THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXVII, Issue 9, 4 March 1909, Page 330

THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

A DISCUSSION

(By. the Editor of the New Zealand Tablet.) The following article on the above subject — the eighth of the series — appeared in the Otago Daily Times of February 27: — VIII. — 'WHO FIRED DOWN THE FLAG OF RELIGION IN OUR SCHOOLS?' PART I: BISHOP MORAN AND THE OTAGO PROVINCIAL SYSTEM. Anonymous accusation has its temptations, its perils, and at times its penalties. Its besetting temptation was described by Cardinal Manning when he said that it is extremely difficult for a man to avoid saying behind a mask what he would not say with open face. This is, I believe, true in regard to the anonymous author (' R.W.) of the bitter articles on ' The Religious Difficulty in Education,' which have stung and nagged through several issues of the Otago Daily Times. Sundry circumstances (including the indiscretion of his friends) have revealed his identity to many, and in a short space the pen-name ' R.W. will lie little better than a bit of journalistic make-believe. I may state that these initials (' R.W.) do not, as some suppose, here stand for the name of a well-known Dunedin City (South Ward) pastor, whose cultivated graces of mind and heart have won him the warm esteem of people of every creed in this community. The sub-heading of the first of ' R.W.'s ' articles ran thus : ' Who Fired Down the Flag of Religion in our Schools ? ' It recalls the mock queries of Dean Swift, which included the following : ' Who fills the butchers' shops with large blue flies ? ' The answer was, ' The Papists, of course.' This, too, is the answer given to his" own question by the man in the ' domino noir.' His accusation resolves itself into two heads. The first refers to the Provincial District and Government of Otago; the second to the passing -of what is called our national system of ' free, secular, and compulsory ' public instruction. Each of these will require a separate article. Catholics, we are told (February 2), ' declared war against ' the flag of Christ on the Otago schools ; ' they fired at it time and again; they made persistent attempts to drag it down. . . Who was the leader in the act of war against the " flag of Christ flying upon the schools " in Otago in those old provincial days? . . . The leader in this war was the late Rev. Patrick Moran, D.D., Roman Catholic of Dunedin. Let us consider (1) the nature of these accusations and their inherent probability or improbability ; (2) the evidence (if any) tendered in support of them; and (3) how far such evidence squares with the actual facts of the case. 1. ' Firing at,' committing an c act of war,' and so on, against Christ in the schools of Otago — all these expressions necessarily imply knowing, deliberate, formal attacks, having for their direct and immediate purpose the banishment of Christ and Christian teaching from the Otago schools, and (as the context further shows) the secularising of the system of education i^ these same schools. If true, these accusations wotild reveal riddles of human inconsistency compared with which the Aelia Laelia Crispis is as plain as poster print, (a) It represents Catholics as carrying on a bitter campaign for the direct purpose of excluding religion from the schools, (b) Next, in point of actual fact, we find these same Catholics protesting in the same breath, and evermore protesting, against the exclusion of religion from the schools — nay, even practically advocating, on conditions, the turning of the public schools into something like Protestant Sunday schools. (c) We find these same Catholics carrying their protest to such extremes that they refuse (unless where forced by circumstances) to send their children to schools from which religion is excluded. And, finally (d) we find these very same Catholics crowning this protest by creating, at enormous and continual sacrifices, a great rival system of education, having Christ as its very life and soul and inspiration. The whole religious history of New Zealand presents

