REJOINDER TO THE BIBLE-IN-! SCHOOLS CONFERENCE.

Evening Post, Volume LXVII, Issue 150, 25 June 1904, Page 9

REJOINDER TO THE BIBLE-IN- ! SCHOOLS CONFERENCE.

The following further pronouncement on tho education question has been issued by the Catholic Bishops of New Zealand, in reply to tho manifesto of tho Biblc-in-Sehools Conference: — By way of rejoinder to a recent manifesto, we snbmit to the consideration of bur fellow-colonists of every cioed tho fallowing further criticisms of proposals to introduce into tho Stato schools, as "part of tha school curriculum under tho inspectors," a scbemo of lessons nnd pi-ayers from tho Protestant Authorised Vorsion. of tho Bible, ' with simple explanations of a literary, hiatorical, and ethical charaotcr," and with a conscionoo clause for pupils and teachers. This Bchcma,'*nß presented to tho public by its o'ftlcial advocates, involves (1) a completo subvorsion of 0110 of the three fund«mental principles of tho Education Act ; (2) an entirely changed sttitude on part of the Civil Government towards religion nnd religious denominations (3) the conversion of State school teachers in|o religious instructors ; (4) the compulsory payment of taxes by Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, and other recusants for the teaching of n. form of religion' to which, on grounds of conscience j they object; and (5) a resort to a referendum (or rather to a plebiscite) to decido questions affecting rights of conscience. , Upon tho official advocates of, a schemo of such 'far-reaching import naturally falls tho burdon of justifying it, if they c«n, by clear and cogent reasons of public necessity or convenience. Thus far, however, th<iy have failed to do ko. Our recent criticism of their manifesto hns, on the contrary, been met with the amazing contention that it devolves upon objectors to show cnuso why the new project/ should not receive legislative effect! Tho remainder of tho document is made up of a series of. unsupported statements nnd false assumptions > which may be set forth in the following propositions: — I. That the Civil Government has tho right to teach religion in 'the public schools. . ' ■ 11. That tho -proposed ,scheme of Scriptural instruction is "unsectarian." 111. That a conscience clause is ample protection /or objector?. r IV. That this question of conscience may be fairly decided by a referendum. I. STATE RIGHTS. It is asserted that tho Civil Government has the right to teach,. religion in tho public schools. " 1. Even if our Government possessed such a right, it could not. (as wo shall see) without grave injustice to large bodies of citizens, adopt the schemo of religious instruction which 13 now before the. public. But Christian philosophy, Catholic and Protestant aliko, denies the existence of any such right. The function of the Civil Administration is the protection of tho rights and tho -promotion of thp material well-being of the people. It is a secular organisation for secular purposes. The duty of religious instruction devolves upon parents and tho Christian Church (we aro ■speaking here of a Christinn country). The relation of parent to child is earlier thnn that of tho Stato to the citieen. And tho duty of the physical, intellectual, morale and religious growth and development of the child falls primarily >». nnd by right upon those who wero the immediate cause of its existence—namessl ly, .upon its parents. This is a dictate the Natural Law, of which" God is the Author. It in, moreover, to parents, and not to the Civil Power or to , School Boards, that God's positive com- ' mand was also given to train up their children to "fulfil all thnfc is written in tho Law" (Deuteronomy xxxii., 46; see also Eph. vi., 4). And it was tho Chntfian Church, and nofc the Stato Administration, that received from on high the commission to "tench all i-a-tiotts," ministering unto them iv the things that are of God. One of its vital functions is, through its ministry, to guide, direct, and aid parents in the exercise of tho sacred right and tho discharge of the sacred obligations of training children in the way that leads to* eternal life. Theso righfcj of parents Mndnthe Christian Church are not a civil grant. Thoy are rights of the Creator, against which no man and no human organisation has any rights. They aro rights of the spiritual order, which is anterior and superior to the State or secular »order. They can neither be surrendered nor taken away, nnd evory Govert.ment is bound to respect them by . tho Very l«w which justifies its own • r Jixl*t^noe. v ! &.