CLERICALISM IN POLITICS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1685, 15 June 1904, Page 58

CLERICALISM IN POLITICS.

(By Mr John MacGregor in “Otago Daily

Times.”)

Two remarkable documents have lately been presented to the public—the manifesto of tlie Roman Catholic bishops as to the attitude of their church on tho question of Scriptural instruction, and the reply mado by Dr Gibb and certain other clergy meni, professing to represent various other churches. Probably the most striking fact about tlieso pronounce ments is that the Catholics appear as the champions of toleration and liberty of conscience, whilst the Protestants find themselves in tlie position of defenders of the power of the majority even in matters of faith and conscience. Rome temporarily accepts the inevitable, but never compromises, and her attitude on this question affords an illustration of this principle. The bishops virtually say to the Protestants: “When you are the masters wo claim perfect liberty for ourselves as your principles require it;” but they take care not to add what would be necessary to a complete statement: “Biit when we are the masters we refuse it to you, as it is contrary to our principles.” But for the purposes of the present controversy their position is justifiable. From the vantage ground thus gained they have been successful in compelling the self-constituted leaders of Protestantism to evacuate one of its stiongholds—namely, the principle that there is one sphere in which the power or tire majority shall not be allowed to prevail because it would be tyranny—the sphere of religion and conscience. What is the struggle now going on in England over the Education Act but a battle of the Nonconformists against the English Church -for this sacred principle, and against the tyranny of the majority? And have wo not seen the Evangelical Churches in New Zealand and in the Australian colonies passing resolutions of sympathy with their brethren in England “in their noble fight against tyranny?” And yet the Education Act was passed in the proper constitutional way by a majority—a largo majority. Now w r e witness the

REMARKABLE SPECTACLE of the soi-distant leaders of those very churches comiag forward as the champions of the power of the majority, even in the sphere of religion and conscience! What is it that, makes the difference? Simply that Dr Gibb and his confreres think they happen to be on the side of the majority on this occasion, and so it will suit tlieir book to stand up for tho rights of the majority. There is a deal of human nature about this, but no nobility of principle to boast of. The fact seems to be that, when ministers of tho Gospel stoop from their piouer sphere to become political agitators, they show no superiority to the average politician. In this matter their action is such as might be expected from the veriest political opportunist, and they seem to be quite callous to tho wrong and injustice that may be inflicted on the minority. For there is one thing that the majority cannot do, and that is to make just that which is unjust. I am no lover of the Catholic Church, but, .in common with most Britons, I am a lover of justice, and in the name of justice I appeal to my fellow-electors not to allow clerical agitators to manipulate their votes so as to cause injustice. Our Catholic fellow-citizens believe ' they suffer injustice at present inasmuch as they are compelled as taxpayers to contribute to the maintenance of an education system of which they cannot avail themselves and remain true to the fundamental principles of their Church. They prove their sincerity by applying annually JJfiO.OOJ of their own money for the education of their children. There can be no question that this is a great hardship, and to this hardship their brethren of the Evangelical Churches (and a section of the Anglican Church) propose to add positive injustice by compelling them to contribute to the cost of giving religious instruction in the State schools. Whilst professing to “sympathise deeply with them in what they regard as their grievances,” their I’rotestant brethren add insult to injury and injustice by tho retort that the Catholics must put up with their grievances and the rule of the majority until they succeed in. converting themselves into a majority. (Their Catholic brethren may be trusted to estimate at its proper value an expression of sympathy which is so carefully -worded as to guard against any admission of the existence of the grievance.) But it does not appear to have occurred to them, when they were expressing sympathy with the PASSIVE RESISTERS in England, to remind them of the great principle of the power of the majority in democratic communities! Further insult is added to the unworthy retort to the statement of the bishops as to the expenditure of a year out of the pockets of the Catholics for the education of their children. “The State did not ask them to spend <£60,000 a year in providing for the separate education of their children,” is the reply vouchsafed by their deeply sympathetic brethren! True, indeed; but their religious principles “asked them,” and, being true to their principles, they obeyed them, and thus proved their sincerity. Protestant ministers have a much easier way of proving •their sincerity—by agitating to get .their work done by the State teachers at the oxpense of Catholics as well as of Protestants. One thing seems certain, that they will not spend either time or money for the religious education of the youth of ' their churches. In an Australian newspaper the other day a Protestant minister ivas reported as having declared that if 10s were payable to ministers for every school visit they would be seen tumbling over each other in their eagerness to perforin this sacred duty. "The religious education of youth is a fundamental duty of parents and Christian, ministry.” says the bishops, and the ministers do not venture to question the correctness of the proposition. “That sacred duty the clergy can never abdicate, either wholly or in part, in favour of cue fcitape. The proposals above referred to (i.e., tor Bible lessons) are an attempt on the pare

