THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14465, 6 March 1909, Page 14

THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

IX.-" WHO FIRED DOWN THE FLAG OF HELIGIOX IX OUR SCHOOLS;"TART 11.--NEW ZEALAND CATHOLICS AND THE "FREE, SECULAR, AND .COMPULSORY" ACT OF 1877. By tub Editor of the Xew Zealand Tablet. In 1877 the Hon. 0. 0. liownn, Minister of Justice, introduced into the New Zealand Parliament a. bill to abolish aid to denominational eclidoU, lo make education free, ronrjulsory, and (for a few minutes only, at the oj>ening of the, schools) religious. Part IV, Mctiou 85, stiltsection 3, of j ho bill ran ■ as follows:—"The school shall bo opened every morning with tho reading of the Lord's Prayer and a portion of the Holy Scriptures. With this exception the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character, and no child shall attend at the reading licrein provided for if bis or her parents or guardians inform the committee or teacher, in writing, that they object to such attenduncn." This " religious clause." as it, was ttilknj, was thrown out in Parliament, yarious amendments (hereto were negatived, and tho entire public school system of Now Zealand ba.s over since remained, tagally, purely secular. From the first, 'Catholics objected to this religious clause, on specified grounds which will appear at tbe close of tin's article. Their attitude in •regard thereto has boon, however, made die object of grievous misrepresentation by an anonymous writer, "R. W." (whose identity in bncomintr more and more widely known day by day), in the course of an Article in the Otago Daily Times of Feb-

■ruary 2, 1909. And here, again his sole fluoted authority was tho Key. 0. ,S, Ross's ''Education and Ed neat ion ists in Otai'o." ■1. First MisiiEriiKSKSTATiox.--Accofilin<r io "R. \V.,'' the Rev. Mr Ross describe 1 .

Catholics as, in effect, making "war" upon, ond "firing down," "the llag .of Christ"' in the public, schools of New" Zealand— IhaUs, carrying on a campaign having for .its immediate purpose Ihe exclusion of Christ, and Christian teaching from these schools. But the Rev. Mr Ross jieitlior says nor suggests such a thing. 2. Second Misrepresentation. — The wbolo trend, effect, and obvious intent of It. Vf.'e" article of February ?,, 1909, was this; That the Catholic opposition to It.he religious clause of Mr Bowen's bill was ■merely part and parcel of their "war" against Christ, and Christian teach inw in tho .schools, and in favour of a purely tccular system of publicinstruotion. But (a'l flielley. Mr Bom ("it W.V nolo quoted authority of February 2) nowhere asserts or even suggests, such a thing, (b) The Caihobo bishops, clergy, unci Jailv were .wholly opposed to tho purely secular <.ystan of 1877. This was most abundantly demonstrated at tho time by petition hV speeches and resolutions at Catholic public meetings, by direct episcopal .pronounceononis and by an almost continuous dropVW firoot leading articles by Bishop Aloran in tho Xejv Zealand Tablet, in which lie vowed "undying opposition'" to the Secular system as (among other things) ■ godless, "the popularisation of a slnl.How atheism," and (ending to "the demoralisation of the rising generation." i .' i ~.'■, varm,ls " mllci «. tlio New Zealand Tablet of May 25, June 1, Aug., 3, August 17 September 14, Aoveuihcr 16, and November 23_a,1l 0 1877) One professing Catholic in Parliamen. caused a scandal bv adv-orali,- lie T "it r M} m < >>» l j » "'0 Now Zealand' Erib? ] 6 , 1877, Lishnp Moian I,n? V""', "'■ ■'" r( ' ;11,,5 ' no fallwlic." •bit a .Secularist," and exhorted Catholic electors to "record their votes ''3 Ann." In (he House, on August 28^878 ho member liere referred to pracfieaJlv a'b n tied that 1, 0 ,„,„ " a b , (■.,,!, ,:...' ansard, Vol. XXYW, pp. 540-1°) ' (c, Catholics have, by their separate, school system, manifested in the mast c 0,,. vincing way tho depth and intensity of 1 r bos iltty to a sy.s| l!m 0 f ])llb , ic ;„. etructioii divorced from religion. (,|) Their (/founds of opposition l« the religion. Cil utcßowenlii 1877 lit? * C l. Z ° al; "" 1 TaLlct " ! J"lv 20 of Jim \'T H ? l ffl l1 wI «J '»'* demand of. the .Anglican body in Di,„edin for per■nssion (o, the clergy », 0 bo allowed' to K\<> religious instruction to the children «hools'" <W A T'^f 10 ! ]a foGovnrnmPDt ,it, Aml , (f > d " r "'f? t l"' agitation on he Bowei, Bill Archbishop (then Bishop Redwood and Risbop Moran practically renewed the proposal made by the latter to Otago non-Catholics in July, 1871—naiticlv on conditions to hand over (o them (lin public schools (built and maintained in part by Catholic money) to teach therein, | 0 lum-Ulliolie children, (heir own religions or non-religions or religious comproinises As compensation for this surrender, Catholics requjred fair and suitable opportunities of training Mic-n- children in accordance with tho principles of their faith The bishops proposed that, Catholics should provide their own schools, at their own solo expense, wherever a sufficient attendance could be secured; these schools lo receive a grant-in-aid for Slate-controlled and State-certified Recnlar instruction oulv. One other denomination (the Anglican) petitioned for grants on similar lines, and Catholics were, of course, willing to accord to others the rights which they claimed lor themselves. (See New Zealand Tablet •Tuna 1,1877. August 31. 1877, September 14 ™™\ Nove " lbei ' 16, 1877, cf. March 2& •1878.)