\ Parents can never entirely freo tWmsclves from Iho natural obligation outlined above. They may, however, in pAt delegate, that duty— us, for instance, „ to pntd. tutors or teachers. Wo by no means deny that tho Civil Government may, through ita proper officers, net as a teacher to those who aro willing to accept such instruction oo ita limitations allow it to impart. But the right to instruct does not, by itself, imply tho ™* ducat «--tJ»> right to tfeach arithmetic does not necessarily include tho right .to teach religion. Moreover, 8™ f g ° f . teachin 8 is not J" 1 •£? vu ll h * civil P°*w- Its right, l,ke that of the private tutor, J8 secondary and delegated. The parents»W« Mmwn tho principals. Theywith the Christian 'church-are i? a special and exclusive manner responsible to God for all that pertains to tho moral nnd religious training of children. That is a duty of the higher and purely spiritmi order. And iha civil power or secular order— which is Concerned only with temporal things— has no more right or competency to interfere with it than the Church has to meddle in the administration of .the purely temporal affairs of the btate. The civil government is then incompetent to teach religion. Parents enn never surrender to it their natural right to determine in what form of rehgior their children shall be trained cither in or out of echool ; and tho Government, on its part, can neither deprive nor relieve parents and the Christian clcigy of the sacred spiritual duty of forming the minds of children to tho knowledge of divine things and moulding their hearts and wills to tho virtues that perfect their being hero and fit them for tho crown 'of eternal happiness in the life to come. 3. But even if the Civil Government had the right — and it emphatically has not — to impart religious instruction in schools, it would, in countries situated us Now Zealand is, be debarred from tlw exercise of that right by its inability lo determine what quantity and kind of religion it would teach. Our Government could only determine this matter ir ono ■if two ways: (a) by its own authority; or (b) by lefercnce .to some authority outside itself. (a) Now, if it has the f risjlit to decide for itself what shall bo j the religion of the public schools, no in- * dividual nnd no religious organisation would havo any right as against this (supposed) right of the State. For it is ;m axiom that rights cannot clash. Tha Piotestant statesman of to-day might direct Piotcstant teaching in the schools. But the agnostic or infidel statesmen of to-morrow might direct infldel teaching as "pnrt of the school curriculum ;" and (in the hvnothesis) nobody would havo

any right of protest or disobedience. (b) But lot us suppose that the Government allowb a re.igiouti denomination — or v group out of tho odd scoies of icligious denominations in tho countiy — to decido the kind of luligion it shall have taught in the public schools. Tliis (as an eminent American writer has lcnuyked) would be "an official leecognition of t.uoh toligious denomination or group as the Stuto creed — ns tho only tmo oxponcnt of icvcaled liuUi, and ns tho guardian of the Stato in faith and morals." And this gravo public wrong would be still further aggravated by compelling diw»utieuts of every creed to pay taxes, from which they could derivo no benefit, in order to defray tho cost of leaching a Sl.'ito icligion to which, on grounds of conscience, they object. It is admitted that "it can never bo for the conuuoi) good that conscicnco should be violntcd." Yet tho quoition-begging pita of "tho common good" hna been advanced -to justify such an invasion of tho domain of religion and conscionco by tho Civil Power as would be an outrage upon indcfcasiblo rights, personnl, parental, nnd divine." The teachings of history cloarly show that no Government has ever yet usurped spiritual functions without injury to tho cause of religion and tyranny over tho ' individual conscience. 11. A SECTARIAN SCHEME. 1. Tho scheme upon which our criticisms aro directed wns adopted last year nt a conference of somo Protestant' clergymen in Wellington. It consists (says the Outlook of 21st May, 1904) of "the Victorian text-book, with some slight verbal alterations." It is asseitcd (with, as usual, no attempt ut proof) that this schemo of Scripture instruction and pruyor.s is "uusccturinn." But this is a mere campaign watchword. Even if thoie were such a thing- as tin.