BIBLE-IN-SGHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2220, 5 August 1914, Page 10

BIBLE-IN-SGHOOLS

■•V EVIDENCE BEFORE EDUCATION ; , .COMMITTEE -.■■ , ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE REFERENDUM

BISHO? CLEARY CROSS-EXAMINED

The Education Committee of the House of Representatives resumed yesterday the, hearing of evidence on the several petitions presented to ->the House, praying that the Religious ■ Instruction iii Schools Referendum Bill be not passed. Dr.' Cleary, Roman Catholic Bishop of ■Auckland, submitted himself for crossexamination. Canon Garland asked the Bishop to .outline;a method to which hc.had">re'ferredjn. evidence,in-chief by'which the Roman . Catholics were willing to aid their Protestant fellow-citizens in se*' .curing,religious instruction for their children'in the State schools. ;'■_ Bishop, Cleary said he had already indicated the general lines on Avhich • Roman Catholics- would be prepared. to meet all!otlier parties interested in this : matter, .with''tho' sole provision that the equality and the .rights of all under the law should be respected. If-the Bible-,in-Scliools'League and any other parties interested, ready to respect the rights 'of-.conscience"'of'all,' were willing to, sit 'rouhd'a 'table/iii.' conference with theni, the Roman Catholics would joyfully meet Hient*™lf"'sucKsa! conference were arranged," rccdgriiSing this : principle, • he believed that they could settle all ques- ■ tionsrat issue in forty-eight hours. .Garland.suggested that he had : flbt"liad , an ?anSweif;.to his, question. '■'.. . : i.r.Bishopv Cleary,.said he could not. see wlierein hisi : answer had failed. Was iho.fasked .to detail ~a scheme at the *m<Aieift ?•...'" vHef,was" ready to;detaiL.a seiieine'-fpr' Roman Catholic : children, but he would have nothing whatever to rddAwithutlie drawing up of any scheme :and;forcing;i? upon Protestant children. He tfo'uld's3y'to;thoso interested in pro'4vidmp religious /education for Protest- ' ant* ;children,'; "Bring, in any' scheme tliatVto .you seem's'.'good, and so long as ■y6u7.iespect,.tlie" rights of others in that scheme. t weiwill^help you to get it,'and we will rwishVyou.. 'God Speed' in carry.ing it.p.ut,.', , ~• .' '■.•• Caiipii:; Garlandj: , , You say,'then, that if \ye brought ih'!a scheme agreed upon by noii-Roman , .Catholics you would : not oppose it, provided the consciences of all \yere duly safeguarded? . ■ ■ i. Bishop Cleary i-'That is so. ' : : In reply t<ua u further question.' Dr. ClearV said--'th'a'£Uhe' Roman , Catholic ;'Church was£delhiSt|ly opposed to .the ■leaguo'.s;:proposai.'rfor religious instruc,tipn ,ia .iState schools. ; ■. ■ :.;-v; :. •.:".' .' ■ \Canon GarlandiAro.the Roman. Cath.'dlic J &"irrevo6i.bli'"opposed to the people '.pt";s6w;:Zealaiid!']Sßttling at. the Tiallot bqr.t'his'proppsal'-pr any ..other dealing •with// religibus-u.'instruction in. State tJc'hools? ■-, . J.J! 1. ', .'"■••' . - ..Bishop Cleary paid that the Roman Catholica". were:;irrevocably opposod , to all disputecl questions of religion and "cpnscience'bemg-decided, by a plebiscite. \ Caiioh Garland:,ls the Roman Cath!.dlic!'Onirch'deterniuie'd.to cpntinud Its;:policy ■'of-'eeeking:? State ,aid for its 'schpols'irrespeetiye. cf whether there,is religious'instruction or no religious in-.-strUction |, 'ih'the. present Stjate school ■ejjeteni?....._.:-......... /\ ~..:......:.;■_. ■'■ Dr;'^dlearV'replied ttat'-'the question had beeii answered by him. publicly a 'multitude'of times, and he read' one of his typical: answers to ; it. Subsidy or no ■•'.subsidy Roman -Catholic schools,, ! he would object to several planks in the, league's platform, amongst others'the failure of the league to provide a con-;.seience-"clause for. teachers. Roman '■Catholics:'would/.never surrender their moral'and natural right tohayo their -fair share of «'Roraan Catholic taxes expended bii. Roman Catholic schools in ■cotisidoratipn;\bt ; 'the secular teaching and r : not.tho'.religious teaching in those - -\." '■ /: "• ' '■■■'. ■■ This.' "concluded Canon . Garland's cross-examination/ ■: Professor .Hunter, of the National Schools.; Defence League, was informed \>y the chairman that he might ask ■questions.