The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4228, 20 July 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1882.

Fob "a really good thorough • going Catholic, commend us .to Dr Mbran, Bishop of Dunedin; who is also credited with being the editor of the Tablet. He will give no quarter to heresy or schism of any kind. According to him,'what the priest says is^Jaw, and the erring one must obey, for—.

" The fear of hell's the hangman's whip to keep the wretch in order." i: The good Bishop, would not tolerate Protestantism in any shape or form if he could help it. He is embued with that class of zeal which lighted the fires of Smith field and caused the massacre of St. Bartholomew. He is a conscientious, energetic man, ever working for the advancement of his Church, according to his lights, but withal a narrow bigot. A zealous Catholic, what a contrast he is to the saintly Newman, or the mild Fenelon! His ardor is rather that of Saul of Tarsus, who, when persecuting the Jews, considered he was doing God's service. On Sunday last he informed his flock—" People who sent their children to godless schools, although they lived within reasonable distance of the Church schools, were living in wilful sin, and could not receive the sacraments of the Church. They were living ii- a state of damning sin. Even though they might receive the sacraments, at death he would be compelled to refuse them a Christian burial. 1' Now the godless schools referred to are.the State schools. It is a shocking thing for a man to be refused the sacrament of his Church in this nineteenth century for having his children taught to read and write, for, reduced to its true interpretation, that is the meaning of the threat. Some may say, " That is not correct, for the Church provides schools for the children." True, but the parents would have to pay for the education of their children at these establishments, while at the State schools they would be taught free. "Ah yes, but these State maintained schools are wicked; one is not allowed to impart religions instruction there; one is not allowed to mention the name of God therein ; their maintenance is an injustice to tbe Catholic, for he cannot conscientiously avail himself of them, inasmuch as religion is a part of education, and that mast be taught acccording to the Church's guidance." Now, to claim sympathy for conscience' sake it must be known that conscience is oppressed. Wherein does the State oppress . the Church P We cannot admit for a moment that for any church or body of the community to say or imagine that it is oppressed is sufficient warrant for taking it at its word. The State acts upon the principle that to give all of its subjects a fair start in life it is incumbent upon it to afford each of them a fair elementary education. It has no objection to religion being taught, but at the various denominations cannot agree on a common basis, it is omitted. But there is some provision made even for it

still; by arrangement the religious denominations can hare the use of the buildings after school hours. Now the Catholic Church is wholly and solely to blame for. the State schools being in this so-called godless condition. The other denominations would have been agreeable to a common platform—the reading o f the Bible—but the Church would not hare that or anything else short of separate schools for Catholics. The Slate answered, "No, we cannot subsidise denominationalism ; if we granted you separate allowances, why should we not give it to any other religious body which asked for it?" We are as much opposed to the spirit of ultra secularism as to Catholic exbliisivenesa, and believe that if the Catholics joined with the Protestants some plan might be devised whereby further facilities for imparting religious instruction would be obtained. But we cannot admit for a moment that any injustice is inflicted on the Church under the present system. The State does not interfere with the Church's religion. It simply says this, For the good of the community an efficient and economical system has been provided out of the revenue of the country, contributed alike by Catholic, Protestant, Greek, Jew, or atheist, and you, all of you, must avail yourselves of the opportunity of fulfilling your duly-to the State's future citizens, your children, by giving them such education as will fit them to push their way in the world. I give the child of the poor man an equal start in the race of life with that of the wealthy one." .These are the schools which the worthy bishop prohibits his people sending their children to under pain of the heaviest penalty the Church could impose. The real secret of the Church's opposition to the State schools is that the priesthood wish to have training of the children in their own hands, knowing well that impressions gained in early years are seldom lost, and never wholly eradicated. - But is not that a humiliating position for the Church to occupy ? Surely a Church which attracted to its fold such minds as Manning, Newman and Eipon, ought not to be afraid of friction. We are quite convinced that on the matter of education, the priesthood do not represent,the sentiments of the bulk of the Catholic laity, who prefer the State schools, and in their hearts resent such interference. The good bishop, we fear, is not furthering his own cause, whilst he is surely fanning the spirit of hostility.