Note and Comment by William Warren Prescott

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 14, 1916

Note and Comment

By William Warren Prescott

The Church Question in Politics

“Mr. Wilson and the Catholic Church”

In its issue of October 28, under the heading quoted above, the Morning Star (Roman Catholic) of New Orleans printed a long editorial in which the President is severely taken to task for his treatment of Roman Catholics. Here is the gist of the whole matter:—

“Against the protests of the Catholic Federation, representing the 16,000,000 Catholics of the United States, beseeching the President not to recognize any government that would not guarantee religious liberty and freedom of worship in Mexico as they exist in the United States, Mr. Wilson recognized Carranza. . . . Mr. Wilson, true to his policy, as usual, paid scant courtesy, with no thought of regard to the demands of 16,000,000 Catholics in this country for justice to their suffering, persecuted brethren in Mexico. . . . Have Catholics a grievance? They have.”

In closing, the Morning Star called upon “every Catholic and every earnest-thinking, true American non-Catholic” to consider this matter and to give his answer “in the only way in which an American can—at the polls on election day.” It further added that “with one or two exceptions” its position is sustained “by every one of the two hundred and fifty and more Catholic newspapers in the United States.”

Of course the purpose of the Morning Star and the other Roman Catholic papers has been to influence the Roman Catholic vote, and it is quite possible that many Roman Catholic voters were influenced by the appeals of their church papers.

What we wish to emphasize is this: Having been chosen to his high office in the face of the organized opposition of the Roman Catholic press, and its fervid appeals for his defeat, Mr. Wilson may certainly feel that he is not under the slightest obligation to pay any political debts to Roman Catholic office seekers, and he is in a good position to leave the church question entirely out of politics. We hope he will do this.

Praying for Soldiers and Sailors

A somewhat significant side light upon the present view of the relation between Christianity and war is cast by the discussion in the recent convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church upon the introduction into the prayer book of a prayer for soldiers and sailors. A brief reference to this matter in the Christian Herald of November 1 runs thus:—

“The proposed prayers for the army and navy were adopted only after momentous discussion in which the advocates of peace registered both a protest and a prophecy. The proposed prayer for the army asks the ‘God of hosts’ to stretch forth his almighty arm ‘to strengthen and protect the soldiers of our country, to support them in the day of battle, and in time of peace to keep them safe from all evil,’ and closes with the petition that ‘they may serve without reproach as having before them the vision of the risen Lord.’ Dr. John Howard Melish, as spokesman of the opponents of the prayer, declared, according to the press, that its adoption would be an irreparable injury to the youth of the nation: He said he opposed the prayer on two grounds: first, that it had no vision, and second, that it was without sense because it asked for things that could not possibly be granted. He said it was impossible for soldiers to serve without reproach, and that we were asking God to grant something entirely without meaning, for war cannot be waged without reproach. . . . Dr. Melish proposed the following prayer for the army:—

“‘O God, who hast taught us to love our enemies and to do good unto them that hate us, bless our soldiers and sailors for their swift obedience and their willingness to answer the call of duty, but inspire them none the less with a hatred of war, and may they never for love of private glory or advancement provoke its coming. May our young men still rejoice to die for their country, with the valor of their fathers, but teach our age nobler methods of matching our strength and more effective ways of giving our life for the flag.’”

When put to a vote, however, the prayer proposed by the Revision Committee was carried.

The Papacy and the War

Every student of current history, especially if he views events in the light of prophecy, must have observed what appears like a concerted plan on the part of the representatives of Rome to secure fresh prestige for the Papacy as a direct result of the present distress of nations. Again and again has it been asserted that Benedict XV is of right the mediator between the warring powers, and that he must sit at the head of the table in the inevitable peace conference. Again and again has it been declared that this unprecedented world-trouble is a direct judgment of God upon the nations which either actively accomplished or passively cooperated in the spoliation of the Papacy in 1870, and that the demands of Heaven can be satisfied only by the restoration of the temporal power. Again and again has it been proclaimed through the world press that some great peace movement was about to be launched from the Vatican. Other equally important features of the campaign are not neglected. As the Papacy profited by the wreck of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, so it evidently hopes to profit by the wreck of nations in the twentieth century.

Among the indications of the Romeward trend of the Protestant nations is the appointment of representatives at the Vatican by some which had no diplomatic relations with the Papacy. Early in the war the English government appointed Sir Henry Howard as a special envoy to the Vatican, and now that he has resigned, Count de Salis has been selected for this post. This action moves the Evangelical Christendom of London, the organ of the Evangelical Alliance, to a mild protest in the issue for September-October:—

“We were informed that Sir Henry Howard was appointed to congratulate the Pope on his election, and to act temporarily as minister. On his retirement another diplomatist takes his place, and the nation wonders what is the meaning of it all.”

Another development in England is of interest. A new sort of religious spirit, engendered by the war, and especially by contact with Roman Catholics on the Continent, has found expression in the erection of wayside shrines, which, as viewed by a Roman Catholic writer, “smack marvelously of downright ‘popery.’” This step toward Rome is countenanced by the Protestant Bishop of London, “notwithstanding murmurs of ‘idolatry’ from Low Church clergymen.” In commenting with evident satisfaction upon this new evidence of a revival of Rome’s influence, America (Roman Catholic) in its issue of November 18 significantly says:—

“To behold the Protestants of England spontaneously adopting religious practices which were holy commonplaces with their Catholic forefathers, but which the dour and heartless ‘Reformers’ cast out as evil, is certainly full of significance. If one result of the present war is to prepare England to return to Catholic unity, it will be only another instance of the way God works out his high purposes through human suffering, and brings good out of evil.”

History is the best interpreter of prophecy, but those who are looking for the healing of the deadly wound inflicted upon the Papacy in modern times, will have good reason to believe that the healing process is going on before their own eyes. W. W. Prescott.