Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 20 March 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

A Distress Signal After the fiasco of the last Bible-in-schools public meeting ’ in Dunedin the League promoters evidently realise that some inducement must be given to the people to turn out other than the motive of disinterested zeal for the cause. Accordingly the latest advertisements have not only dropped the collection announcement but contain also the alluring intimation : ‘Refreshments.’ If this does not fetch the people and so far the response has not been of a kind to arouse enthusiasm Bible Leaguers may, so far as their ' public meeting ’ propaganda is concerned, just about as well ‘throw in the towel.’

Christian Women Against It In an appeal to the members of the Young Women’s Christian Association at Wellington in November of last year Canon Garland delivered himself of the following high-pressure rhapsody: ‘God cannot do without women. . . . How much the world owed to woman ! God limited Himself until Woman had done her best! It was woman who would found all our civilisation, and who would do the big things in the work of the world ! Amidst all arguments used there is a feeling that women will uphold and see through this campaign, and have religious instruction in our schools.’ * In- one sense, at least, women are not quite the ‘ soft ’ sex they are sometimes imagined to be and it is now-evident that they are going to ; see through this campaign in a manner somewhat different from thatintended by Canon Garland. The annual Convention of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of New Zealand, sitting at Nelson, on March 12 passed, amongst others, the following : ‘That the Convention favor the incorporating of the Nelson system of religious instruction in schools in the Education Act, as under this system instruction will be given by those best qualified for the task, and will not involve the risk of the introduction of denomiuationalism, nor would the liberty of conscience in any one of either parties or the teacher be interfered with.’ That the Convention strongly disapprove of the platform of the Bihle-in-State-Schools League of New Zealand Those, therefore, who anticipated that the women would vote ‘ to a man ’ in favor of the League’s proposals have made a miscalculation. The W.C.T.U. —-which has a paper of its own, called The White llihhon represents a considerable section of zealous women ; and their votes, and still more their influence, will count -for something in the coming struggle.

The League and the Teachers

We reproduced in last week's issue a letter by Mr. J. A. Scott which had appeared in the Otago Daily Times on the day of the Bible-in-schools demonstration, and in which the speakers on that occasion were invited to give plain answers to five plain questions arising directly out of the League’s proposals. So far as the press reports disclose, only one speaker—the Very Rev., Lean Fitchett—attempted to deal with these questions; and the following further letter from Mr. \ Scott, which explains itself, appeared in Monday'? I Daily Times. * ‘ Sir, am glad to notice from your report of the Bible-in-schools demonstration that at least one of the speakers and one who personally, if I may be allowed to say so, I have always regarded as easily the ablest representative of the movement in the Dominion—has attempted to answer at least one of the five questions which I submitted in your issue on Monday. The question I had stated in this form: ‘lsit a fair proposition to compel a teacher, say, of the Jewish faith -without the option of a conscience clause —to administer such a lesson as that on “The Crucifixion,” given on page 123 of- the Queensland Bible text-book?’

Dean Fitchett's reply, as given .in your report is: 'Certainly the teacher would be required to teach from the lesson book, but only as literature.' The object of the Bible in State Schools League is to secure the introduction into this country of what is known as the 'Australian system and the character of the Scripture lesson to be given by the teacher under that system is determined, not of course by Dean Fitchett, or by Canon Garland, or by any member of the Bible in State Schools League, but wholly and solely by the Education Act (and its regulations) in which the system is embodied. If the Act says the Bible lesson is to be given 'only as literature' that will be, so far as it goes, authoritative, though how the teacher could hope to keep the ' doctrine' out of the ' literature' would still be a problem. If, on the other hand, the Act says the Bible lessons are to be given as ' religious teaching ' that will be final as against the 'literature' view and as against the mere personal opinions of individuals. Will Dean Fitchett kindly quote any section of the laws of any of the Australian States in which it is laid down that the Scripture lessons are to be taught ' only as literature I have before me the Education Acts of New South Wales and Queensland, and there is not one word in these requiring the Scripture lessons to be given 'only as literature.' On the contrary they are therein frankly and plainly referred to as 'general religious teaching' and as 'religious instruction.' If these lessons are to be taught, not as religion but only as literature ' will Dean Fitchett explain why a conscience clause—such as it is—has been provided for the children ?

Will Dean Fitchett kindly, answer also another query on this subject ? He is reported by your paper as saying, in effect, that the compulsory Bible lessons m no way infringed on the rights of conscience of the teachers. On this point the teachers themselves are, of course, the best and final judges; and my question is, Is the Bible in State Schools League willing to modify the Australian proposals and grant a conscience clause for the teachers so as to allow each one to say for himself whether it is in accordance with his conscience to give such lessons? When Dean Fitchett has kindly (1) quoted, the clause in the Australian Acts which entitles him to say that the Scripture lessons are to be taught 'only as literature,' (2) has explained why, if the lessons are to be given only as literature' it was necessary to provide a conscience clause for the children, and (3) has told us whether the League is willing or unwilling to give the same rights of conscience to the teachers as to the children, we can proceed, with your permission, to discuss by reference to the lessons themselves the possibility or otherwise of teaching'theni 'only as literature.' In the meantime the four other questions which I submitted still remain unanswered.— am, etc.,

