The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1884.

Press, Volume XL, Issue 5711, 8 January 1884, Page 2

The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1884.

"is another column we publish a letter signed "Catholic Layman," in which he discusses the education, question, and complains of the way in which it has been dealt -with by us and by some of our cor- | respondents. With the reasoning of the I latter we have nothing to do, and therefore leave them to reply for themselves. Our correspondent triumphantly invites our attention to a syllogistic statement of the grievances of the members of his Church, and for so doing he is entitled for many reasons to our kindest consideration and best thanks. His letter is very temperate, and is evidently inspired by the earnest desire to argue out this question fairly. "We commend his good faith in this matter, and wish that his example would be followed by the authorities of his Church, and that once for all we had a straightforward statement of what they consider their grievances to be, what would satisfy them, and that, above all, at what stage their agitation would end. Conceding tb&s much to our correspondent's good faith, we are compelled to state he has, in our opinion, completely failed to accurately state even that side of the question of which he is so enthusiastic an exponent. He has endeavored to state the question syllogistically, and if his premisses were sound there is no doubt his conclusions would be Irresistible, lhose however who have studied the question, and who know what the pretension of his Church are, will have no difficult; in seeing the numerous errors into whiol he has fallen. He argues in the first plac that " the State system in New Zealand i essentially bad and anti-Chriatian," be cause " it excludes moral and religious training." Does our correspondent mean to say that if our State system included " moral and religious training" that would end the agitation which his Church is waging in this country ? We know that it certainly would not, unless that " moral and religious training " were to be the morality and the religion of the Soman Catholic Church; for he mustknow that the teaching' of that Church is thW there is only one true religion, [and it is unnecessary to ask him which he believes that one to be. We again commend our correspondent for the truly Catholic spirit which his argument breathes, but his views in this respect have not the sanction of his Church, and would certainly not meet with their ap-' proval. If all that his major premies implies were conceded by the State, he would speedily find himself still compelled to oppose our education system as "badandantiChristian." To have fairly stated his case his argument should have opened in this manner:—A system of teaching which excludes the Catholic religion is defective* &c., and have made his deductions from that premiss. Had he done so, he would have been arguing in accordance with the teaching of his Church, which he has not done. So far as the logic of our correspondent's letter is concerned we might leave the matter, bat we wish to point out to him still further how completely he misunderstood the question. He goes on to argue that" the State system in New Zealand is contrary to the conscience of Catholics, and no Catholic can support it." We always suspected that this was the true flight in which our education system was regarded by the Church of Borne, and we must again applaud our correspondent for being ahead of the authorities of his Church ■ in frankly stating what the real opinions are. At the same time; it is impossible to refrain from expressing our wish that " Catholic Ijßtyman"had misunderstood the teaching of his Church on this point alse. will remember that Dr. Moban, the most distinguished advocate ofjQatholic chums in New Zealand, daring .his Peninsula candidature^—in reply to a question, said grant aid to Free thjotfght schools, that is, to schools in regard to .which our correspondent would not find it necessary to resort to syllogisms in order to prove that they were "Anti-Christian." All the more, then, would he find it contrary to his conscience to grant his support to them. We may then leave this part of his .argument with the final remarkthat, if by not "supporting" State schools he means not tolerating "bad and Anti-Christian schools" he is less liberal than we he is, and not so tolerant as some of the Bishops of his Church in this colony. * In dealing with the major premiss of his next syllogism, we must take exception to the use he makes of the word "conscience." We presume that he does not mean to affirm that the Catholics of ' this colony have any intuitive feeling that the State system of Education is J wrong. It is contrary to their conscience, because the authorities of their Church will not permit Catholics to avail themselves of that system of education which places Catholics and non-Catholics on the same footing, and does not grant to j one a single thing which it denies to the other. Had a system such as that not been condemned by our correspondent's Church it would not be contrary to his conscience to avail himself of lour education system generally, any more than it is for him and his coreligionists to benefit by that same system in those cases in which his Church allows them to do so. We have thus shown that the "Catholic conscience" in this case means neither more nor less than the teaching of the Catholic Bishops. Now, having exposed the weakness of his syllogisms, let us invite his attention to an aspect of this question which, while writing so freely of " persecution," he has piobably overlooked. In New Zealand nonCatholics, in order to meet the views of their Catholic fellow-colonists, generously consented to the exclusion of Bible reading and all religious training from the State Schools. On the other hand, it is well-known what Catholics are prepared to do in order to secure f or themselves what non-Catholics readily-surren-dered in the hope to meet the viewa of our correspondent's Church, and to prevent in New Zealand that sectarian bitterness which at present is disgracing other lands. Their duties as citizens—politically, at all events—are as dust in the balance, likewise that system of education which is valued and appreciated by all save them alone. liet" Catholic Layman "reflect a little on the other side of the question and his grievances will speedily J and from one so liberal as he is we shall soon hear nothing of "persecution" and injustice to Catholics. This is not a question of money, writes our correspondent. Not bo says the Catholic petition which is now, we understand, being circulated for signature. Exempt Catholics from taxation, and according to it there would be an end of the Catholic grievances, though

we candidly confess we gravely doubt it, and if our correspondent is to be regarded as an authority on the subject the agitation would have to continue. He asks us to avoid such terms as " Clerical domination " and " priestcraft." We have no wish to use harsh words, but " Catholic Layman *' knows well that in regard to tllis education question his opposition is due to what be calls " clerical domination." Had he read the report of the Victorian Education Commission he would have seen the very words of the Pontifical decree, which, j according to Archdeacon Slatnsby, left members of the Catholic Church no alter- , native but t j oppose the secular system of education. Finally, he wishes to be informed of the difference in position between Catholics in New Zealand and Christians in the Roman Empire previous to the days of Constantinb. Well, had such Christians been allowed to openly practise their faith, teaching it when and where they pleased, even in the hills of learning, to produce a turmoil in the State because concessions denied to everybody else were not granted to them, they would have perceived and appreciated a difference, if our correspondent and his coreligionists cannot.