THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EDUCATION. “

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1062, 1 October 1883, Page 2

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EDUCATION. “

When under examination before the Victorian Education Commission, Archdeacon Slattery* whose uncompromising! attitude towards the State systam of'education in Victoria is well-known, v: was asked if the attendance of Roman Catholic children at State schools affected the parents; in their relation to warfU'ithe Church? ir* . He replied : If the attendance of toe chi dren was entirely voluntary, and not a matter of necessity, as it might bq m certain eases, then the parents would :bb considered as being rebellions, and guilty of disobedience and sin. If there was not a Catholic school within a reasooatolS distance, the parents, being compelled by i law to send their children to some school, would iu that case be under a moral necessity. If, however, a Catholicparenteent his children to a State school without a reasonable excuse, I nx a priest,- would consider it my duty to refuse him the sacrament —to deny him absolution, *3 WO term it. Scholars coma of age and voluntarily attending State schools would be debarred from the aaciameni of matrimony. It would be possible fra a priest to marry them under certain circumstances but they would be married in a.state of sip, having been denied absolution. Practically, a good Catholic who was disobedient in the aspect we speakofwobld be debarred from the sacrament bf matejk mony. If a Catholic was notoriously pAtf Bistent in opposition to the. Churohhy sending his children to' the State sehool and died, I think it would be the duty the Catholic priests to refuse him Christian burial. Every word I say is bf value; Vou will have noticed that I said “ notoriously persis ent.” Theological opinions require to be stated accurately. , . The Chairman : We have evidence that there are some Catholics acting as teachers in State schools. What position MO th« placed in by so acting as regards the Church? ; ;I; ;ifi

Archdeacon Slattery : None- at ’ aU.They are not reprobated in any way. It is the system of teaching as ;aifeotiof£ the children that is condemned. The teachers are only discharging an official duty, for which they are duly paid. Catholic teachers may Officiate in State schools withoutany injurious effect to themselves. Tf, however j they encouraged Catholic children ttTjjo; there they wonld be guilty of abrimeoriiiii. If they acted only negatively with regard to Catholic children they found in’ the schools they would be committing no wrong. I was here in 1866 when a previous. Royal Commission was issued. So' far as Iro* member, there was no representative of the Catholic Church on that Commission. So far as my memory serves me, I Chink that none of the clergy gave evidence before that Royal Commission, bat I believe some of the laity did. I?At a later period in the examination the Archdeacon said : In order that yon may understand the position of the priests, parents and children, it may be woll_ to inform you that the whole of the action and teaching of the Catholic Chnroh on this subject is based upon the 48th proposition of the syllabus issued by Pins nr. in 1864. The proposition, reads thus: —Catholics may approve of a system of educating youth unconnected with, the Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledgeof merely natural things, and only, 6r*at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.” That proposition, as so worded, is reprobated, proscribed and condemned by the Holy Father, and the Holy Father * exhorts and commands'all the ‘ faithful priests and laity to reprobate, proscribe and condemn the same. It is-upon that condemnation of the Holy See 'that all oar teaching is based. So you'see wo have no discretion in the matter at aIL It is a matter of absolute duty .that we should teach what we do on the'subject.