3. TllinD JIDSRF.PItKSENTATION-.-Throtlgll-tout, his article of February 2. 1909, (ho anonymous "H. W." clearly conveyed tho impression thut Catlmlics "were the only Ideiiominatioii in New Zealand that opposed ■the religious clauao in Mr Bowon's bill, and favoured Iho secular system (which', in point of fact, they utterly repudiated)! Even if Catholics, 113 a hotly, had then stood alono in their opposition to Iho 'Bowon religious clause, that circumstanco .would not, of itself, have put them in the Wrong. But "11. \V." even went, the 'length of garbling anil misrepresenting the plain words of tine Rev. Mr Boss for this and for an allied controversial purpose. jThua "R. W." says (February 2, 1909): *'Mr Ross says it is to the 'unceasing clamoiirings' of ecclesiastics against the old system (whore Father Clcnry says Iho Hug of Christ was Hying) that the country "is mainly indebted for the intensely balil and vigorous secularism which marks the education now in force.'" ftow, the Rev. Mr Ross is writing of Hie Otago provincial system of education, which (as shown in tho eighth article of this series) was to a, great extent Presbyterian denominational. •And this is what, the Rev. Mr Ross actually does say (" Education and Educationists iii '.Otago." p. 22): "It came to be viewed with disfavour by the ecclesiastics botii of Tin; (Roman C.vrnrnio and of the Axgi.wak cnunciiES. to whose avowed hostility to it, mid unceasing clamourings J'oii ruiaii! aid TO THKIK I)KKOMINATIONAI, SCHOOLS, the country is mainly indebted for the intensely liald.and rigorous soeulaa'istii which marks tho Education Act that is now in force." '.Tho references to tho numerically powerful and highly influential Anglican Church wero. here hacked out, by " R. \V." for the obvious puqioso of making if appear that it was the small Catholic body, and it. uloue. which " lixed douyi tho Hag of Christ in our schools," Here is another sample of garbling and misquotation for the same a'ulenl: In his article of Kebriinrv 2. 1909. "R. \V." writes as follows in regard to the provision in Mr Bowon's bill " for Uible-reading and prayer at Ihe opening of the school each day":--" How was this clause treated by I'ather Cleary's clerical Co-religionists in* 18777 Mr Ross, in his 'Education, anil Educationists in Otago,' Bays they treated it wilh 'violent licstility,'" and pelted Parliament wilh vehement protects against it, and strongly insisted on it* elimination from the bill." Hero is what the Rev. Mr lioss actually docs say (p. 3S): That "the Roman Catholics ami tiik Jews" mad-.! "vehement protests," etc., against .Mr Powell's religious clau>o. The .lews were docked here, just as the Anglicans were docked in the other ipiuttition, for the evident purpose of making Catholics alone guilty of

"firing clown the Hag of Christ in our schools." In (be next following sentence (p. 38), Mr Ross grams that "the weight of number" (but not, he thinks, of

"cogent' argument'') was against Mr Bowon's religions clause in the House. And tho "weight of number" there was overwhelmingly non-Catholic.

