THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

New Zealand Tablet, Volume 11, Issue 10, 11 March 1909, Page 370

THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

A DISCUSSION

(By the Editor of the New Zealand Tablet.) The following article on the above subject — the ninth of the series — appeared in the Otago Daily Times oi March 6: — IX.— 'WHO FIRED DOWN THE FLAG OF RELIGION IN OUR SCHOOLS?' PART II.— NEW ZEALAND CATHOLICS AND THE 'FREE, SECULAR, AND COMPULSORY' ACT OF 1877. In 1877 the Hon. C. C. Bowen, Minister of Justice, introduced into the New Zealand Parliament a bill to abolish aid to denominational schools, to make education free, compulsory, and (for a few minutes only, at the opening of the schools) religious. Part IV., section 85, subsection 3, of the bill ran as follows : — ' The school shall be opened every morning with the reading of the" "Lord's Prayer and a portion of the Holy Scriptures. With this exception the teaching shall he entirely of a secular character, and no child shall attend at the reading herein provided for if his or her parents- or guardians inform the committee or teacher, in writing, that they object to such attendance.' This 'religious clause,' as it was called, was thrown out m Parliament, varibus amendments thereto were negatived, and the entire public school system of New Zealand has ever since remained, legally, purely secular. Irorn the first, Catholics objected to this religious clause, on specified grounds which will appear at the close of this article. • Their attitude in regard thereto has been, however, made the object of grievous misrepresentation by an anonymous writer, ' R.W. (whose identity is becoming more and more widely known day by day), in the course ot an article in the Otago Daily Times of February 2, 1909. And here again his sole quoted authority was the Key. C. b. Ross's Education and Educationists in Otago. 1. First Misrepresentation. — According to ' R.W.,' the Rev. Mr. Ross describes Catholics as, in effect, making 'war' upon, and 'firing down,' 'the flag of Christ' in the public schools of New Zealand — that is, carrying on a campaign having for its immediate purpose the exclusion i V^nst and Christian teaching' from these schools. But the Rev. Mr. Ross neither says nor suggests such a thing. 2. Second Misrepresentation. — The whole trend, effect, and obvious intent of ' R.W.'s ' article of February 2, 1909, was this: That the Catholic opposition to the religious clause of Mr. Bowen's bill was merely part and parcel of their 'war' against Christ and Christian teaching in the schools,, and in favor of a purely secular system of public instruction. But (a) the Rev. Mr. Ross ( R.W.'s' solo quoted authority of February 2) nowhere asserts, or oven suggests, such a thing, (b) The Catholic bishops, clergy, and laity were wholly opposed to the purely secular system of 1877. This, was most abundantly demonstrated at the time by petition, by speeches and resolutions at Catholic public meetings, by direct episcopal pronouncements, and. by an almost continuous dropping fire of leading articles by Bishop Moran in the" New Zealand 1 ablet, in which he vowed 'undying opposition' to the secular system as (among other things) ' godless/ ♦ the popularisation of a shallow atheism,' and tending to 'the demoralisation of the rising generation.' (See, for these various matters,- the New Zealand Tablet of May 25, June - 1, August 3, August 17, September 14, September 28, November 16, and November 23— a1l of 1877.) One professing Catholic m Parliament caused a scandal by advocating the secular system,, but in the New Zealand Tablet of November 16, 1877, Bishop Moran described him as ' in reality no- Catholic,' but a ' Secularist,' and exhorted Catholic electors to ' record their votes against him.' In the' House; on August 28, 1878, the member here referred to practically admitted that he was ' a bad Catholic '— (Parliamentary Debates, vol. XXVIII., pp. 540-1.) (c) Catholics have, by their separate school system, manifested m the most convincing way the depth and intensity of their hostility to a system of public instruction divorced from religion, (d) Their grounds of opposition to the religious clause in the Bowen Bill will be stated further on. (c) In the New Zealand Tablet of July 20 1877 Bishop Moran supported the demand of the Anglican body in Dunedin for permission to the clergy 'to be allowed to

