BISHOP MORAN AND OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

Southland Times, Issue 1556, 26 March 1872, Page 3

BISHOP MORAN AND OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

We have been requested to reproduce from the " Evangelist," a religious periodical published in Dunedin, the following article on the educational question — a subject which is at present engrossing considerable attention in different parts of the colony : — There is no public question which more urgently demands the earnest con- \ sideration, and the prompt action of all Christians and patriots, than the question of national education. The most determined efforts are being made to obtain national support for denominational schools. It cannot be too loudly proclaimed that, if these efforts prove successful, they will render entirely nugatory any national system which may be adopted. We cannot conceive anything more fatal and inconsistent than to do as was done in the Bill recently brought before the General Assembly of New Zealand, viz., to make provision for denominational schools alongside of a socalled national system. No time is to be \ lost if we wish to prevent the recurrence of so serious a danger. The present Government of New Zealand seem to have committed themselves to the fatal inconsistency involved in the " aided schools clauses " of their recent Bill. Before the next Assembly we hope that the voice of the country will be heard from one end of it to the other, spurning the odious clauses in tones so unmistakeable that no ministry will dare to disregard them. It cannot be too distinctly realised fthat the main (object contemplated by these clauses, is to take the public money and apply it to the teaching of Popery. Disguise it as they may, this is the result to which, consciously or unconsciously, all are driving who advocate national provision for denominational teaching. Who are the parties that the Q-overnment are seeking to conciliate by the sacrifice of principle and consistency ? It is the Roman Catholics, or rather, the Romish bishops and priests, and a considerable section — not of the laity — but of the clergy of the Church of England. It is notorious that this latter party have for long looked up with feelings of envy and admiration to the sublime elevation of the chair of St. Peter, but have failed as yet in obtaining any recognition of their servile fawning, or even so much as the privilege of kissing the toe of the Pope. Surely Romanism has not done so much for the world, for enlightenment, for progress, for civil and i religious liberty, that a community in the main Protestant, should give it the exceptional privilege of paying for its teaching. Yet, nothing short of this will satisfy the demands of the Romish hierarchy. It is not enough that nothing sectarian or even distinctively religious be taught, they will be content with nothing short of the positive teaching of Popery. One would suppose that a system like the national system of Ireland would meet the circumstances of a colony like this, and satisfy all the demands of Romanists, as it certainly deprives them of legitimate grievance on the score of conscience. Yet what are the facts ? The Irish Bishops are preaching a crusade against the national schools. In these schools, during the hours of common school instruction, nothing distinctive of any body of Christians is allowed to be introduced; no catechisms, no religious emblems, &c. ; but provision is made for separate religious instruction for all denominations that may avail themselves of it, at fixed hours, and guarded by a conscience clause. No proselytisra has ever occurred in connection with these schools, yet what do we fiud ? Why, the Romish bishops in a letter to Sir George G-rev, in January, 1866, allege it as a grievance that they are not permitted to combine religious teaching along with the secular instruction during the ordinary hours, in those schools where the pupils are exclusively, or all but exclusively, Catholic. They call upon the Government at once " to remove all restrictions upon religious instruction, to permit the fulness of distinctive religious teaching to enter into the course of daily secular education, with full liberty for the performance of religious exercises, and the use of religious emblems. ... In the Catholic school — because in the contemplation of the board's rules a mixed school, which is a pure fiction — no distinctive religious teaching is allowed to mingle with the secular instruction ; the practices of piety, which the Catholic church considers of so much importance in order to implant the love of God in the hearts of youth, are during far the greater part of the day interdicted ; the children are not free to mark themselves with the sign of the cross ; the cross itself, the symbol of redemption, is a forbidden thing within and without; and the images of our Divine Lord and of his Blessed Mother are kept under lock and key, while birds and beasts aad fishes are freely exhibited upon the walls of the schoolroom. This is felt to be a very great hardship, and all the greater as there is not a shadow of a reason for continuing it." No obstacle has ever been put in the way of Romanists teaching their own children during the time for separate religious instruction, and yet in the face of tacts like these, the Romish Bishop of Dunedin asserts that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has practically overridden the Church of Rome (see recent letters in " Otago Daily Times ") with respect to many of these schools, and made them virtually Presbyterian. In point of fact, the real grievance is that they can neither be made Roman Catholic nor Protestant, but are purely national. But however excellent the Irish national system may be, we may well pause ere we sacrifice the principle of the present " Education Ordinauce of Otago " in favor of any other system whatever. In spite of the sneers of Dr Moran, his own statistics show that Otago's educational pre-eminence over

