The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1910. THE EDUCATION QUESTION AGAIN

New Zealand Tablet, 30 June 1910, Page 1021

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1910. THE EDUCATION QUESTION AGAIN

E return to the Education Question again, <sMnSXvlfi partly for the purpose of correcting a comJi\fflfwjf'sf input made in our leader of last week, AtMi P ar *ly for the purpose of correcting an in- : jj&ityxfy* accurate or at any rate misleading stateTJsCrlli^^ 5 nient made by a writer in the daily press, and partly for the purpose of explaining " fL2F-tyy' es y\..... right at the outset of the proposed agitation why Catholics^cannot accept—for themselves : such solution of the edu-' cation problem as that embodied in what is called I the New . ; / South Wales system. -: .'■• \. -'■":"" ; : // "/V. u :. : -v- --./,' \ /. "■ i&i -- : -~' \ ; ■."..." • •"-""'.- '! * • '' '.'.' ..".'.. :" In our" last issue we made some : comment .on ' the "at-'/ tempt to quietly ignore the rights and opinions of ; Catholics on the question— was a conspicuous feature of the whole (Anglican Synod) discussion.' We have been assured by an active lay member of the Synod 'thai; more than one friendly reference was made both to the work done by the Catholic body and to their; attitude and position on the :■. whole subject of religious, education, but that r these were « omitted'in the condensed daily press reports. Mr. Burnett, / for exampleone of our city councillors—paid a -warm tribute . to the consistency shown by Catholics and to their splendid sacrifices on behalf ..of a great principle; while another speaker, after making a similar acknowledgment of Catholic earnestness on the question, put it that, once they hadarrived at a satisfactory Protestant solution of the problem, Catholic claims should be considered on their meritsby which he meant that they should be favorably considered. The idea seemed to be that Protestants should make one supreme effort to agree upon a solution; then, having obtained what they want, they would be free to consider the question of separate treatment for Catholics. We gladly acknowledge the cordial good feeling shown by these speakers, and we have no manner of doubt "as to the friendliness of the intentions underlying this latest suggestion. But to practical men it must at once be evident that, from the Catholic point of view, it would' be impossible to take such a proposal seriously. Its promoters, if they have not the wisdom of the serpent, have at least the guilelessness of the dove. There is a good deal of human nature even in an Anglican Synod well as in its prospective allies— once our Protestant friends had got all they want, Catholics would be left to whistle for their share of what was going. ;.• .■.--'-■' '■■ r - ■■'/■ ■ ' » ' ' ■" ■.■ ■ ' ".;; As our readers are aware, the distinctive feature of the system for which our Anglican friends/are how, agitating is that pro Vision is made both for general religious teaching and; for special denominational instruction. .: The general religious teachingwhich is given daily by the State ; school teacherforms part of the ordinary school course, and is placed on the same footing. as geography, grammar, or any other \ subject. In "■; classes i above ' the - second the Irish National Board's -Scripture ; lesson book is used -as ' a text-book. Outside this general religious - instruction the New South Wales Public Instruction Act provides for what is called .special.religious instruction. Any recognised clergyman or other - r teacher -s authorised by ; his Church /has the i, right to give to the children of his own denomination one hour's purely sectarian teaching daily. In the towns this right is - taken advantage of -by the on-Catholic clergy -to ; tho " extent of one hour per week, but outside the larger centres

even this is found impracticable, arid in the country districts this provision is virtually a dead letter. /-■' > : - * ' * ' - " '. - . v A member of the Synod, writing to the Otago Daily Times, made some statements certainly could not be substantiated— the; number of Catholic ■- children in New South Wales who take advantage of the State system, the implication being that Catholics also accepted the system as satisfactory. As we showed last week, this is an utter misstatement of the position and there never was a thanks to the recent introduction of some bitterly anti-Catholic supplementary readers Catholic feeling in New South Wales was more vehemently opposed to the system than it is to-day. Catholics cannot accept the system for the following reasons: (1) Because it is the duty of- the Church, not of the State, to teach religion. The State in New Zealand has undertaken a charming variety of contracts, from running railways to raising poultry. But we have yet to learn that it is the function of the State — above all in a mixed community— set itself up as a Professor of Religion. Moreover, if the right of the State to impart religious instruction of one particular kind be recognised now, there will be nothing to prevent the State undertaking to give religious instruction of quite a different kind in the future. (2) We object, to religion being taught by teachers who, in some instances, are absolute unbelievers. We have been personally informed by the UnderSecretary for Public Instruction in New South Wales that such cases occasion no difficulty, because the teachers in these circumstances teach religion in exactly the same way as they would teach ancient mythology regarding the classic gods and goddesses.' That is a degradation of Christianity to which Catholics, at least, will be in no way accessory. (3) The time devoted to definite dogmatic instruction under the systemone hour per week utterly inadequate for real religious education, the main essential for successful religious teaching systematic training and the presence of religious influences through and through the whole school life of the child—being absent. (4) The so-called conscience, clause is hopelessly ineffective. A parent who desires to withdraw his children from all religious instruction must notify his wish in writing. In view of the large number of country districts in New South Wales in which no Catholic school is available, there must in the aggregate be a considerable number of Catholic children who are thus brought within the influence of nonCatholic teaching through the mere indolence of their parents in not complying with formalities. (5) The textbook used—-the Irish National Board's Scripture lesson book —is, from its historical associations alone, specially objectionable, having been expressly designed, on the admission di Dr. Whately in a private letter, to a friend, to undermine the vast fabric of the Catholic Church in Ireland,' and 'to wean the Irish from the abuses of Popery.' This significant and damaging admission was thus referred to by Sir John Gray, M.P., in a debate on the Education (Ireland) Act of 1870, in the House of Commons: To me as a Protestant, the fact developed in this episode is deeply painful, but it is part of the system, and the more fully it is known the better; and I think this House will admit that it furnishes abundant cause for Catholic distrust in the mixture, arid for Catholic desire to have a free denominational system, which hypocrisy cannot betray or deceit undermine.' ' ' - * For these reasons, Catholics have never accepted the New South Wales system in any part of Australia, and Catholics could not—for themselves—accept it in New Zealand. But we have no objection whatever to such a system being introduced to meet the wishes of Protestants so long as Catholics are not taxed for' the maintenance of the" r system. In other words, we are quite willing that Protestants should have whatever system they desire, so long as we too are granted the only solution which we can conscientiously acceptviz., our own schools and payment for the secular instruction given and if this latter feature were added to the Anglican programme Catholics would be able to heartily co-operate in trying to have that programme brought into effect. And, after all, why should not members of the Synod enlarge their programme in the way re- • ferred to? If they are prepared to 'consider the Catholic claim on its merits' after they have obtained what they wanted, why can they not consider it now? And having considered it, and found it just, why not embody it in any programme which is to go before the country as a perN manent solution of the education, difficulty? Such ah arrangement would indeed be based on justice— to Protestants in the shape of the particular system which they/unitedly desire, and justice to Catholics in the shape of payment for work done. If the religious bodies were to adopt such an objective,. there would be a truly united movement, and a movement which might really accomplish something. But if the long-standing injustice to Catholics is to be perpetuated—if Catholic claims are to be ignored or postponed—Catholics must, of course, protest and oppose.