CARDINAL MORAN ON BIBLEIN-SCHOOLS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 75, 5 April 1913, Page 2

CARDINAL MORAN ON BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

[To The Editor Stratford Post.] Sir, —As one honoured with the intimate friendship of the iate Cardinal Moran, I am in a position to correct the distorted statements that lately appeared in your columns and in a League pamphlet, with pointed personal reference to me.

(I) Ou a Catholic doctrinal ground Cardinal Moran utterly rejected the League’s sectarian dogma that it is the Covernment’s moral right and duty to teach religion, or (.in legal phase) to impart “religious instruction” and “general religious teaching” as a class subject. (2) At the Educational Conference in Sydney in April, 1901, Cardinal Moran denounced the New South Monies Government Scripture Lessons as “garbled extracts” compiled for proselytising purposes by Archbishop Whately, “a professional pro-selytiser,” and Rev. Carlisle, “the very worst proselytiser in Ireland.” (3) In a telegram read in the Queensland Legislative Council on October 25th, 1910, he said those government lessons “are avowedly Protestant and are condemned by me and all Catholics.” (4) In a letter quoted in the Queensland Legislative Council on November Ist, 1910, the League organiser described the opponents of his scheme as being “under Cardinal Moran’s banner.” (5) At the Catholic Educational Conference in Sydney on January 17th-21st, 1911, Cardinal Moran declared that the New South Wales system, “from its incepton,. was hostile to the Catholic Church”; that its founder, Sir Henry Ravk.os j had declared its object to bo “death to the calling of the priesthood of the Church of) Rome” ; and that “it was unjust, to ask Catholics to send their children to schools which if ere avowedly for the purpose of destroying their faith.” (Official report, pp. 41, .49-50). He, re-affirmed *lll6 archidiocesan law against the clergy teaching religion in the public schools—they should “bring the children to a neighbouring church or house or elsewhere. . . . They must make it plain that there was.no.,peace with the system as ,far as Catholics were concerned.” (Official report, p. 40). “The ..reports of the Education Department,” said he, “make it appear that they had paid 900 such visits last year. ..Those visits were in the remote country districts, where there were no Catholic schools, and where the children'were obliged to attend State schools. The priests merely called at the ; schools to as-, semblc the children for .preparation for the Sacraments, but d.i(l not actually: teach them in the schoolroom, taking them to a neighbouring house, jif available, or otherwise gathering them under a'gunl-tree.” (Offibial report, p. 31) (6) I personally kp'ow- that Cardinal Moran .objected, yehement]£|ho the League’s Irish, proselytising conscience clause, and (on grounds of Catholic theology) to compelling teachers to ifiif>aVfe “genetM religious/teaching” which their conscience forbade. (7) I know from the Cardinal personally, from a teacher presenc(whose t'ideiice is available), .and; f irom though- 1 densed newspaper report^that lieAook up'the following attitude at the Conference‘of 1904 : (a) As the law (wbirjlV lie bitterly resented) stood, it would lie “a vast improvement” (as mitigating somewhat the dangers of State proselytism) to substitute “the four Gospels” for the Irish proselytisers’ “garbled extracts.” (b) “In the matter of expense,” said he, “ I do not think it is a matter vin which the State should be called upon at all; I think eacli denomination would he able “‘to present its own. 'children with the necessary books.” The Cardinal sternly opposed objectors having to pay for the endowment of Protestant “religious teaching.” He offered to supply at bis own expense (as we do where we can) “Douay” Gospels to Catholic children. But, faithful to conscience and Church law, he neve: contemplated Catholic children being taught Scripture lessons by State officials of all creeds and of none. Like all Catholics, he believed in religious instruction for the publicschool children, on fair all-round conditions. There is no divergence, in substance, between his views and those expressed by me and, in 1901, by the Catholic Hierarchy of New Zealand. —1 am,, etc.,

HENRY AV. CLEARY, D.D., Bishop of Auckland Auckland, April 2, 1913.