The Dominion. TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1911. THE CHURCHES AND THE STATE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1039, 31 January 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1911. THE CHURCHES AND THE STATE.

It is impossible to ignore the gravity of the situation revealed by tho speeches of Archbishop Redwood and Mr. Martin Kennedy to which we made brief allusion yesterday. Little assistance towards a clear understanding of the rights and wrongs of the position is likely to come from the Government, for although Sir Joseph Ward is already being entreated to "declare in unmistakable terms" that ho will "stand faithfully by the present law," tho public need expect from him no greater precision nor firmness than he usually permits himself when he cannot decide which is the right side to be on for the moment. Nothing'is more' certain than that principles will bo tho very last'thing the Government will think of as the foundation of any position that it may have to take. up. What the public needs most at the. present time is a fair statement of the arguments for and against the demands of Archbishop Redwood. The Catholic position rests upon the view thus stated by his Graoe: "There is onlyone true basis of sound education, and that is 'reli'gion. Separate one from the other and you destroy real education. If you eliminate God from education, our boasted civilisation will end in failure." The view held by the State, and by the opponents of the Archbishop—it is the .view' that has shaped and that maintains the present system of "free, secular and compulsory" education—has_ never been put ■ with oqual brqvity by any equally responsible authority, but we may put it as a belief that education has ho necessary relation at, all to religion, an'j,'indeed, is not miscible with it. The Archbishop holds that it is "a great injustice" that the Catholics should -be "compelled to pay taxes- for public schools to which they cannot conscientiously send their children." He therefore demands that the money they save the State should bo refunded to them '.'for the secular knowledge" which they impart to the children taught :in Catholic schools. They should not jb>3 "fined and oppressed" for imparting "one item of education beyond the secular curriculum required by the State when that'item is the most important of- all." This is a very fair and logical statement, from the Catholic point of view, of tho grievance _ that■ Mr.. Kennedy" threatens us will be made a first-class issue in our politics. Whether the gricvancs is one that' the State must- remedy, ov one that the Stato may dismiss as self-imposed and beyond the cognisance of the Government 'depends, it will readily be seen, upon whether tho Cathcilic or the State theory of oducation is the correct one.- ''Why," asks Archbishop Redwood, in effect, "should we be fined and oppressed, by being forced to pay for the education of non-Catholics, because we add to tho secular education of our children'an. clenient that we regard as vitally necessary V' "Why, retort the defenders of the free and sccular State education system, "should we pay you anything when wo provide lor all a system of education of which you do not choose to take advantage?" Stated thus—and we think that this is an accurate statement of the dispute—the position is 'seen to be one of deadlock. Yet it is a deadlock that cannot endure, as, Mr. Kennedy's speech makes perfectly clear; and it is the duty of all patriotic citizens, therefore, to do all that can bo done to avoid the calamity of_ 'a. solution through the means 'which Mr. Kennedy says can bo and, if necessary, will bo resorted to. The bitter feeling and the harmful strife that will follow the massing of tho Catholic vote in the way -suggested will not only be bad in themselves but will have the evil result of diverting the public's attention from the other great public questions that are com-ing-always nearer to a decisive issue.

The difficulties only incrcaso when we come to consider what practical means may be devised for a just settlement between, the Catholics, and the State. Tho Archbishop did not shrink from facing the largest of these difficulties, and he tackled them, with firmness and courage. It might be said, ho • observed, ' tfhalt "if ' Catholics receive grants for their schools, even on the plea of the secular knowledge they impart, other denominations will mako similar claims, and thus goodbye to tho secular systems throughout the Dominion. Nothing of tho sort! It is a false and groundless fear. Why sol Becauso the other denominations havo practically accepted the secular system, ha,ve no conscientious grievance similar to our own, have made no sacrifices of money for tho establishment of separate schools like ours, and therefore have no claim that any wise Government would listen to for a moment." Who can deny much forcc to this argument'? What "similar claim" can be made_ by any denomination which is content with the present system 1 and for what would, or could the Stato be asked in the way of a grant for that denomination? Wo note with _ regret that a contemporary has entirely misrepresented the Archbishop upon this point by implying that he will deny to any other claimant for justico what he demands for his own people. This is the less defensible inasmuch as his Grace was quite explicit in his next succeeding argument. "But," ho continued, "but supposing that taught and encouraged by the example of Catholics, they [the other denominations] were in future to begin to mako sacrifices and set up separate schools of their own,' while sparing the taxpayers vast sums per annum, as they did, why then education would gain, and the country at large would be cquivaiently benefited." When it is urged that "evtfy denomination will have to be put on an equal footing" in the matter of

grants, we are perfectly ready to agree to this, and we feel sure the Archbishop also will agree, provided that every denomination has first put itself on the same footing in the matter of providing the schools to justify tlw grants. Our attitude upon tho i equity of the position is that which we stated on February 16 of last year when discussing the proposal that the Junior National Scholarships should be open to the pupils of Catholic schools and tenable at Catholic secondary schools. We then said that "so far as the Catholic schools arc concerned, their separation from the State is surely not an argument for the penalising of those who support them," ana also that it is not the fault of the Catholics that they have done what the other denominations can do if they choose. In another column a correspondent raises a point of no little importance. The case against the Catholic demand rests upon the argument that the State is ready, willing and able to furnish all the children of the country with the education it approves. _ If the State is not in this position, its case is flawed at. the very beginning of it. Our correspondent suggests that, if the Catholics all at once decided to test this assertion by the State, the national education system would be found hopelessly inadequate. ' And in view of the frequent complaints of ovcr-crowding and under-staffing at the present time, there seems to be a good deal in our correspondent's point. We wish to say in conclusion that wc are anxious only to keep an open mind, and that he is no friend, of education, of religion, or of the State who will heat or disingenuousness to the discussion of this most difficult' problem.