On February 20, 1909-whou the mask of anonymity had fallen off—"K. \X." stated iliat "tlio only religious denomination OK AXY SIZE that attacked the religioiis elauso was the Hoinan Catholic." Which ie a. vastly different thins from tlio whole trend, pur|Kii-t, and effect of Diifi first article (February 2). But even this new statement requires considerable qualification. Asa matjerof fact, Anglicans (who were and are by far the most jiuinercus religious body in Now Zealand), or at least large bodies of them, wove likotviso dissatisfied on various grounds with the prayer and Bible-reading clause of the Bowen Bill. Three Anglican clergymen, for itißtain», attended « meeting; of 18 ministers of various creeds held in Knox Church, Dunedin, on .Monday, .luly 30, 1677, to consider Mr Bowcn's Bill (Otogo Daily Times, July 31, 1877). 1 may sUrto that neither Bishop Moron, nor tlio Catholic clergy, nor the Jpwj& rabbi were invited

to be present. Archdeacon Edwards and (ho Key. Air (now Dean) Fit elicit strongly declared nl. thai incc'tinfr that the religions clause would i(illicit- a. grave injustice, on Catholics. On Monday, July 16, 1877, a. largely attended meeting of Anglican lif.rem.s and teachers. li.?I ( | in Duncditi, riirric.l "by acclamation" a motion organisms; a. double petition to Parliament praying for a grant-in-aid to denominational schools and proper '•religious instruction" (not ihe more reading- of the Bible) "during school hours in the Govermnenl. day m-Jhxils " (Olago Daily Time,, .Inly 17, 1877).

From end to end of Xew Zealand (here was not one. Catholic priest or prelate in favour of the exclusion of religion from the public schools. A number of other clergymen, however—especially „f ,|,,, nuim-rica.lly smaller Christian creeds - stood stoutly for (he utter lianishmont of religion from I he schools. Other* accepted MriJowon's religious elaueo, not for it* own sake, but as the nearest approach then apparently practicable to the utter and complete secularisation of public instruction. Take, for instance, (be meeting held in Knox Church,! Duiiedin, on July 30, 1877. Tho licv. Air Davis (not (he present able and esteemed Baptist pastor of Kaikorai) moved th? resolution accepting the ISoweu clause

" in regard to religious instruction in the schools." That resolution was passed. But the very clergyman who moved it declared that " bo was a secularist pure and simple, and if be had the framing of a bill he would mako it secular purely and completely. He did not believe in the introduction of the Bible in anv purely secular service." And hcdcclarcd himself'as "prepared to fight tooth and nail, and to lir> last, stump of my pen, on behalf of ihe secular position." lie furthermore avowed himself "iin out-and-out and rabid secularist" (Otago Daily Times, July 31, 1877). T'iio Hev. Air Afaxwell, according to the same report, alo declared " in favour of_a. purely secular system of education," The Rev. Ah- Ross's personal views regarding the relations of Catholics lo our education hyslcms arc of no special importune,-; and' (as lias already been amply demonstrated) Ihev are marked bv a regrettable bias. Rut, such as thev are they ought to have been fairly stared, .there, are, for instance, certain statements in his book having a Iscaring upon this subject which should not have been left out of consideration by "R. W." On page 41. for instance, the Hev. Mr Ross deplores, the " hard, secular, and, at times irreverent tone that marked the discussion" on Air Bowon's Bble-reading clause. On the same page lie gives his verdict in tho following significant words:—"The system of barter and compromise which so often characterises party politics in these new lands led, at the last moment, to the excision of tho Bible-reading clause." The passing of the secular system' of public instruction in 1877 " was,"' says he (p. 47), "hailed in some quarters with immoderate delight as a triumph of secularism over the Christian creeds." And on pages 71-72 lie expresses the hope that "men will be returned to Parliament who, free from all narrow bins and bigotry, and from the pettifoggery of village politicians," will "make solemn recognition of an Infinite Power" where such recognition is due. Evidently, in the Rev. Air Row's idea, the secularising of our systems of public instruction was brought about, at tho critical moment, by parly " barter and compromise" and maintained to our time by the "narrow bias and bigotry" and "pettifoggery of village politicians." I pass no comment on these opinions. I merely express the pain it has given me to be' thus torccd lo direct public attention to the persistent garbling and misrepresentation of "K. W.," which are so unworthy of his years, hi* calling, and bis standing among a large and respected body in this community. 1. Fourth Misrepresentation. — The anonymous writer assumes that there was iio feasible 'alternative, between Air Bowen's proposed (Protestant) devotions, on the one hand, and, on the other, the titter banishment of religion from the schools—so much so (hat (lie person who opposed (bo former (hereby favoured the latter. The seventh article of this series showed that there are numerous alternative systems in successful operation throughout the world, Some of these were suggested lwth in and out of the House. Mr (afterwards Sir) Patrick Buckley, for instance, threw into an amendment a proposal partly on (he lines of those of Archbishop Redwood and Bishop Moran, and of the old Westland provincial system. This was, however, thrown out by the nonCatholic majority. The few Catholic 'legislators, as a Ikhl.y, cast their votes, not directly for the secular system (of which they strongly disapproved), but, directly against a specific wrong which it was proposed to indict upon a section of the community. Tho exclusion of religion from tho schools was not made a direct issue in tho Legislature. So far a s I am at, present aware, (herci were only (wo Catholics in (he Legislative Council at the. lime, and only one practising Catholic in the House of Representatives. For bi-evity's sake, I pass over other misrepresentations by "R. W." 'The objections of Catholics to the religious clause' in Air Bowen's bill were substantially the same as those detailed in the last preceding article in regard to the old provincial system of Otago. For (as Bishop Moran said in one of his lectures) the bill "borrowed every bad principle and detail to be found in the Otago system, and superadded others of a worse character" (New Zealand Tablet, August, 17, 1877.).