-. "A-.- , .- ■ . . ' . . •'"Canoh":.Garland protested _. that, in terine of. the'committee's decision, as it v was communicated to him, only one re-presentative',-on .each side of the ques-. tion'cbuld oross-examine. It was argued; ■hpwover,,'that'there were more than two' parties'.interested, in the question, 'aud j the chairman ruled that Professor Hunter might • ask questions. He however, that he would allow Canon Garland to. re-examine acain af tei"wards; : "■'■ /■< -r '■■,-.■■■ ': ."'.'■ '"'■.<■.. :.;^\ ;;:"lnherent Injustice." : ;: 'Professor Hunter (,to Bishop Cleary): Am I 'right in saying that your objections to. this,scheme, are based on the 'inherent' injustice of it? . ' ... .Bishop .Cleary: That is exactly the position.- Ho' had already sufficiently explained, he said, that Roman, Catholics' wefei" not opposed to ■ the Bible-■in-Schools. They were in favour of it. He maintained that they were the only body in the Dominion who had made immense sacrifices for-it. They were the only true" Bible-iiirSchbols League, .but they were opposed to this scheme solely .because of its injustice—first of all'tho injustice to the taxpayers who would be ■ compelled to bear a part.; of. the cost of a scheme of which they did not approve; the injustice to teachers ,who would-be compelled, to give lessons.under the scheme of which they did' not upprpve; and. thirdly, tho injustice that would be perpetrated by the odious' proselytising . conscience clause, which practically ensured that a certain number of children, would bo (instructed in- these, lessonsiwithout the knowledge of their paients. r If tho Biblo-in-Sclibois Leagun those objectiondble ■featuros"fr'om'it's ! programme, the "So--man Catholics would join.hand-in-hand with the league t<l bring a measure of religious instruction into the public .'schools. '.': ;J: ' ' ■ ■ "Tfie Position or Cathoilo Teachers. Professor Huntc- asked what was tlie position of Roman Catholic teachers in New South Wales? Could.a convinced r.nd conscientious Roman Catholic give unsectarian and ,general religious, .instruction'as required by the law in. the public schools, and oct according to the dictates'"of hie Church ? Bishop Cleary. said ho had anticipated the question*; and ho had prepared a stateriient-pn'the point. It was, ho «aid, wholly invpbssiblo for a Roman Catholic teacher who was loyal to his faith to impart , uneectarian .general religious Such a thing as'onsnetarian religjqus teaching was, condemned by .tiie_Ainanimous voice of nil Reman CatholicOhcologians. No teacher in New,.South,,Wales who was loyal to Reman Cathpjic; principles could take any part in the teaching of thin geno.val religious-, teaching in New South Wales.: In supjport of this he quoted numerous authorities. Professor Hunter: Is the Catholic Church in anyiw'a'y in alliance with tho ■.National- Schools' Lcaq;iiG? ■■■;Dr..'■■Cleary':'-'ltr is not, and by the. very .'nature of their principles and of ours itftannot'hc:" We cannot any more mingle'with the objects of the National Schools'.-- Defence Leacue than oil can mingle with water. He explained tll.lt the Romans Catholics insisted that the life pf ..children in schools should be surrounded with tho gtmosphere of ieligiou, while the National Schools' Dβfencß'League stood for the divorce of jehVion-from-education. . .The Romp