of a number of clergymen of various denominations to renounce one of the mo3t hallowed obligations of their caning, and to transfer it bo paid officials of me State and to get it done at the charge of the public Treasury—duties which Catholics perform at their own expense.” This is the charge made by the bishops against some Protestant ministers, and it is unanswerable, for tho fact seems to be chat Iff© ( majority of Protestant ministers don’t care how or by whom the work is done so long a.s they are not expected to do it, and they can relieve tnerlr consciences of the incubus; they are content to let it be done by machinery, as the poor benighted Thibetan does his praying, and tney dare to ask the electors to sanction wia by their votes. \\ by do they not leave some of their other functions to be performed by maemnery, as. for example, marrying people? That, at least, could be done just as effectually by State machinery. Some of their other duties could be relegated to the evangelist (.itinerant or other), so dear to tho heart of Dr Gibb. The bishops’ manifesto must have come as a

SURPRISE AND DISAPPOINTMENT to the leaders of the movement, tor there can be little doubt that some of them believed that the Catholics would vote with them in the expectation mat the religious instruction given (partly) at their expense would strengthen their claim for a grant for religious instruction in tneir own schools. But the manifesto snows that the Catholics will be no parties to any such duplicity, for it formulates their demand for a grant in a straigntforward way, and it is no easy matter for a candid, unprejudiced man to answer it. Hitherto t.lie leaders on tne oiner side have been significantly silent on the question of a grant, but now that all hope of Catholic support is gouo tney blurt out the truth when they reply that “it would undoubtedly result in the overthrow of the State system.” I ask tho electors to consider the full sigit.hcnnce of the admissions made: it is admitted that tlie introduction of religious instruction would involve the infliction of a grievance upon the Catholics; (2) it is apparently admitted that the only way in which justice could be done would be by a grant for religious instruction in their schools; but (3) such a grant, “would undoubtedly result in tho overthrow of the State system.” Is. this any answer the complaint? Surely Hie answer of the electors to the clerical party should bo “Wo refuse to vote for what you admit to be an injustice until you show us how vou promiso to remedy ir. What would ba the answer? T conscience clause! Catholics and others who object for reasons of conscience to religious instruction are to bo allowed the inestimable privilego of contributing to the cost of providing religious instruction for the children or other people, and ot withdrawing their own children! The alternative presented to them is to have tneir children taught a religion they xlieappiove of or none. Instead of justice they are to have further insult added to an admitted wrong! Now, a tew words as to the referendum. The Protestant leaders were enthusiastic over this wonderful democratic institution. The truth is that the method proposed is not in any true sense a referendum, but a plebiscite; nor is it democratic in any real sense, for it cuts at the root of representative government. A real reteiendum would mean a reference to tne people, for tlieir ratification, ot a measure after it had been passed by their representatives. This so-called reteren dum is simply a cowardly device tor enabling timid and time-serving politicians to escape committing themselves on an awkward question and yet to pos*o as true friends of democracy. It would be difficult, to imagine a device better adapted for lowering the manhood of a Parliament than such a sham referendum as this. But apparently when clergymen descend into the arena of politics they become indifferent to such considerations, and think only or attaining their immediate ends by any means. 'On the real referendum I express no opinion.