The Globe. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1010, 20 September 1877, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1877.

Some few days since the local papers published an extract from the Tablet, a Roman Catholic journal published in Dunedin, which, to say the least of it, excited considerable astonishment. The facts of the case appear to be that Mr. Lynskey, a Catholic parent, objected to the teaching of the head-master of the Kaiapoi school in the matter of history, and brought his complaint before the local committee,|and they, after hearing the explanation of the schoolmaster, decided that it was satisfactory, but cautioned him not to do so again. The matter has never been before the Board of Education. It was decided solely by the local committee, and no reference, so far as can be ascertained, was ever made to the central authority on the subject. In this we think the local committee were to blame. The subject was one which opened up a very much wider field than the committee seemed to consider, and should have been brought under the notice of the Board of Education, The occurrence seems to us to point conclusively to one thing wdiich the Board of Education will have to deal with sooner or later. Under the present law, and judging from the spirit of the one now passing through the House, our system of education is and will be entirely secular. It is intended to exclude altogether the dogmas of any sect or creed, and that the State shall simply provide an education which can be participated hi by all creeds without offence to their conscience. It is of course only just and equitable. All have to contribute, and therefore it should be open to all to send their children without any feeling of scruple on religious grounds. But —and here we come to the point lo which wo have referred —a perusal of the correspondence, and more particularly the reply of the Head Master, reveals a very serious defect. Mr. Lynskey, the parent of the child, complains of certain historical points offensive to his faith taught in the school. To this the reply of the Head Master is as follows :—“ For the satisfaction of the Committee, I add that they will find in Collier’s History — r he history ordered to be used by the Board oi Education’—in pages 57,

160, 164, 168, those charitable lessons which, in the opinion of Mr. Lynskey, are not lit for the ears of young children—i.c., children between the ages of ten and sixteen. The six articles of the Bloody Statute mentioned on page 166, are —I. Transubstantiation ; 2, Communion in one kind; 3, the celibracy of the clergy ; 4, private Masses ; d. vows of chastity : 6, auricular confession.” Now the point to which we desire to call the attention of the Board of Education is, seeing that our system is secular, why does the Board authorise the retention of such a history as that referred to by the Head Master ? There can be no doubt as to its offensive teaching. Can we expect any Catholic parent to allow his children to have tiffs teaching instilled into them. The master may not add one word of comment, but the reading and hearing of such lessons as this must at least have the effect of influencing the mind of the child. Not only so, but we contend that such points as those mentioned in the extract above are totally unnecessary in the study of history. The history of Great Britain can be taught without reference in any way to such offensive matters —from a Catholic point of view—as those referred to. If our system is secular let us make it strictly so. Let all reference to disputed points of religious belief be studiously excluded from our school course, and then avo shall hear no more of these complaints. We trust the Board of Education, iioav that public attention has been called to the matter, will take some steps to remedy what we cannot but characterise as a serious defect. Either let the obnoxious portions in Collier's History —and by that we mean all offensive reference to religious matters —be expunged, or some other book used.