Notes

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 20, 19 May 1904, Page 18

Notes

Souperism — without the Soup It is written of John Gilpin's wife that ' though on pleasure bent she had a frugal mind.' Archbishop Whately (Dublin) intended his scheme of Scripture lessors as a means of ' weaning the Irish from the errors of Popery.' Our Bible-in-sohools League ha,ve clearly the same pleasant intentions in regard to the Catholic ohildretn of New Zealand. But they wish, like Mrs Gilpin, to have .their pleasure frugally — at "bargaiTi-f.oun-ter rates^ In the famine days starving Irish Cathoh<children were invited to 4 Sell their sowls for penny rowls, For soup and hairy "bacon..' The Bible-in-schools scheme is Souperism without the Soup. The Maori Missions Alccording to a pastoral issued "by the Anglican Bishop of Auckland, the two superintendents of the Church of England missions among the Maoris draw in salaries £250 each, with house allowances and itinerating expenses, two Waikato evangelists £100 each, and fifteen Maori clergy £60 each, with ' itinerating contingencies.' Catholic missionaries among the Maori are, like tlhe clergyman in ' sweet Auburn, ' ' passing rich with forty pounds a year '—rich, not in bodily comforts, for they have none ; but rich in zeal and i-e\i-sacriftce under conditions that must be to the last degree txying to the physical susceptibilities of white men. A Hideous Tale We have frequently referred to the disgraceful manner in which a few English fanatical ' religious ' organs of the gutter order of journalism make themselves the willing mouthpieces of the fo,ul and lying tales concocted by the enemies of all religion to flutter their campaign against the Catholic Church in France. The Wellington ' Evening Post ' so far forgot what is due to the dignity of respectable journalism as to copy into its columns one of the worst and, on the face of it, most calumnious of those evil tales. It is a story of aimless and diabolical cruelty alleged to haJve been practised by nuns upon girl-wards of the State in France. The story is taken from an English ' religious ' paper that is notorious for the salvage intensity of its bitterness against ' Rome.' Evil tales against the Catholic Church appearing in that quarter may be safely presumed to be untrue. In the present instance the writer did not even try to be plausible. The hopelessly diabolical character of the torture and cruelty alleged to have been practised upon helpless wards of the State carries its own refutation. Again : the stringency of State inspection in France by itself alone forbids the supposition of such ill-treatment. 4dd to this the far-back date attributed to the eventst— May, 1903, and the fact that the rauns who are alleged to be the culprits do not conduct, either in or out- of France —so far as we are aware— 1 convents of refuge ' such as that which is alleged to have been the scene of such miraculous and tardily discovered diabolism. We shall put ourselves in communication with the proper authorities in France for the facts of this grotesque tale. In

the meantime, let it suffice to remark that sane and fair-minded people will take, not with a grain, but with a bushel, of salt all anti-convent tales concerning France— above all when they come through the medium of rag-tag-ajnd-bobtail specimens of the English ' religious ' press that act on Luther's principle that the propagation of falsehood in a ' good cause ' is a meritorious act.

'Sizing- up' the League The manifesto of the Catholic .Bishops on the education question must have fallen like a live shell into the magazine of the Bible-in-schools League. Btut this is by no means its only result. It has given lihe secular press of New Zealand an opportunity— whidi has been richly availed of— to concentrate a deadly editorial fire upon the aims and methods of the League. In addition to the many other papers quoted or referred to by us, the • Grey River Argus ' condemns the League's proposals and reads its clerical leaders a quiet but effective homily on the duty of taking advantage of the grievously neglected opportunities for religious instruction which exist under- the present Act. The scheme of the clerical agitators is also condemned in an able editorial article in the ' Inangahua Times.' The task of giving Bible lessons (says our Reefton contemporary) is quite outside the sphere of the State school teachers. ' The school syllabus is heavy enough already, and while professors and teachers agree in problems of arithmetic or algebra, it is quite out of the Question to get them to agree on the Bible. Moreover, a very large proportion of teachers would naturally not conscientiously believe in the lessons, and we ask whether it is reasonable to suppose that religious lessons would be of any use if imparted by an unbelieving teacher ? Certainly not , and hence we would at once, if Bible teaching were adopted, have a religious test imposed upon the teachers ? ' Ifx' says the paper already quoted, ' the (State) system is irreligious or non-religious now, it was so in 1877. Yet when the system was inaugurated in that year, the very people who now demand the Bible in the schools, were among the loudest advocates of education free, secular, and compulsory. This policy was no doubt influenced at least as much by bigotry as principle, for the Catholics were and are the only people who deny the rigjht of the State to claim a monopoly of the function of teaching. Now, however, when the Education Act is not producing its expected result, a demand goes forth for the Bible vn the public schools. . . .. To introduce the Bible would be to galvanise into life the most miserable sectarian squabbles. The election of School Committees, the appointment of teachers, everything connected with public education, would hinge on the question of teaching, and in the war of cliques the little practical knowledge which it is endeavored to impart during the all too brief school period would be lost sight of, or at least greatly impaired.' At last Monday's quarterly meeting of the Council of the Churches (Dunedin) the Rev. Mr. Saunders (Congregationalist) also administered a black eye to the Bible-irn-schools League. ' If,' said he, ' there was to be Bible instruction in the State schools, it would *be a very great injustice to tax the Roman Catholics for the teaching of a religion with which they did not agree.' And — ' most unkindest cut of all '—he cruelly reminded his confreres of the Council of the Churches that, in backing up the ' passive resisters ' in England, they were encouraging ' a system which would mean the same injustice to the Roman Catholics.'