give religious instruction to the children of their own congregations m Government schools.' , And (f) durinc the agitation on the Bowen Bill, Archbishop (then Bifhop) Redwood and Bishop Moran practically renewed the proposal made by the latter to Otago J*on-Catholics in July 18 n— namely, on conditions to Hand over to them the" public schools (built and maintained- in -part by Cath6lic money) to teach therein, to non-Catholic children their own religions or non-religions or religious compromises As compensation for this surrender, Catholics required ' fair and suitable opportunities of training their children in accordance with the principles of their faith. The Bishons proposed that Catholics should provide their* own schools at their own sole expense, wherever a sufficient attendance could be secured; these schools to receive a grant-in-aid tor btate-cjontrolled aiid State-certified secular instruction only. 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 i ?222 ?r? r themselve s. (See New Zealand Tablet, ■ June ifc ?R7* * gI M 3 !' £F^ tember U > IS7T > November 10, 1877, cf. March -22, 1878.) -3. Third Misrepbesentation.— Throughout his article of February 2, 1909, the anonymous ' R.W. clearly con-~ veyed the impression that Catholics were the only denomination in New Zealand that opposed the religious clause m Mr. Bowen's bill, and favored the secular system (winch, in point of fact, they utterly repudiated). Even it Catholics, as a body, had then stood alone in their opposition to the Bowen religious clause, that circumstance )V) V £ U ™ , not ' °* ltself » have P ut tliem »n the wrong. But • It. W. even went the length of garbling and misrepresenting the plain words of the Rev. Mr. Ross, i^X JJ V s and for an alli ed controversial purpose. Thus R.W. says (February 2, 1909) : ' Mr. Ross says it is to the unceasing clamorings " of ecclesiastics against the old system (where Father Cleary says the flag of Christ was flying) that" the country "is mainly indebted for the intensely bald and vigorous secularism which marks the education now in force." ' Now, the Rev. Mr. Ross is writing of the Otago provincial system of education, which (as shown in the 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 in Otago, p. 22) : 'It came to be viewed with disfavor by the ecclesiastics both of the Roman Catholic and of the Anglican Churches, to whose avowed hostility to it, and unceasing clamorings for public aid to their denominational schools, the country is mainly indebted for the intensely bald and rigorous secularism which marks the Education Act that is now in force.' The references to the numerically powerful and highly influential Anglican Church were here hacked out by 'R.W. for the obvious purpose of making it appear that it was the small Catholic body, and it alone, which ' fired down the flag of Christ in our schools.' Here is another sample of garbling and misquotation for the same intent: In his article of February 2, 1909, 'R.W. writes as follows in regard to the provision in Mr. Bowen's bill ' for Bible-reading and prayer at the opening of the school each day ' : — ' How was this clause treated by Father Cleary's clerical coreligionists in 1877? Mr. Ross, in his Education and Educationists in Otago, says they treated it with "violent hostility," and pelted Parliament with vehement protests against it, and strongly insisted on its elimination from the bill.' Here is what the Rev. Mr. Ross actually does say (p. 38): That 'the Roman Catholics and the Jews' made ' vehement protests,' etc., against Mr. Bowen's religious clause. The Jews were docked here, just as the Anglicans were docked in the other quotation, for the evident purpose of making Catholics alone guilty of ' firing down the flag of Christ in our schools.'- In the next following sentence (p. 38), Mr. Ross grants that 'the weight of. number.' (but not, he thinks, of 'cogent argument') was against Mr. Bowen's religious clause in the .House. And the ' weight of number ' there was overwhelmingly non-Catholic. ""* On February 20, 1909 — -when the mask of anonymity had fallen off — ' R.W. stated y that ' the only religious denomination of any size that attacked the religious clause was the Roman Catholic' "Which is a vastly different thing from the whole trend, purport, and effect of his first article (February 2)v k But even this new statement requires considerable qualification. As a matter of fact, Anglicans (who were and are by far the most- numerous religious body in New Zealand), or at least large, bodies of them, were likewise dissatisfied on various grounds with the prayer and Bible-reading- clause of the' Bowen Bill. Anglican clergymen, for instance, attended a meeting" of 18 ministers of various creeds held in Knox Church, 'Dunedin, on Monday 7 July 30, 1877, to consider .Mr. Bowen's bill (Otago Daily Times, July 31, 1877). I may state that neither Bishop Moran, nor the Catholic clergy, nor the Jewish rabbi were invited to be present. Archdeacon /-Edwards and the Rev. Mr. (now Dean) Fitchett strongly "declared at that meeting that the religious clausewould inflict a grave injustice on Catholics. On Monday,, , July 16; 1877, a largely attended meeting of Anglican parents and teachers, held, in Dunedin, carried 'by ac- ' clamation ' a motion organising a double petition to Parliament praying for a grant-in-aid to denominational