J. A. Scott.' March 13.

A Baptist Disclaimer There is an element of slimness about the methods of the Bible-in-schools leaders that one would not expect to find in ministers of the Gospel, and that is not calculated to favorably impress the ordinary straight-going citizen. An instance was furnished in connection with the proceedings at the ' demonstration ’ of supporters held in Dunedin last week. In the advertisement, the name of the Rev. E. 11. Hobday, Baptist minister, was included amongst those who were to take part in the meeting. Before the meeting eventuated, however, it was ascertained that that gentleman was willing to speak at the gathering only on condition that he should be allowed to state frankly his opposition to an essential feature of the League’s proposals. It was then apparently decided to drop Mr. as a speaker. That would have been all right if nothing had been said on the subject. But before the close of the gathering, the chairman (the Rev. R. E. Davies) made the following statement : ‘ He regretted that an opportunity had not presented itself to allow the Rev. Mr. Hobday to speak. That gentleman was anxious to throw in his lot with the League, and he repre-

seated a number who, rather than see the children get nothing, would do their utmost to see that the Bible had its place in the schools of this laud.’ •* To which the Rev. Mr. Hobday replied, in Saturday’s Evening Star, with the following courteous but effective contradiction: 1 Sir, —1 am afraid that my presence at the recent Bible-in-schools meeting has given rise to serious misapprehension, and therefore that some explanation is needed. 1 told the Rev. R. E. Davies at our interview earlier in the day that I would be pleased to take part provided he would, as chairman, permit me to state my position. To this he assented, but although the hour was by no means advanced the opportunity was denied me. Whether, on reflection, he deemed it inexpedient, or whether he consulted others who deemed it inexpedient, 1 cannot say, nor am I anxious to ascertain. But, however well intentioned (and I am sure it was), the chairman’s reference to myself was entirely gratuitous. 1 am not anxious to join the League. If it were purely and simply a Bible-in-schools movement there would be no more loyal or enthusiastic supporter than I. But is this a Bible-in-schools or a church-in-schools movement ? I most sincerely want the Bible, but I object to the right of entry. Canon Garland’s speech was weak and unconvincing. He took up the greater part of his time in extolling the excellencies of the Bible. Of course, we are all agreed there. I yield to no man in my passionate affection for the Book. But that is not the question. What I want to knew is this: Are the League prepared, if needs be, to waive the right of entry and secure the Bible to the children to be read in the way described by Dean Fitchettas literature? If they are, well and good; if they are not, then they ought to change their name. And if a referendum is to be taken, then common honesty demands that the two distinct issues should be submitted. I am certain that there is considerable confusion in the minds of numbers, and what is imperatively needed is a candid public statement of what the League demand—rwhat their irreducible demands are. For myself, I want neither secularism nor sectarianism in the schools. I want the Bible read as the basis of morality.—l am eta., E. Herbert Hobday, Roslyn Baptist Church.’ March 13. ‘ Free Places ’ in New South Wales There was some speculation amongst New Zealand Catholics as to the precise meaning of a cable message from Sydney, quoting portion of a pastoral letter by Archbishop Kelly, which appeared in last week’s dailies. The cable read as follows: ‘ A pastoral letter by Archbishop Kelly, dealing with the duties and responsibilities of parents in connection with State school scholarships, was read in the Roman Catholic churches yesterday. Reviewing the position, the Archbishop declared that “compromise upon the religious character of the school that is to be held by us Catholics is out of the question, and must be met with indignant rejection. Our only self-respecting attitude towards the present departmental insidious proposal is to say, Your free tuition in your newly-fangled higher shrine of indifference may go to perdition, so far as Roman Catholics are conconcerned.’ ” ’ * The following summary of the facts will explain the meaning of the message. Last year a Bursaries Act was passed in New South Wales under which State bursaries (or ‘scholarships’ as we call them in New Zealand) were made tenable at registered Cathobc secondary schools as well as at the State institutions. In accordance with this Act examinations were recently held, at which 28 Government scholarships were gained by Catholic pupils, which are tenable at any of the 24 Catholic schools registered under the Act. But in addition, a number of free places can be awarded under the Act to pupils who have done sufficiently well at the examinations, and these carry with them free tuition and books, bub they can only be held at State High

