CLERICALISM IN POLITICS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12989, 2 June 1904, Page 3

CLERICALISM IN POLITICS.

Bi J. MacGregor, M.A.

Two remarkable documents have lately been presented to the public—the manifosto of tho Koman Catholio bishops as to the attitude of their Church on the question of Scriptural instruction, and the reply inado by Dr Gibb and certain other clergymen professing rto ropres'ent various other churches. Probably the most striking fact about those pronouncements is that tho Catholics appear as the champions of toleration and liberty of conscience, whilst the Protestants find themselves in the position of defenders of the power of the majority even in matters of faith and conscience.

Homo 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 \ro 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 —" But 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 tho vantago ground thus gained they have been successful in compelling the self-constituted leaders of Protestantism to evacuate- one of its strongholds—namely, the principle that there is one sphere in whioli the power of the majority shall not be allowed to prevail because it would be tyranny—the sphere , of religion and conscience. What is tho struggle now , going on in England over tho Education Act but a battle of the Nonconformists against the English Church for this saorcd principle, and against tho tyranny of tho majority? And havo we not teen the Evangelical Churches in New Zealand and in tho Australian colonies passing resolutions of sympathy with their brethren in England "in their noblo fight against tyranny?" And yet the Education Act was passed in the proper constitutional way by a majority—a large majority. Now we ■witness the remarkable spectacle of the eoi-disant leaders of thoso very Churches coming forward 83 the champions of the power of tho 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 their book to stand up for tho rights of tho There is a deal of human nature fcberat this,' but no nobility of principle to boast of. Tho fact seems to be that, when ministers of the Gospel stoop from their own proper sphere to become political agitators, they show no superiority to tho average politician. In this matter their action is such as might be expected from tho veriest political opportunist, and they seem to bo quite callous to tho wrong and injustice that may be inflicted, on the minority. .For there is ono thing that the majority cannot do, and that is to make just that which is unjust. lam no lover of the Catholio 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 Catholio fellow citizens believe thoy suffer injustice at present inasmuch as they are compelled as taxpayers to contribute to tho maintenance of an education system of which they cannot avail thomsolves and remain true, to the fundamental principles of their' Church. They prove their sincerity by applying annually £60,000 of their own monly for the education of their children. There can bo 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 oontribute to the cost of giving religious instruction in the Stato schools. Whilst professing to " sympathise deeply with them in what they regard as their grievances," thoir Protestant brethren add insult to injury and injustice by the rotort that the Catholics must put up with their grievances and the rule of tho

majority until they succeed in converting themselves into a majority. (Their Catholio brethren may bo trusted to estimate at its proper value an expression of sympathy which is so carefully worded as to guard against any admission of tho existence of the grievanoe.) But it doss not appear to iiavo occurred, to .them, when they were expressing sympathy with the passive resistors id England, to remind.them of the great principle of the power of the majority in democratic communities! Further insult is added to tho unworthy retort to the statement of the bishops as to the expenditure of £60,000 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 tho separate education of their ohldren," is the reply vouchsafed by their deeply sympathetic brethren! True, indeed; but their religious principles "asked them," and, being , true to their principles, tbey obeyed them, and thus proved their sincerity. Protestant ministers have a muoh easier way of proving their sincerity—by

egitnting , to get ilioir work done by the | Stat-o toaohsrs at the oxpense of Catholics as well as of Protestants. Ono thing seems certain, that they will not spend either time or money for the religious education of the youth of thoir churches. In an Australian newspaper the other day a Protestant minister was reported as having declared that if 10s were payable to ministers for every school visit they would bo seen tumbling" over each ot-lier in thoir eagerness to perform this saored duty. "Tho religious. education of youth is a fundamental duty of parents and Christian ministry," say tho bishops, and the ministers do not venture to question the correctness of tho proposition. " That sacred duty the clergy can never abdicate, cither wholly or in part, ill favour of the State. Tho proposals above referred to (i.e., for' Biblelessons) are. an attempt on the part of a number of clergymen of various denominations to renounce one of the most hallowed obligations of their calling, and to transfer it to paid officials of the State and to get it done at the charge of the publio Treasury —duties which Catholics perform at their own expense." This is tho charge made by the bishops against somo Protectant ministers, and it is unanswerable, .for tho fact seems to be tliat tho majority of .Protestant ministers don't care how or by whom tho work is done so long as, they att> not expected to do it and: they can roliovd , their consciences of the incubus; they are content to let it bo done by machinery, as the poor benighted Thibetan does his praying, and they dare to ask the electors to sanction this by their votes. Why do they not leave tome of their other funotioii3 to bo performed, by machinery, as, for example, marrying people; tliat, at least, could b& done just as effectually by State machinery. Somo of their other duties could bo relegated to the evangelist (itinerant or other), so dear fo the heart of Dr Gibb.

Tho bishops' manifesto must have come as a qurpriso and disappointment to tho leaders of tho movement, for them can be little doubt that somo of them believed that tho Catholics would vote with them in tho expectation that the religious instruction given (partly) at their expense would strengthen their claim for fi grant for religidns instruction in their own schools. But the manifesto shows that tho Catholics will be no parties to auy such duplicity, for it formulates their demand for a grant in a straightforward way, and it is no easy matter for a candid unprejudiced man to answer it. Hitherto the lenders on tho other side have been significantly silent on the question of a grant, but now that all hope of Catholio support is gone they blurt out the truth when they reply that "it would undoubtedly result in tho overthrow of tho Stato svsteni."

I ask tho electors to consider the full significance of the admissions made:—(l) It is admitted that the introduction of religious instruction would involve the infliction of a, grievance upon the Catholics; (2) it is apparently admitted that tho only way in ■which justice could bo dono would lxs by a grant for religious instruction in their sohools; but (3) such a grant " would undoubtedly result in the overthrow of the State system." Is this any answer to tho complaint? Surely the answer of tho electors to , the clerical parly should bo:

" We refuse to vote for what you admit to be an injustice until you show us how yoii piomise to remedy it." , What would be the answer? A conscience clause! Catholics and others who object-for reasons of conscience to religious instruction are to be allowed the inestimable privilege of contributing to the cost of providing religious instruction for tho children of other people, and of withdrawing their own children! The alternative presented to them is to have their children taught a religion they illsapprovo of or none. Instead of justico they are to have further insult added to an admitted wrong!

Now, a few words as to the referendum. The Protestant leaders were enthusiastic over this wonderful democratic institution. The truth is that tho method proposed is not in any true sense a referendum, but a plebiscite; nor is it democratic in any real sense, for it culs at the root of representative government. A real referendum would moan a raference to tho people, for their ratification, of a measure after it had been pasted by their representatives. This socalled referendum is simply a cowardly devise for enabling timid and time-serving politicians to escape committing themselves on nn awkward question, and yet to poso 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 arona of politics thoy become indifferent to such considerations, and think only of attaining their immediate ends by any means. On the real referendum I express no opinion.