the other Provinces is no empty boast, By his own showing (see recent letter in " Otago Daily Times ") she has a largei proportion of children at school than Auckland has, and that not because she is giving them a pauper's education at the expense of the State, but, as he alleges, because by her superior public provision for education she is enabled to make fees moderate, and bring it within the reach of the poorest, which the other Provinces have not been able to do, or only to a more limited extent. Before throwing overboard our own Ordinance, the least that we can ask of Dr Morau is to show us what possible system consistent with the rights of conscience would satisfy him. It is not enough to throw out four or five vague propositions that seem perfectly fair indeed, and in themselves such as any Protestant might conscientiously accept. (See letter in " Times.") If he means these in good faith, and not as a mere blind, or decoy, to amuse Protestants for a little until the fruit that is ripening on the Government tree be gathered, or a cheap bid for the credit of liberality by the ventilation of a crude and impracticable scheme, — if he does not mean this, he ought to go fur ther and show how the scheme could be wrought, and especially give us the assurance that if carried out to its legitimate consequences it would not encounter his own bitterest opposition. J3r Moran ought, in one word, to assure us how Romanists who have no school of their own in a district, would submit to be assessed for the support of the national schools ; and how, where they have schools of their own, they would submit to have them inspected by one who might happen to be a Protestant. In the meantime we dismiss this* airy speculation, coming as it does from the mouth of an Ultramontanist, with the old exclamation, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes ! We believe that, were thia matter left in the hands of the Protestant and Roman Catholic laity alone, no practical difficulty would be experienced. They would have no difficulty in setting up a common system of education in which no violence would be done to the religious convictions of either party. Nor would that system be necessarily what is commonly called a purely secular one. On the contrary, it would, we are most firmly persuaded, embrace provision for the recognition of the religious element, in so far as that element is common to both churches, that is to say, it would provide for the reading of the Bible — a book recognised as divine by both Catholic and Protestant — at certain fixed hours, and guarded by a strict conscience clause. With respect to the other and ordinary secular instruction of the school, each party would have such regard to the j religious convictions of the other, that no book would be permitted to be used which contained any reflections upon the religion of either the Catholic or Protestant. Now, we take leave to say, notwithstanding the strictures of Bishop Moran upon it, that the Educational Ordinance in force in Otago provides precisely such a system as that here delineated. We do not say that there have been no faults committed in the administration of that Ordinance ; that all the books used in the schools, for example, have been of the unexceptionable kind supposed, but clearly this is the fault not of the Ordinance but of the administrators. Only let Bishop Moran say that he is willing to co-operate in any common national system, and such details will soon be set right and just grievances remedied. In a letter recently published in the " Otago Daily Times," Dr Moran asserts that the present educational system of Otago is Presbyterian, but in support of this charge, he can allege nothing from the Ordinance itself, except it be the 40th clause, which provides for the reading of the Holy Scriptures by those whose parents and guardians do not object. Now, surely Bishop Moran knows that others than Presbyterians read the Scriptures — that Episcopalians, Wesleyans, and Protestants of every sort read the Bible as G-od's Word, yea, we are happy to say in many cases Roman Catholics themselves do so. It is a poor compliment to pay our fellow-Christians to suppose that the Bible is an exclusively Presbyterian book. But perhaps we wrong Dr Moran in supposing that he objects to the 40th clause, simply because it provides for the reading of the Bible in schools. His words do not imply more than that he is opposed to its being made imperative upon parents and guardians to exercise their right of objecting before their children can be excluded from the Bible reading. He says, " The law then takes advantage of the ignorance or carelessness of parents or guardians to compel children to receive religious instruction." (Letter, " Daily Times," Feb. 2nd.) Now, if the Bible be so dangerous a book, surely Roman Catholic parents and guardians will be at the i trouble to keep their children away during the hour (usually at the opening of the school) at which it is read ; and if they are too ignoraut or careless to do so, surely one tenth part of the pains taken by their clergy to decry our present educational system, would serve, if expended upon their flock, to enlighten them. If the parent be still too careless to discharge his duty, his children must be held to all intents and purposes to occupy the same position as children without parents or guardians, that is, to be wards of the State, not of the clergy ; and if the State must educate those left to its care, it is right it should do so according to its own ordinance. It is consonant to the spirit of the British Constitution, that, failing parents or guardians, the State, and not any bishop or clergyman, should come in locopai'entis. But, apart from all this, what harm is there in neglected or fatherless children reading the Bible? Does Dr Moran fear the reading of the Word of God ? What harm is there in leaving the right of objecting to parents and guardians alone ? Is Dr Moran afraid that parents will be so negligent that they will not care to shield the tender minds of their