Schools. Some 40 or more of these free places have now been offered to certain Catholic pupils in terms of a circular sent out by the Education Department. The circular reads: —' It has been decided that a place will be found in one of the Sydney High Schools or intermediate high schools for all metropolitan pupils whose examination results reach the standard for scholarships (free places), but who are over the prescribed age, provided the parents are willing to allow them to remain long enough to complete the High School course (four years). At examination your marks were sufficiently high to reach the scholarship (free place) standard. If therefore, you have not yet entered upon a course of secondary instruction, the Department is prepared to find a means of enabling you to do so, upon your father or mother filling in the accompanying form, and returning the same to this office. This offer must be availed of not later than Friday next, 21st inst.' To counteract this plan—as we learn from our Adelaide contemporary ,the Southern —the Catholic Federation, which has just been formed in Sydney, aided by the Bishops, is raising a fund by which Catholic pupils offered this free secondary education at State high schools will be given similar advantages at Catholic secondary schools. The free places are, of course, more numerous than the scholarships; and if the former are to be tenable only at the State high schools the effect of their acceptance by Catholics would obviously be to rob the Catholic institutions of a large number of their best and most promising pupils and to compel the latter to take out their free places at institutions of which, on the ground of their purely secular character, Catholic parents could not approve. This is the explanation of the Archbishop's condemnation, and of the reason why, with his customary outspokenness, he has intimated that the insidious offer ' may go to perdition, so far as Catholics are concerned.' There, as here, an amending- Act is evidently urgently necessary.

♦The Woman Thou Gavest Me'

Our attention has been directed to a serial story by Hall Caine, entitled * The Woman Thou Gavest Me,' which is appearing twice weekly in the Southland News. Hall Caine, who announced some time ago that he did not claim to be either Catholic or Protestant, seems to bo unable to satisfy either Protestant or Catholic taste in stories in which either Church is represented or involved. Reviewers—Catholic reviewers included—■ differed greatly over Hall Caine's previous book, The Eternal City; and the author complained that he was ' a target for Catholics and non-Catholics alike,' and that the book had ' been denounced by Protestants as being Catholic, and by Catholics as being Protestant.' So far as we can see, Protestants are not likely to have * any ground for complaint in respect to the Catholicity of the present story. We have only had the opportunity of reading a few disconnected chapters, but these are sufficient to show that, from the Catholic point of view, the story is distinctly objectionable. In the first part of the story we have presented to us, as the central characters in the plot, an Irish Catholic parent, the Reverend Mother of a convent, a Catholic Bishop, and the Vatican itself, all in a conspiracy to foft-e a young Catholic girl, against her will and inclination, to marry a young lord who is immensely wealthy, but who is a Protestant and a roue. The absurdity of this picture, when the echoes of Ne Temere are still heard in the land, is patent to all and in regard to its untruthfulness we are able to cite Hall Caine as witness against himself. At the opening of a Catholic bazaa)r at Douglas, Isle of Man, a few years ago, speaking not as the creator of fiction but as the relater of sober fact, he gave the Church her true place not as truckler to the rich but as the friend, par excellence, of the poor. Of all the Churches,' he said, 'the Catholic Church is the Church of the poor. This ought to be its great honor and pride. A Church of Christ that casts in its lot with the rich and great against the poor and lowly would be a Church ~ built on the sand. The Catholic Church can well afford to be true to the democratic teaching of its Founder. It can only live on being the Church of the people. His Holiness sees this clearly, and hence his Encyclicals on Christian Democracy.'

Apart from the objections to the central theme of the story—as developed in Part I. —many of the incidental scenes are objectionable alike for their absurdity and their suggestiveness. Here is a specimen. The speaker is a young girl, Mary O'Neill, staying at a convent in Rome. 'On Christmas Day we . had currant cake in honor of the feast, and Sister Angela asked Father Giovanni to come to tea, and he came and was quite cheerful, so that when the Sister, who was also very happy, signalled to me to take some mistletoe from, the bottom of a picture, I held it over his head and kissed him,from behind. Then he snatched me up in his arms and kissed me back, and we had a great romp round the chairs and tables. But the Ave Maria began to ring from the churches, and Father Giovanni (according to the rule of our convent), having to go, he kissed me again, and then I said: "Why don't you kiss Sister Angela, too?" At that they only looked at each other and laughed, but after a moment he kissed her hand, and then she went downstairs to see him out into the garden. When she came back her eyes were sparkling, and her cheeks were flushed, and that night, when she took away her black bands on going to bed, she stood before a looking-glass and wound her beautiful light hair round her finger and curled it over her forehead in the way it was worn by the ladies we saw in the streets. I think it was two nights later she told me I was to go to bed early because Father Giovani was not well, and she would have to go over to see him. She went, and I got into bed, but I could not sleep, and while I lay waiting for Sister Angela I listened to some men who, as they crossed the piazza, were singing in tremulous voices to their mandolines and guitars what I knew to be love songs, for I had begun to learn Italian. It was late when Sister Angela came back, and then she was breathing hard as if she had been running. I asked if Father Giovanni's sickness was worse, and she said no, it was better, and I was'to say nothing about it. But she could not rest, and at last she said: "Didn't we forget to say our prayers, Mary?" So I got up again, and Sister Angela said one of the beautiful prayers out of her prayerbook. But her voice was very low, and when she came to the words, "O Father of all mankind, forgive all sinners who repent of their sins, she broke down altogether.' We cannot but regret that a writer who in his words of sober prose has paid such well-merited tributes to the Catholic Church should in his fiction have descended to something like the Marie Corelli level. Sensible Catholics will have no desire to read such stuff; and, for the rest, we have only to urge Southland parents to see to it that ' The Woman Thou Gavest Me ' instalments are kept carefully out of their young people's way.