar of those searing flames.

Yet those who are sickened accept something even worse with a calmness that is little short of astounding. Religion would turn everyone to loathing God by the same token. Religionists would make the One of whom it is said, “God is love,” worse by far than the depraved Nazis; for they claim that God purposes to torture sinners, while eternally conscious, in a burning hell forever. What further thought would be needed by any sane person to cause him to turn away in disgust from those spreaders of such an obvious lie, thought of by the Devil to blaspheme the Almighty ?

—Contributed.

'■ An Easy Way to Get Sick

♦ At New Orleans thirty-five Catholic “sisters” were subjected to what was described as “a mild ease of food poisoning” and, as usual, “the cause of the poisoning had not been definitely determined.” In order to get similar results, all you have to do is to make a nice fricassee of chicken in aluminum utensils, and then let it stand a few hours in the utensils. Serve it to the guests, and telephone the newspaper that your guests are going to be sick but you don’t know the cause. By that system the newspaper can advertise aluminum cooking utensils in the same issue, and nobody will ever know the difference, and neither the newspapers, the doctors, nor the “health” officials will ever tell the facts.

* Beginnings of Bad Conscience

Conscience is that faculty of the mind by which the human creature realizes and distinctly perceives or appreciates that the course of action taken by him is right or wrong. Men “shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"'. (Romans 2:15; see also 2 Corinthians 1:12 and 1 Peter 3:16) Before Adam the first man ate the forbidden fruit he knew it was wrong, because God had told him so. Tie also knew that both he and his wife were nude, but, being innocent, they were not ashamed.—Genesis 2 :17, 25.

When Adam and Eve had taken the course of action in violation of God’s law, they distinctly perceived and appreciated that they had done wrong, and a realization of their nakedness was evidence to them that they had done wrong. They were fearful and, trying to hide their nakedness, they hid themselves. Before committing their act they, of course, possessed the faculty of mind, and now that faculty of the mind began to manifest itself because of their wrongful act. But there was no expression of regret because of their ungrateful deed and act of rebellion. They sewed fig leaves together and covered their nakedness. Their act of doing so in no wTuy indicated that they had been lifted to a higher realm of thought as founders of a self-righteous “legion of decency". It shows that their conscience condemned them as criminals. (Genesis 3:7-10) Their showing of fear was another evidence that their conscience condemned them and they knew before God they

were wrong. The clergy have time and again said that they exercised their sexual functions and that this was what was meant by violating God’s law against eating forbidden fruit. Such clergy conclusion is worse than absurd, for the Scriptures clearly show that this was not what they did. The Bible plainly shows that God had forbidden them to partake of this fruit and that their act in doing so was that which was wrong, because it showed rebellion and disloyalty to God. .

On the same day God called them to account. There was no expression of regret on their part nor manifestation of repentance. They began to offer proof tending toward excuse or self-,justification. The woman blamed the serpent for her wrongful act. The man blamed both the woman and his Creator. Had Adam loved his wife he would not have, attempted to cast the blame upon her. Had he loved God he would not have reproached Him for giving man his wife, saying: “The woman whom thou gaveSt to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12) The inference to be drawn from this statement is that, if God had left Adam alone in the garden and not given him the woman, the wrongful act would not have been committed, and that therefore Qod was at least partially responsible for the wrong. The Devil has ever tried to induce men to believe that God is responsible for the sufferings and woes of mankind. Doubtless he made that suggestion ,to Adam at the time that Adam sought to blame somebody else and justify himself. This proves conclusively that Adam did not express any regret or sorrow for having displeased or grieved his Creator Jehovah God.

The act of sin and rebellion on the part of God’s creatures could not go unnoticed or unpunished. Punishment must follow ' swiftly or God’s law would be a nullity and his universal government a farce; and sin now begun would wreck his universe. God proceeded to enter judgment against man in harmony with the law which he had announced, that death would result from their sin. Tn connection with this judgment, be it noted that the woman had assumed a superior position and had run ahead of her husband and defied the law of God. Being a part of Adam, she must suffer the penalty of death. But, before death was in force completely, she must suffer some things additional. God declared she must be subject to her husband and conceive and bring forth her children in sorrow.

Adam and his wife, under the terms of God’s judgment, were to continue to exist for a time, and during th$it existence they must be deprived of the peace and joy of life. By their wrongful act their right to life was forfeited. Within the allotted time provided by the law-they must return to the dust of the earth from which man was taken. The judgment of the law provided that they must leave their perfect and happy home and go out into that part of the earth that would produce thorns and thistles. Against, these they must battle to get their bread and eat it in the sweat of their face, and thus continue until the divine judgment should be completed in their death. While the penalty was death, the issue that had now arisen respecting Jehovah’s universal sovereignty caused him to enforce that penalty in such a way that they did not die instantly. So he drove them out of the garden of Eden.

Adam’s control over the animals was now gone and he was no longer in God’s image as God’s representative on the earth. He was no longer in God’s like-• ness in having that perfect balance and co-ordination of the faculties of justice, wisdom, love and power. Being expelled from Eden, Adam’s return and eating of the fruit of the tree of life was prevented by setting a guard at the entrance. The words of God’s record, “So he drove out the man,” shows that Adam did not willingly leave after the judgment was pronounced against him, but that he was compelled to go, and that he went forth a convicted criminal forced to act in obedience to orders.

…