«ectnrinn religion, it would not justify tho Government iv invading' tho spiritual- doniain. Neither would it entitle thorn to tax religionists and noti-religlouisU aliko for tho cost of a system of religious instruction of which numbeis of them would bo unwilling lo take advantage. 2. But there is no such thing as unscctnrian religious instruction, 'lhab is sectarian which pertains to a particular sect or denomination or school of religious thought. An uusectarian roligipn would, iv its last analysis, bu a religion which takes no particular view of, or attitudo towards, religion. . Which is an absurdity. Take tho simplest form of religion — belief in ' the existence of God. This is sectarian to the Atheist, the Agnostic, nud tho non-religionist generally, just as their views on religion — which aro usually as cloarly .defined, so far as thoy go, as those of J"ow or Christian— arc, to the Theist, sectarian. Iv his leti tcr of 14th January of the present year to Mr. Younger, Mr. Balfotir, dealing with 1 tho "confusion of ideas underlying 'undenominational teaching,'" said:— -"It is clear that, from the point of view of tho Jew, all Christian teaching, nnd, from the point of view of the Roman Catholic, all Protestant teaching, is denominational in the only sense relevant to tho present issue." In tho xecont manifesto which wo now criticise, it is,' moreover, admitted that the doctrinal attitude of the Catholic Church, and that of tho Bible-in-schoo!a clergy, towards God's written rovclntion— -the whole subject in dispute here^ — are irreconcilably "sectarian" one towards the other. 3. "Tho Victorian text-book" referred to aboTo is^a' sectarian production, drawn .up by a sectarian body on sectarian lines. It- is tho work of "A Royal Commission on Religious Instruction In State Schools." This Commission was composed, at tho timo of its report (13th September, 1900), of twelve Protestant clergymen and ono Protestant layman, selected precisely bccauso of their sectarian connection. Thoir duty (as «et foith in the mandate of their appqintment) was to suggest "what rcliL'taust instruction should bo given in tho Sttito schools , of Victoria." The scheuw of "religious instruction" which thoy drew up uontsist's of a sovios of lessons taken from a sectarian , version of Scripture^ — namely, tho Authorised Version — with oral explanations, repetitions, and "moral instructions," for the purpose of "impressing the truths advanced upon the minds of the pupils. From that inconoct and sectarian version of tho Bible thoso sectarian Commissioners selected a great many passages to serve as lesson book 3. But in, tho process (as we arc prepared to amply demontrate) they, with apparently elaborate care, (a) weeded out every passuge that tells in favour of Catholic doptrino; (b) they' filing aside everything —.oven the story of tho Virgin-birth of the Saviour 01 tho world — that might seem to contradict' their respective conflicting beliefs or disbeliefs ; and (c) — as was previously stated by us and in no way dcni6d— thev contrived, by shameful garbling and mutilation of God's Written Word, to mako the lessons appear "as Protestant as thoy could well bo made in tho circumstances." 4. It is proposed to introduce this, scheme of sectarian "religious induction," with only "«omo slight verbal alterations," into tho public schools of Now Zealand. It is, moreover, proposed to force this " emasculated caricature " of the Sacred Scriptures into tho schools on a sectarian doctrinal basis ; (a) on tho dogmatic principle of " tho Bible and the Bible only,, interpreted by private judgment"; and 1 (b) on the comparatively new-fangled theory which assumes that the living body of Christinn truth may be cut into sections, sorted out, and retained, mutilatctl, ignored, or surrendered to suit supposed social convenience or political expediency. This theorymiscalled " " Undenominationalifim "—rci presents, in reality, an unsucceßsful nttompl to formulate a Pan-denominational Protestantism. ! 