The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-11-10
COMMUNICATIONS


AS l was born young, reared on a
farm, and poorly schooled, kindly make
allowance for want of style, crudeness
Of diction and lack of logical form
in the humble effort to combat. by
commonsense, the statements attribu-
ted by you to Archbishop Corrigan, in
your Tuesdays issue.
In my young days I heard of lady
bugs, ants beadles, measles, etc, but
never of germ theory of disease.
Nowadays clergymen of all denomina-
lions are greatly exercised by the APP
pearance Of a political germ called So
cialism, that attacks thoughtful rea-
soning, open-hearted, predetermined,
and good people, and that spreads with
/ the rapidity of an epidemic. The sell
fish. bigoted rich, vicious and ignorant
enjoy immunity from it's ravages. At
ter every virulent attack the clergy are
fully occupied roofing out the conse-
4 quences left in it's wake. Each curer
of SOILS employs a watery compound
decoction suitable to the palates of his
| flock. Archbishop Corrigan has lately
been subjecting his sheep to treat
ment, evidently with the design of
closing up their minds and free thought
1 passages. He seems to be a firm be-
lever in the saying "do not believe as
l am free to believe but do as I tell
remark that Roman Catholic priests
/ do not generally interfere in matters
| political, but the Pope has denounced
| Socialism, and of course his interiors
follow suit. Why this position on the
/ part of Catholicism? Would it's reve-
nues be in any way affected by the adj
vent of Socialism? Or do Catholics
look upon Socialism as a political
dodge to lessen the numbers of their
- Ill F.1Frs
gy of other denominations may throw
some light on this matter. While at
other times the Protestant clergy are
occupied in endeavoring to show that
the best way into paradise is through
that particular church gate, in the
meantime they are working hand in
| hand with Rome to demolish the COM
mon enemy. Possibly Socialism threat
ems to be the deathblow of some fat
religious sinecures.
Suppose we investigate the reverend
| gentleman's statements
He premises: Every man has
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness; has a right to self-improve-
ment and the development of his facul
| ties whether in the department of
| knowledge or of virtue; has a right to
| food clothing and the shelter of
| home; to occupation and to permanent
quired by his labor" 1 admit these
premises but differ entirely from my
pious friends conclusions. Unfortu
nately, although man has a right to
! every one of the things above named,
! present conditions guarantee only the
first, viz, life. All the others are chill
dren of chance circumstances.
Selfshness, result of present condi-
| ton of life, binds our liberty and re-
ts-N,-f tote ont
methods clog the wheels of knowledge
and virtue and instead breed vice and
| ignorance. Hundreds through no fault
of their own, are unable to obtain food.
clothing and shelter. The reverend
gentleman must know, from personal
! experience, that these are facts and
yet he goes on to decapitate the only
proposed remedy, viz: Socialism.
| Again he says "Permanency of pos
| session is an essential point because
| this gives at once a stimulus to en-
deavor and to the attainment of prop
er earthly ambition. Evidently, under
the Socialistic theory, this permanent
| cy would be removed and, consequent
| ly, all would go that makes life worth
while, liberty worth having, or happi-
ness anything more than name This
| is arrant nonsense and very ineXcusa-
| BILE when we reflect that these utter
|
My reverend friend has here fallen in
to the mistaken notion that material
wealth constitutes the sum total Of hui
man happiness. He knows better, and
doubtless on other occasions has
warned his flock of this very error he
commits. The full amount of perma-
nency that any man can have is the
natural supply of his daily wants. No
man takes his possessions into the
i'm An fN11r1f don
supply for mans wants constitutes
waste; a deficient supply, starvation.
| Both of these are common under pres
ent conditions. Socialism provides the
golden mean.
Once more: eff the theories of Social
ism were carried out the workingman
would be the first to suffer-" Who suf-
| fer first now? The priests or ministers?
The landlords? The manufacturers?
No! who then? The workingman!
Again: Without property he could
not exercise his innate rights to per-
sonal comforts to the pursuit of happi-
ness and the development of his fac
ulties." This is paradoxical The work.
| ingman owns scarcely any property. 1t
is all In the hands of a few thousand
rich men. Property would not be de-
stroyed by the Socialist. Poor as work.
| ingmen are, they have some happiness
and cultivate their faculties.
Again: "A man must provide for the
future" I refer my reverend friend
| once more to his own personal expe-
| riences, and ask him if he does not
know thousands of good honest Cath
ollcs who are willing but unable to pro-
/ vide for the future. For what does
the Saint Vincent de Paul Society ex-
| list? The relief of the Catholic poori
Again Liberty is the right to en-
| joy what belongs to ones self without
| infringing the rights of others. The
| first principle of Socialism takes this
away because it aims at the acquisi-
! ton of the rights of the individual"
/ Suppose a man has personal property,
| say a house and a few square yards of
ground. 1t is his. His neighbor owns
another house and lot He stands ma
| jestically and selfshly on his domain
and says This is mine. Keep Off" His
Ineighbor does likewise. How much lib
erty have they? And yet each under
Socialism could say Il am a sharehold-
er in the worlds goods and lands, and
all men are my brothers" Which in
stance furnishes the greater liberty?
Undoubtedly the second case exhibits
extension of liberty.
Again, regarding equality: take,
| for Instance, the professor of a univer-
| sity and the man who lights the fires
and cleans the rooms. Both are equal
| ly good in the sight of God, but not in
the sight of man." Indeed. Possibly,
| in this reverent mans eyes, man is a
| better judge of goodness than God, and
so has set up little standard god of
his own begetting. Talk of nature