1. First Objection.-That, in a system for which Catholics as well as nonCatholics wore taxed, provision was made, for imparting some measure of religion to Protestant, children, and none suitable for Catholic eliildron. The version of the Bible (as understood) would, of course, bo the Protestant one. and the form of the Lord's Prayer that which is not accepted by Catholics, nml which is inlimutely associated wilh Protestant forms of private and public worship. At the meeting of clergymen held in Knox Church, Diincdiu, on .Inly 30, 1877, the Rev. Mr (now Dean) Pitched declared that, for Catholics, the liihle (he presumably meant: tho Protestant version of the. liihle) "was as much a denominational book as was the Wesleyan Hymn Book"; thai it spelled "deiiominalionalisnf'; that it "shuts out the Unman Catholic from the public Efliools," and "made Iho school a Protestant one " ; and that '• the Italian Catholics had u grievance" in the matter. With the chastened knowledge Hint appeared here and there, in his article of Februarv 20, 1909, even " It. W." acknowledges that in Parliament "speaker after speaker said that, the religious clause must lx? struck out to remove a. grievance the Roman Catholics had.'

2. .Second Objection-.—Catholics objected to the liard secularism which (apart from the few minutes at the opening of the schools! the liowen Bill proposed to throw over tlin whole system of public instruction.

3. Third Objkctiox.—By the conscienep, clause, (quoted in tho first paragraph of this article), "the Cloverninent in lhi s bill insists on touching Protestantism ui all children, without exception, between the ages of seven and 13, whose parents or guardians fail or neglect to object in writing to such instruction. It will not suffice for a parent, or guardian to bring his <„• tier chiltl by the hand lo a (iove.rnment school and request the teacher not. to interfere with its religion. In such a case, forthwith'on the return home- or de|wrfure of the parent, the teacher is obliged by law to lake that child into the school and insist on teaching it Protestantism." — (Article by Bishop Moran in the New Zealand Tablet. August 10. 1877.) The reality of thi s grievance was admitted by nunCatholic niemliers of the Legislature. 4. Fourth On.ji-rriON.-Mr Bowon's conscience clause "placed the Catholic schoolmaster in the position of being required to do what was out of his power" and against his conscience, and practically excluded him

"from these schools, built and maintained at the public expense-thai is, in part by Catholic money."—(Now- Zealand Tablet, September 14, 1877. and August 10. 1877.) 5. Fifth Oiukctiox.—The financial injustice proposed to lx> inflicted on Catholics by llr bowon's religions clause lias liedn summarily referred to under the "First Objection." This, as well as the fourth objection, waa admitted by non-Catholic legislators.

6. OniKlt Oii.iKCTiONS.—From the point of view of a religious minority, Catholics likewise objected to "Iho mode of election of committees and boards and the wonderful and extraordinary powers with which the hill proposed to arm these." Among these powers was that of arbitrarily elosiug any and every Catholic school that they pleased.—(New Zealand Tablet, August 17, 1677. and September 14, 1877.) "R. W.'s" amazing misrepresentations in regard to Catholics and the education difficulty in Victoria anj Xew South Wales will b' tle;ilt with ill the more permanent form that will shortly bo given to this discussion. The two next and concluding articles er this series will deal with the Catholic chiiin-whai it i s not, and what it is.