5. According to n report officially circulated by the Presbyterian Synod, Dunedin, on the l«t November, 1899, tho facilities afforded foi< religious intitruction " outsido school hours " under the present Education Act, if properly utilised, would in twenty years "alter tho very face of the land." An official return presented 'to tho Legislative Assembly on the 2nd November, 1903, shows thut there in ono non-Catholic clergyman to every two State schools in New Zealand, but that only about one in eight of them (ns against about one In four of tho Catholic clergy) takes the trouble to impart religious instruction there. And no section of the Christian clergy has dono more than thoso of tho Biblc-in-Schools movement to impress the public witft tho belief that religious education is not a matter worth personal effort or sacrifice. 111. THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE. It is asserted that a conscience clauso would afford ample protection for objectors, liven if it did, it would not justify the Civil Government in assuming the role of religions teacher nnd compelling Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, and other lecusnnts to pay tithes (in the sbapo of txves) for the support of this form of State-endowed scctariaairni. it is fur thcrmore asserted that with a conscience clause the danger of pro&clytfcm of the children of objectors "in nil hypothetical." To this wo reply; — 1. In our previous pronouncement wo pointed out thai, by the provisions of the very conscience cluiuo that is suggested for use in New Zealand, nil children of objectors would be .subjected to compulsory proselytism unless they go to Euhcol armed with formal written prolo3ts against religious instruction. This is not denied. It would also be inevit- j üblo that a # great number of tcauherM ! would, at lecuyt unconsciously, tinge their explanations wilh their own particular beliefs or lack of religious belief. 2. We nro told that the Government,

in its great clemency, does not '" force " Catholics to send their ehildicn to the Piltnolti for which they an* taxed. Tim taunt is as untiuo as it is ungenerous and unfair. Ov<t vast areas of the colnny iho Ktntrf hns a complete monopoly of 'primary instruction. Thoto is no nlteinative sy&tem. Catholic pments suo fotced by the compulsory eluusc* of the Education to snnd their childion to those hi-hools. Moreover, one-roomed schools arc a. fcatuio of thu fnr-spieading districts to which wo refer. 'Returns obtained for us from the various; Education Boards show that two-tbirds> of all tho State schools in the colony are orieloomed school.". In such schools the conscience clause would obviously bo a mockery and v shimi if tho p'ropubcd scheme of "religious instruction" ueio to form " part of tho curriculum." And nuch, in effect, was the evidence given by a number of non-Cut hoiio witnesses before the Victoria.ii Royal Commission on Religions Instruction in Stato Schools (Minutes of Evidonco, Q. 323; cf. Qq. 16, 21, 22, 144, 172, 292, 392, 396, 4Uu, 419, 422). 3. Tho Education Act in Victoria does nob permit icligious instruction ti|l uchool has boon actually dismissed, and then (according to the regulations) " ail pupils whose parents do not object may remain " (i.e., are permitted, but not compelled,' to remain) "for that purpwe." But evidence in nbundanca 'was given by non-Catholic witnesses before the Victorian Royal Commission which clcaily proved that not alono tho quoted conscience clauso framed by the Depot tnient, but, nlao tho provision 1 of the Education .Act referred to above was openly, consciously, habitually, and flagrantly violated, (jnd lo the detriment of Catholic and Jewish children (Minuted of Evidence, Qq. 291-2, 144, 151, 171, 208). Tho Arciibi.shop of Melbourne 'has 'also published details of cases in which Catholic children were compflled, without redress, to attend soclurian religious instruction imparted by adherents of other creeds. Thoso who have read tho "Life and Correspondence" of Dr. Whately, Protestant Archbishop of. Dublin, are nwaro of tho wholesale nnd deliberately planned prosolytism that was earned on, under the illusory protection of a conscience clause, for the purpose (as th.at prolate declared in one of his letters) of "weaning the Irish from Iho abuses of Popery." Unhappily, wo arc not without evidence of a similar spirit of thinlyveiled intolerance, in theso younger lands. In its Very first issue, the Witness (the official organ of tho Bible-in-schoolsi movement in Victoria) gavo uromiuence of position and type to selected matter which prophesied that tho new scheme of religious instruction, when introduced into tho public schools, wouid overthrow tlfo "pagan system" of tho Church of Rome. And on 4th May, at Bendigo, Bishop Langley (a prominent member of tho Campaign Council) declared that the Itoyul ! Commisiion'a course of "religious instruction" would bo used to further tho interests of Protestantism by ovei throwing "the crrora and superstitions that were cast over at tho Reformation" (Argils, 6th May, 1904). Catholics, at lenst, will realise all that this means. Butwo havo said enough to show that a conscience clause is no protection for Catholic; Pro tcstant, Jewish, or other objectors. 