CATHOLIC SCHOLARSHIPS.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 April 1922, Page 7

CATHOLIC SCHOLARSHIPS.

BISHOP WHYTE’S STATEMENT. A correspondent writes, forwarding the following:— Bishop Whyte, speaking at the opening of a new convent at Kaikorai, Dunedin, referred to his St. Patrick’s Day speech re scholarships. He said:— When speaking at St. Patrick’s Day concert I told the audience of the grievance that Catholics have against the present Government. That grievance is, that the pupils of our Catholic schools who win cei-tain scholarships cannot take them out at Catholic schools. The Minister for Education on being shown my remarks as reported said they were a “perversion of fact.” Now for the facts: Before the Hon, Mr. Parr took charge of the Education Department, the pupils, say, of the Christian Brothers’ Schools who won those scholarships could taJce them out at the Christian Brothers’ School. This was changed by an Amendment Act for which Mr. Parr is responsible. That is the grievance of which I spoke at the concert.

In order to aid Mr. Parr in his commendable pursuit of facts, I will refer him to the Education Act of 1914, Section 103. which reads, “The holder of any junior or senior scholarship shall be required to pursue his studies diligently to the satisfaction of the director at a secondary school or its equivalent approved by the Minister.” On the strength of the phrase, “or its equivalent,” the Christian Brothers’ boys winning scholarships could pursue their studies at the Christian Brothers’ Schools. Now comes the Education Amendment of 1920. Paragraph one, Section 27, reads:—“Section one hundred and three of the principal Act is hereby amended by omitting tne words ‘or its equivalent,’ and substituting the words ‘or district high school or technical school’”! On the strength of this amendment Christian Brothers’ boys winning scholarships could no longer take them out at the Christian Brothers’ Schools. It will be interesting to learn why Mr. Parr made this change.

The successful candidates would be allowed by Government to take out their scholarships at State schools. Nobody denies that; I never denied it. But Catholic parents who considered the Christian Brothers talented enough to prepare their boys to win scholarships would also consider the Brothers talented enough to train those same pupils in higher courses. If the Brothers were duly qualified to teach advanced classes before 1920, why should Mr. Parr by his Amendment declare them no longer fit for the worK ?

Catholic parents, too, who sent their children to receive a Catholic education in the primary school are loyal enough to principle to continue to send them to receive a Catholic education in the secondary school.

Furthermore, the Church is naturally desirous that Catholic children should attend Catholic schools, for there they would secure a knowledge of their religion. In the new Code of Canon Law that desire—to put it mildly—is emphatically expressed. For instance, Canon 1373 reads:—“ln every elementary school the children must, according to their age, be instructed in Christian doctrine. The young people who attend the higher schools are to receive a deeper religious knowledge.” Mr. Parr will now understand why bishops and priests and parents want Catholic boys and girls to keep away from State schools, whether primary or secondary. In order that the pupils of our Catholic schools who have won scholarships may shun the State secondary schools, the Catholic Federation has started a fund for the purpose of enabling those successful pupils to continue their studies at their own Catholic schools. That was the reason why I appealed at the concert to all my hearers to join the Federation. That work concerning scholarships is the great and special work of the Federation, and on that account I should like to see every Catholic in New Zealand join the Federation, and subscribe to it and work for it.