Catholic Church was much nearer to the Bible-in-Schools League and was willing rather to join .with "it as soon as , the league took out of its programme cor-, tain unjust proposals. '■' ■ • ■ / Profossor Hunter said it had T&en' Elated that Roman Catholic children in some- New South Wales schools were allowed to 50 out into the shelter-sheds in the period when religious lessons v/ere being given. Wai would 110 ttfl general cftectof this arrangement upon the children? •

• Bishop Gleary said that so bitter was the feeling of Roman: Catholics against the system in New South Wales that over vast areas of' that country no priests would go into the State schools, '.there was legislation of the Church forbidding prkste to' go into tho schools ovqr a great part of the country. Much as they loved the children; tho priests could not go:into the. schools, and if-'they wished , -to mecf; them they did so' in a neighbouring house or at eome other place. Professor Hunter repeated his question as to what effect on the religious' faith of the children an arrangement such as he mentioned would have?

Bishop Cleary.said he , thought he could safely leave the committee to answer that question—it • would have an exceedingly detrimental' effect on tho children. It would, also impress upon them the profound'objection Roman Catholics had. to the system. They called it the Protestant system, or tie proselytising system. Professor ' Hunter asked whether Bishop Clear.y thought that in the event of tho Leagued system ■ being adopted here Roman . Catholic teachers ,in tho service would be j)laced at a great disadvantage .in the matter of appointments. . , ' ■ Bishop Cleary said there could be no doubt- that_ they would be at a very obvious disadvantage. If a' Roman Catholic applied for a position ho would be asked whetherVhe was Trilling to teach tho State lessons, and the Roman Catholic teacher,'if he were a loyal Roman Catholic, would have to reply that he was not. That would pus him out.of court afonce.. Ho might,, on the other hand, violate his conscience in order to get.bread and butter for himself and his family. ' ■ ■ ■ The Swiss Referendum. Professor Hunter asked whether it was true, as had been.stated_ by Canon Garland, that Roman, Catholics had advocated a referendum in Switzerland in 1882,, and hero in 1914 denied the right of the people to decide a similar question. ', • , '.. . , . . .' ■• Bishop Cleary answered this question at some length. Tho facts relating to the Swiss lefercndum roferred to were not, he said,, as stated by Canon' Garland. . No siich issue as that of iho '.introduction' of religious instruction in schools wafe before Wie electors in Switzerland at the referendum of 1882. The question was merely as between Federal rights and Canton rights', in the matter ■of tho inspection and control of schools*. Tile referendum in Switzerland dealt withpiirely. temporal matters. Canon Garland's statement was contrary to fact; There was no difforence of policy between the Roman Catholic Church in Switzerland, and the' Roman Catholic Church in Now Zealand. Breach of Privilege? ' Professor Hunter, brought under the ; notice of Bishop Cloary a letter by the Rev. R. .Wood, published. in The DOitiNiqu charging the Roman Catholic Bishops with not being straightforward in this, matter. : > • . . ■ This question led, to a great deal of discussion. Members of the committee declared that .the letter commented on evidence given before the.Committee, was:written to influence tho Committee, and wa-s a breach of privilege, but no one suggested that it was worthy of . notice as such. Canon Garland 1 said that' there bad been.iio ; intention of commenting on the, Committee's proceedings, and that in fact the letter had been written a ■ week hofore .Committee Eat: '■....: ... ■ ■ .■: ; Bishop Cleary denied the charge of in- , consistency. He was made in the letter ■to appear, to be a friend of the secular system, whereas he had frequently condemned it in- no measured terms. .He was not opposed to the Bible in State schools, but-in. favour of it. 'He was not in fa/our' of ''an emasculated caricature" of the Bible, as proposed by the Bible-in-Schools. League.. ■ . .•■"..' Professor Hunter, 'asked whether Bishop Cleary ,would bo ill favour of admitting to' the conference he proposed those who were in-favour of thepresent system of .education. . .•/. ■ Bishop Cleary said he would agree to tho. settlement of the question only on a basis that Would recogniso the, rights of all. All interests would have to bo; considered. Although opposed to the present system, he recognised the rights of those of other faiths who believed that education should be kept secular.,/ Teachers' Consciences. Canon Garland then resumed crossexamination. :He said.' that* Bishop Cleary had spoken of Roman Catholic teachers violating , their consciences by giving Bible lessons in the schools of ■New South Wales. He could scarcely believe that this was so, because of the number of Roman Catholics that were in the service, and that' were coming into' the .service. Hβ asked whether any bishops in Now South Wales had issued any instructions to those teachers hot to continue violating the teachings of their faith by giving these religious lessons. , ..'" ( Bishop. Cleary said there were doubtless among Roman Catholic- teachers sonie who knew the principles of the faith, but who did not practise them, because they, were being bribed from the public funds t«. practise infidelity and disloyalty to their faith. .■■■■- '. , Canoii Garland asked whether ,any bishops in Australia bad evei- forbidden Roman Catholics to give these lessons iii State schools, especially in view of the fact that Roman Catholics were continually entering the, teaching service. ■" '-■ . :