4. As for tho teachers : Those in New Zealand should take to heart the candid and sufficient warning issued to their confreres in Victoria by tho official Organiser of the Campaign Council. Speaking at Lancefield, ho (as reported by the Witness, alluded to above) declared that if the local teacher took advantage of the conscience clause, ho would be "removed elsewhere, and another found to do this interesting work. Religious tests for teachers and for members of . School Boards and School Conimitto;:} ore- th« natural and incvitablo corollary to the .scheme that is at present beforo - tho country. IV. THE REFERENDUM. Tho advocates of tho scheme for capturing the public rohools for sectarian purposes wish to submit this question of conscience Jo what they call a "referendum" of tho pooplo of Now Zealand. But what they, in reulity, prbpose is a mero plebiscite. It has not even tho essonliul condition of an initiative." Much less is it a referendum ; for a true referendum is a popular vote for the mirposo of ratifying or vetoing a Legislative Act already passed by Parliament. Might nnd moral right aie not convertible terms. The rights of conscience of a minority, however small, aro as sacred and inviolable as thoso of a majority, however great. God gavo them.' Man cannot lawfully tako them away. Tim proposed plebiscite is ( in its last analysis, an undemocratic attempt, by ft group of clergymen, to secure legislative sanction for the principle that a majority may deprive a minority of its rights of conscience and pick its pockets (0 meet Iho expenses of tho process. And our protests nro met with tho hcnrlless reminder that wo arc free to turn ourselves into a "majority if wo cnnl V. CONCLUSION. Wo have endeavoured to treat this graro public question from the national rather than from tho denominational standpoint. Our position is not dictated by ulterior motives or mero expediency. It rest's on tho rock-basis of principles of right rule which nro applicable to Catholics and to non-Catholics alike. Wo rnluo God'n Sacred Word. We use it in our schools. We would gladly wclcomo any change in tho Education Act which would onab'.o' every child in tho colony to bo well grounded in tho doctrines of its faith, so long as this can be dono without detriment or danger to tho faith and the religious sentiments of tho children of other creeds. But wo will strenuously resist tho introduction into our country of principle!* of government which would violate or menace those God-given rights which wo can never abdicate, and which no power on earth can lawfully take away. W. J. LEWIS, S.M., Administrator of tho Archdioccco of Wellington. J. J. GRIMES, S.M., Bishop of Christchitrch. , ML. VERDON, Bishop of Dunedin, GEO. M. LENIHAN, Bishop of Auckland.

Wiliiain Gillette is busy finishing up two plays that ho has been hard at work on for tho last three years. Mr. Gillctto has already nine of ,hif» plays on tour or being • played by tho slock hou&cs. An American writ or says ho did Mr. Oilletto an injury when ho placed him in tho leisure cla«i. From tho look of thingy he works harder .than anybody wo have in the profession — he in never idle. While ho inuy net only twenty weeks out of n po.ssib'.o filly-two in "a year, the ploys that ho produces meanwhile givo employment to no lev) than or.c thousand peoplo weekly — that is, in tho slock companies and travelling organisations. There arc no less than four companies doing "fiherlQck Holmes," v.hiU those classic*, "Held -by the Enemy" nnd "Sucvfit Set vice" havo never stopped running. these, together with "Too Much Johneon,'' "Bcoaujo She Loved Him So," and other Uilletl? ftnecii, swell the number of people employed through William Qilletlc*« pen. Mr. UHlelte told tho writer once that every piny ho wroto camo hauW to htm— tho" public expected too much.