. children from the poisonous influences of i the Bible — or is he afraid that they themr selves will manifest an undue hankering i after that forbidden fruit, and thus their • eyes will become inconveniently ent lightened ? If the Bible be the Word of 3 G-od, why afraid of its being read ? If it 3 be said that it is not the version approved ) by the Rotniah Church, then we reply, if l the difference between the Romish and r Protestant versions be esteemed so great, • let the children of Romish parents be j kept away during the hour for Bible , reading, as the Ordinance provides, i There is no reason, however, why the ■ Douay version should not be read where L the Catholics are most numerous. It ' would be strictly according to the Ordi- ; nance for a Catholic majority in a school • district to elect a Catholic school com- ; mittee, appoint a Catholic teacher, and . read the Douay Bible. There is no reason in the world why this should not ' happen in any district in Otago. Dr Morau has another objection to make to our present educational system. He points out some paragraphs offensive to Catholics, that occur in some of the books of history that are used in some of the schools. This is a matter to which the attention of the Education Board has been very properly called, and there is no doubt that the grievance will speedily be remedied. If we are to have Catholic children in our schools, the paragraphs quoted by Dr Moran should certainly not be found in any schoolbook, not that such offensive passages are by any means Presbyterian, as Dr Moran seems to suppose, but they are obviously Protestant censures upon the religion of Roman Catholics. Better even to leave the history of our country altogether untaught in our schools, or only taught up to the Reformation period, or with that period omitted, than have any obstacle thrown in the way of a consummation so devoutly to be desired as the blending of all the youth of our country, without distinction of creed or of race, in our common schools. But we fail to see the necessity for adopting such an expedient. The main facts of even the Reformation period may be conveyed in language unobjectionable to either Protestant or Catholic. Tea, rather than forfeit the advantages of a truly national system, we would be prepared to go further, and exclude Bible reading 'altogether, thus making; it purely secular, if only thereby Dr Moran and his co-religionists would heartily co-operate. Protestants have no reason greatly to dread such a system. They have faith in the Bible as taught in the family, as taught in the Sabbath school, and as taught in the church. It is much to be regretted that Dr Moran repudiates, yea seems even to execrate every concession of this sort which Protestants are prepared to make, thus making it obvious that no system of common education will satisfy him short of what is purely Roman Catholic. On what grounds does he rest his opposition to a purely secular system of common school education ? It is because, he says, that "it is godless and infidel." This is a heavy charge, and if it could be made out, every right thinking man would be bound to join Dr Moran in saving our youth from so fearful a peril. But what is the proof? "It professes," says he, (see " Daily Times," Feb. 2nd) " to take no notice of faith or religion ; it pretends not to interfere with religion. It is, then, ex natura rei, altogether apart from religion, without religion, unleavened by faith, that is, infidel, sine fide, infidelis." Now here a very serious fallacy lurks in Dr Moran's use of the word " infidel." If infidel just means, as Dr Moran's logic, in order to be conclusive, requires, apart from religion, without religion, taking no notice of faith or religion, Sfc, then a purely secular system of education is infidel, but so is mathematics, so is geography, so is astronomy, unless indeed, so far as aatronomv is concerned, it still be a heresy to hold with Galileo, that the earth moves round its own axis. To prove it infidel in thi3 sense — and this is all that Dr Moran proves — is nothing to the purpose. It is not therefore opposed to faith or religion. If, however, on the other hand, Dr Moran is using the word " infidel," in its ordinary and technical sense, as denying or opposed to the faith or religion, then he is simply paltering with words in a double sense, and his L.itin expressions quoted as equivalent, sine fide, infidelis, will not deceive the merest tyro in logic. In this sense we deny that a purely secular education is infidel, any more than chemistry or logic, Latin or Greek, is infidel. We conclude by expressing our strong hope that the country will not permit our legislators, in any coming Education Bill, to do so fatal and inconsistent a thing, as to insert any provision for denominational education in a so-called National Bill. The present Otago Ordinance, so far as this matter goes, is admirable ; and we must let our rulers know that we shall not sacrifice the leading principle of it — Bible reading, with a conscience clause — to please infidels, and that godless class of secularists who hate all religion. The Otago Ordinance, with needful adaptations, need only to be extended to the whole of New Zealand. It is national in the true sense of the term, as distinguished from sectarian, and what is more, it is religious. If we ask in what sense it is religious, Dr Moran answers "It must be Presbyterian." But this answer is arrived at by a curious process of reasoning. "It is clear then," says he ("Daily Times," Feb. 2nd), "that neither in theory nor in practice, is the Otago system of education a secular system. No one pretends that it is either a Roman Catholic or Church of England system. What, consequently, considering the circumstances, must be the inference ? It must be Presbyterian." Let us resolve Dr Moran's difficulty, and answer his j question. It is Catholic, we reply, not Roman Catholic, not Church of England, not Presbyterian, not Wesleyan, but Catholic — and for the proof of this, we appeal to the Ordinance, and defy con-

* tradiction. Let us see to it that it become Colonial instead of Provincial, and then shall we have a system, the best attainable in the present divided state of Christendom — at once National and ' Catholic.