Dr. Cleary said that ho did not know, asa'facti that Roman ■ Catholics were entering the service, and ho. did not: know that bishops had refrained from giving directions ' prohibiting Ro'i«an Catholics from giving these lessons. But he did know that if a.Ro;man Catholic teacher; who; was a practical Roman Catholic, who' applied for direction to a priest, that priest must answer, that, the .teacher must refuse to give tho lessons. A man with a family, however, who had to choose between his faith and his children's ■ bread. and butter, might' easily, decide in favour of the latter and keep his. position as a teacher. If a law were passed in New Zealand to-morrow conferring place and pay to Jews who would work on Saturday and eat. pork, there would be many Jews! to bo found who would take position and pay and oat pork. This was -no reflection on the Jewish people, but simply a statement of the weakness and frailty of human nature. The law of Now South Wales, in putting a similar disability on Roman Catholic teachers, counted upon the weakness of a certain number of them. That was the unfortunate position of the Roman Catholic teachers in Now South Wales.

No Dispensation. Canon Garland said he believed tho Archbishop of Brisbane had, while protesting rfgainst the- system introduced there, given some sort of permission to Roman Catholics to give the lessons. Bishop Gleary said that if the Archbishop had done this he had played a double part, and of this he (Dr. Cleary) did not believe him capable. This he knew, that the Archbishop was one of tho few men who had put up a great fight against the system, and he was still.a determined 'opponent of it.' In any case ; it was , not .in the power of any .Archbishop to give, such a dispensation to teachers as had been suggested. Canon Garlaud aaked why* >i the

Roman Catholics ..wanted a conference on the subject, Bishop Cleary had not called one. •.

Bishop ■Cleary. paid that lie would lmvo supposed.that• the first move in anything of tho sort ought to bo made by the larger denominations. He had .ninde several, suggestions on tho. subject before Canon Garland came to Now Zealand. If the.other denominations wanted a'conference, then the Roman Catholics would be ready to meet them "at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning." In reply to.another question Bishoi) Cloary said that in tho Swiss Referendum in 1882 tho questions'to' bo decided were wholly temporal. An attempt had been made to import religious questions into the issue, but that was only a trick of politicians of the day. ■ . ;

At this stnge the committee adjourned further hearing of evidence on the petitions for an indefinite time, probably two weeks.' In the meantime the committee will deal with the Education Bill, and when that Bjll is out of the way tho committee will resume and hear more evidence'on 'the • petitions. ' . •