schools and proper 'religious instruction' (not the mero reading of the Bible) ' during school hours in the Government day schools ' (Otago Datly Times, July 17, 1877). From end to end of New Zealand there was not one Catholic priest or prelate in favor of the exclusion -.f religion from the public schools. A number of other clergymen, however — especially of the numerically smaller Christian creeds — stood stoutly for the utter-, banishment of religion from the schools. Others accepted Mr. Bowen's religious clause, not for its own sake, but as the nearest approach then apparently practicable to the utter and complete secularisation" of public instruction. Take, for in-, stance, the " meeting held in Knox Church, Dunedin, on July 30, 1577. The Rev. Mr. 'Davis (not the present able and esteemed Baptist pastor of Kaikorai) moved the resolution accepting the Bowen clause ' in regard to religious instruction in the schools.' That resolution was passed. But the very clergyman who moved it declared that ' he was a secularist pure and simple, and if he haa the framing of a bill he would make it secular purely and completely. He did not believe in the introduction of. the Bible in any purely secular service.' And he declared himself as ' prepared to fight tooth and nail, and to the last stump of my pen, on behalf of the secular position.' He furthermore avowed himself ' an out-and-out and rabid secularist' {Otago Daily Times, July 31, 1877). The Rev. Mr. Maxwell, according to the same report, also declared ' in favor of a purely secular system of education.' The Rev. Mr. Ross's personal view regarding the- relations of Catholics to our education systems are of no special importance; and (as has already been amply demonstrated) they are marked by a regrettable bias. But, such as they are, they ought to have been- fairly stated. There are, for instance, certain statements iii his book having a bearing upon this subject which should not have been left out of consideration by ' R.W. On page 41, for instance, the Rev. Mr. Ross deplores the ' hard, secular, and, at times, irreverent tone that marked the discussion ' on Mr. Bowen's Bible-reading clause. On the same page he gives his- verdict in the 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 tlie 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 he expresses the hope that ' men will be returned to Parliament who, free from all narrow bias 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. Mr. Ross's idea, the secularising of our systems of public instruction was brought about, at the critical moment, by party ' 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 forced to direct public attention to the persistent garbling and misrepresentation of ' R.W.,' which are so unworthy of his years, his calling, and his standing among a large and respected body in this community. 4. Fourth Misrepresentation. — The anonymous writer assumes that there was no feasible alternative between Mr. Bowen's proposed (Protestant) devotions, on the one hand, and, on the other, the utter banishment of religion from the schools — so much so that the person who opposed the former thereby favored 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 both in and out of the House. Mr. (afterwards Sir) Patrick Buckley, for instance, threw into an amendment a proposal partly on the lines of those of Archbishop -Redwood and Bishop Moran, and of the old Wesfciand provincial system. This was, however, thrown out by the non-Catholic majority. The few Catholic legislators, as a body, 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 inflict upon a section of the community. The exclusion of religion from the schools was not made a direct issue m the Legislature. So far as I am at present aware, there were only two Catholics in the Legislative Council at the time, and only one practising Catholic in the House of Representatives. For brevity's sake, I pass over other misrepresentations by ' R.W. J The objections of Catholics __ to -the religious clause in Mr. Bowen's bill were substantially the same as those-de-tailed 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 ' (Neio Zealand Tablet, August 17, 1877). 1.- First Objection. — That, in a system for which Catholics' as well as non-Catholics were taxed, provision was made for imparting some measure of religion to Protestant .children, and none suitable for Catholic children. The Version of the Bible (as understood) would, of course, be the Protestant one, and the form of the Lord's Prayerthat which is not accepted by Catholics, and which is intimately associated with Protestant forms of private and public worship. At the meeting of clergymen held in Knox

Church, Dunedin,' on July 30, 1877, the Rev. Mr. (now Dean) Fitchett declared that, for Catholics, the Bible (ho presumably meant the Protestant version of the Bible) ' was as.. much a denominational book as was the Wesleyan Hymn Book ' ; that it spelled * denominationalism ' ; that it 'shuts out the Roman -Catholic from- the public schools,' and ' made the school a Protestant one ' ; and that ' the " Roman Catholics had a grievance ' in the matter. With the chastened knowledge that appeared here and there in his article of February 20, 1909, even ' R.W. acknowledges that in Parliament ".speaker after speaker said that -the religious clause must be struck out to remove a grievance the- Roman Catholics had.J* 2. Second Objection. — Catholics objected- to the hard secularism which (apart from the few minutes at the opening of the schools) the Bqwen bill proposed to throw over the whole system of public instruction. 3. Third Objection. — By the conscience clause (quoted in the frst paragraph of this article), ' the Government in this bill insists on teaching Protestantism to all children, without exception, between the ages of seven -and thirteen, whose parents or fail or neglect to object in writing to such instruction. It will not suffice for a parent or guardian to bring his or- her child by the hand to a Government school and request the teacher not to interfere with its religio~h. In such a case," forthwith on the return home or departure of the parent, the teacher is obliged by law to take 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 this grievance was admitted by non-Catholic members of the Legislature. { 4. Fourth Objection. — Mr. Bowen's conscience clause placed. the Catholic schoolmaster in the position. of being required to do what was out of his power' af^ -against hi^ conscience, and practically excluded him .'3rom theseschools, built and maintained at the public expense — thirb is, in part by Catholic money.'— (New Zealand Tablet, September 14, 1877, and August 10, 1877.) - '"% 5 -. Fifth Objection. — The financial injustice proposed to be inflicted on Catholics by Mr. Bowen's religious clausehas been summarily referred to under the 'First Objection.' This, as well as the fourth objection, was admitted^ by non-Catholic legislators. <■ ,- v 6. Other Objections. — From the point of view of a' religious minority, Catholics likewise objected to ' the modeof election of committees and boards and the wonderful and extraordinary powers with which the bill proposed to arm these. Among these powers was that of arbitrarily" closing any and every Catholic school that they pleased.-^' \lfe^o\ I f e^ o^ land Taol^ August 17, 1877, and September 14, Loii.)

R.W. s amazing misrepresentations in < regard to Catholics and the education difficulty in Victoria and New bouth Wales will be dealt with in *he" more permanent form that will shortly be given to- this discussion. The two next and concluding articles of this series will deal with the Catholic claim — what it is not, and what it is. -