CATHOLICS AND EDUCATION GRANTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15613, 20 May 1914, Page 11

CATHOLICS AND EDUCATION GRANTS.

Sir,—ln your issue of May 19 Archdeacon Willis writes as follows:— all know what Roman Catholics namely, grants in aid of their schools. Thoy will consent to the league's platform on condition that they get these." The archdeacon is too gentle a soul to do an intentional wrong to anyone. But his lastquoted sentence is a serious misrepresentation of the Catholic attitude in regard to the league's proposals, and has been contradicted by us hundreds of times. ■ For instance, in the Presbyterian Outlook (a league organ) of February 25,1913, I wrote in part as follows: — No amount of subsidy to Catholic school) would reconcile' me to several important planks in the league's platform. I will mention only three of these(a) Subsidy or no subsidy, I would protest, even with my dying breath, against the. wrong which trie league proposes to inflict upon the vast body of conscientiously objecting '• teachers, requiring Catholics among them to violate specific and oft-specified principles and laws of their Church, and facing all such objectors with the following alternatives :— Proselytism to league views, hypocrisy, or dismissal. (b) No possible subsidy to Catholic schools would ever reconcile me to the lqague's conscience clause, which was devised in Ireland for the purpose of 'weaning the Irish from the abuse-* of Popery.' . . . (c) No possible subsidy to Catholic schools would reconcile me to the principle of deciding vexed questions of religion and conscience by a count oi voters' heads." Well-meaning people of other faiths have frequently suggested that, as a matter of policy, Catholics should support the* league, thus enormously strengthening our claim to a subsidy for the secular results achieved in our school?. To all such, I have invariably replied, both publicly and in private: " What we Catholics gain herein we will not gain by subterfuge; what we lose, we will not lose by an ignoble silence where sacred rights and principles are involved." The opinions expressed above are not mine alone, t'aey are the views of the Catholic episcopate, clergy and laity of New Zealand. Archdeacon Willis should be ■willing to giant that we know our wants and views much better than the league orators and writers, by whom he has been, in this matter, misled. Just one thing more: We can never surrender our moral and natural right to our fair share of Catholic taxes for the secular (not religious) results achieved in our schools. But, on numerous public occasions I haw intimated, in substance., what follows; apart from the question of such grants, Catholics would give fair and friendly consideration to any reasonable scheme laid before them, bjwd on equal treatment and freedom of conscience. See, for instance, my reply to my friend the Rev. Mr. Jolly (a member of the league executive] in your issue of April 9, 1913. Unfortunately, the league will not meet the other interested bodies in conference, aid, intent (in effect) upon exclusive State . grants for - its own exclusive brand of denominational State. religion, it will have nothing to do with equal treatment and liberty of conscience in 4 ihe schools. I use the terms " Stats grants " and " denominational State religion" in their true and proper meaning, as acknowledged, in words before me, even by men of prominence now in the league. Henry W. Cleart (Bishop of Auckland). May 19.