OUTRAGEOUS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XX, Issue 23, 25 March 1892, Page 17

OUTRAGEOUS.

fHE charges brought against Bishop Moran by apologists and supporters of our system of godless education are numerous, some of them absurd, others notoriously false, and not a few ludicrous. Even whilst conceding the justice of our claim to our own money for our own schools, the grace of this admission is taken out of it by ""^ a fling at the Bishop, who is charged by the writer referred to as the cause of the godlessness of the* New Zealand system of education. It is said it is he who is to blame for the exclusion of the Bible and all religious instruction from public schools, and their consequent godlessness. This is simply an outrageous calumny. Bishop Moran has in no sense caused the exclusion of the Bible or religious instruction from schools. On the contrary, Bishop Moran has from first to last raised his voice and used his pen to repudiate and denounce godless education, and has ever strenuously advocated Christian schools. This calumny is on a par with the many others by which he and his Church are continually assailed. borne short time ago he was violently assailed because he daied to denounce Collier's j< British History," which with the approbat on of the Minister of Education, has' been recommended for use in public schools, and has, in point of fact, been used in them. The Bishop, acting on information which he had received as to the use of this book in the Queenstown public school, pointed out that it was shocking that Catholics should be compelled to pay for the teaching of calumnies contained in this school-book. ]t happened, bo at least it was said, that the Bishop was misinformed as to the Queenstown school, and believing the contradiction, the Bishop at once took back the charge and expressed his sorrow at having been misled. But this was not enough. Immediately, '» host of cowards — anonymous writers — assailed him, some for his having made a false charge against the Queenstown school, some for having denied that the Pope sold indulgences, and some for, the Lord knows, how many more misdemeanours. But iniquitas mentita cst sibi. We wonder shall the Bishop's assailants be able to translate these few Latin words. Judging from their recent manifestations, we fear not. Well, at all events, some of these writers contradict each other.' One says Collier's " British History " has been long »go discarded, and has long eince been cast out of our public schools.

Another writer, in a letter published immediately after the one alluded to above in the very same number of the Evening Star, gives the public to understand that this History is generally used in the public schools. Let them amicably settle this delicate point among themselves. But immediately on the appearance of these two letters comes to the Bishop a letter handed to us stating that he (the Bishop) had been practised upon by friends of the Queenstown public school, •nd that, in point of fact, Collier's " British History " had been used in the Queenstown school as late, at least, as Ibßo. The writer of this letter, who had every opportunity of knowing the real state of case, informed the Bishop that although Collier's " British History " was not the class-book for history ; still, if any pupil had not this class-book, but had Collier's " Britfsh History," such pupil or pupils were permitteu to use Collier's " British History." So we see that, after all, the Bishop's informant was not so very much astray. The great gun of the day, however, is some fellow who hides himself behind the name " Historicus," and who is evidently one of those gentry put in the pillory by Benham. We said lately that if " Historicus " would sign his real name to his letter, and give the Latin text of Pope Alexander's Bull, we dared to say that Bishop Moran would reply to him. On Monday evening, in the Star, " Historicus," making believe he is complying with what we intimated would probaßly be the Bishop's line of proceeding, makes a mighty effort to appear learned and to prove that, notwithstanding the Bishop's denial, the Pope does sell indulgences. But his mode of doing all this would certainly be peculiar, only it is according to the usual tactics of men of his kidney. When told to give his name he fears and neglects to do so. When asked to give the Latin text of Pope Alexander's Bui], he does not do so, but he gives some Latin from, another document, which he does not understand in the least. When asked for the Latin words of a Bull which he wishes people to believe authorises the sale of indulgences, he gives the Taxsc, which he says authorise the sale of pardon of sins. " Historicus " does not know anything about the subjects on which he writes. But there is a document in English which he may be able to understand. Theie is an Act of the Parliament of 1583 by which the whole tax system, " all the customable dispensations, faculties, licences, and other writings wont to be sped at Rome " are transferred to Canterbury, and an order is taken " that no man suing for dispensations, etc., shall pay any more for their dispensations, faculties, licences, and other writings than shall be contained, taxed anel limited, in the duplicate book of taxes." Even Dr Littludale, to whom our great scholar " Historicus " refers, in his third edition (p. 100), says, " .No doubt these charges began as mere legal costs in the Ecclesiastical Courts '"; so that even he, unfair and misinformed as he was, did not charge the Church with selling the pardon of crimes for money. Even he only attributes this to an abuse subsequently introduced. But even here he is totally at variance with truth. The public are also told that the Koman Catholic princes of Germany, in a document presented to the Pope, 1522, complain that pardon of sins, not only past but future, diel cause all impiety and wickedness. <Jn this we have to remark that the nueting in which this was done was not a meeting of the Koman Catholic princes, but of the German princes, in which the partisans of Luther constituted the most active element, and in the lstehapter they did not charge Kome, but the local purveyors with attaching to this indulgence the promise of pardon of sin, and nowhere is there a suggestion of an absolution or licence by the Pope to commit sin in the future. " Historicus " ought to try and master the rudiments of history, Canon Law, and theology, and be cautious not to accept as truth and fact every absurdity and calumny against Catholics and the Catholic religion. He would do well also to study a little Latin before he tries to make believe he is a Latin scholar. " Historicus' " contention is, in effect, that such nun us Cardinals Newman and Manning, whom the British Umpire has lately mourned as the noblest and most illustrious of her sons, gave up all the world holds most dear to tecome members of a Church that sells indulgences and pardon of sins for money. And yet this comical writer does not perceive the absurdity of his nor has he wit enough to care to conceal the length of his ears. Even the Evening Star fails to perceive that it is equally assinine in publishing his letters.