no such impressive example of zeal and self-sacrifice. All this throws an air of wild a-priorv improbability about- the anonymous tale. Only evidence of supreme cogency would , justify its acceptance. ' 2. What evidence has bee_n tendered in support of thi3 extraordinary tale: Not a rag, scrap, or atom — merely the. bare assertion of a man in cloak and mask. Of this, " more anon. . Here, for the sake of clearness, let me explain that New Zealand became a self-governing colony in 1852. Each Province had its separate Legislature and the control of education within its borders. Most of the Pro- • vinces subsidised denominational' schools. Otago did not, but the reading of the Bible was (with a sort of conscience clause)" made obligatory in the public schools by the^ Education Ordinance of 1864. The Provincial Councils were abolished by the Acts of 1875-6, and one of the early measures of the centralised New Zealand Government was to abolish -aid to denominational schools and to introduce the system known as ' free, secular, and compulsory.' Here is 'R.W.'s' substitute for evidence regarding the Catholic war upon Christ in the schools of Otago (in which the Protestant version of the Bible, was daily taught) :— ' In public speech and by petition to the Provincial Council he (Bishop Moran) attacked the system. He objected to the " appointments of teachers," to the "school books used," and to the "religious instruction" authorised. The system thus, according to Dr. Moran, -had hardly one redeeming feature. The Provincial Council met Dr. Moran's attack. A Select Committee was appointed, with Mr. E. B. Cargill as chairman, to consider the bishop's charges. In July, 1871, that committee presented its report to the council, and upheld the national system as satisfactory, and declared against the denominationalism demanded by the respected Bishop of the Church of Rome. The story of these attacks on the " flag of Christ " flying upon our Otago schools is fully, and fairly told by the Rev. C. S. Ross in his book, Education and Educationists in Otago, published in Dunedin in 1890.' That is all the ' evidence ' adduced so far as the Otago provincial system is concerned." The reader is requested to note the following points: — (a) There is nothing in all the - adduced ' evidence ' that even charges Bishop Moran with carrying on a campaign to secularise the schools of Otago and drive Christ and religion therefrom, (b) Not a scrap of evidence is tendered in support of such a charge, (c) The reader is, instead, assured — on the unerring word of a masked accuser — that proof of the charges against Bishop Moran is set forth ' fully and fairly ' in the Rev. Mr. Ross's book — no other witness Is named. Hut that proof is not given by ' JR.TF.' This is, in all reason, a very mysterious circumstance. There is another still more mysterious : The Rev. Mr. Ross's little - book, to which the reader is thus gaily referred for proof, has been long out of print; only a limited number of copies of it were printed; and it is not to be found in any public library in Dunedin. The present writer succeeded, with the greatest difficulty, in securing possession of a second-hand copy. Then the mystery of ' R.W.s ' reticence was cleared. His reference is a bogus one. The Rev. Mr. Ross's book does not make, or even hint, against Bishop Moran the accusation of which it is credited with containing — the ' fully and fairly-told ' evidence^ It will become my very painful duty to expose, in another article, other tricks and ruses of reference and quotation that are even more unworthy of 'R.W.'s' calling. Meantime, let it suffice to say that the Rev. Mr. Ross's only account of Bishop Moran's conflict with the Otago provincial system is contained on pp. 22-24 of 'his Education and Educationists in Otago. And one thing more: thereby offer a reward to the literary insight of 'R.W. if, by himself or by -his representative, he shows thafr any part of the Rev. C. S. Ross's book, Education and Educationists in Otago, either makes- or proves the charge (as stated above) that Bishop Moran led a campaign to secularise the provincial school system of Otago and drive therefrom Christ and Christian teaching; the matter to be decided by a jury of experts in evidence to be jointly chosen by us. 3. The grievances of Catholics against the -Otago pro r vincial system of education are to be found in the provincial Blue Books, entitled — The Province of Otago, New Zealand: Votes and Proceedings of the Provincial Council (Session XXIX., 1871. Dunedin, 1871, pp. 49, 98, 110, 124), and in Appendix to Votes and Proceedings (Session XXIX.-, 187.1, pp. 79-108). The appendix contains, among other tilings, ' Report of the Proceedings of the Select Committee on the Petitions of Roman Catholic Inhabitants of the Province,' July 13, 1871 (pp. 79-81). Included therein are the ' Petition of the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of Otago,' June 22, 1871, and a list of- nine other petitions 'of the same purport and to the same effect - (p. 81) : ' Mimites ' (pp. 82-3) ; ' Evidence ' (pp. 83-6) ; ' Answers to Questions forwarded to certain of the Petitioners (pp. 86-8); and 'Answers to Questions forwarded to

Schoolmasters' (pp. 91-108). Hereunder I give, in summary form, an enumeration of the grievances alleged ' by Bishop Moran and his fellow-petitioners against the Otago provincial system: - (1) First Grievance. — No objection was made by the petitioners against Christ , or religion in the schools, (a) The grievance was this : That in. & system for which Cath^ olics as well as hon-Catholics were taxed 3 provision was made for the religious training' of Protestant children only-, and none for Catholic children. The only religious instruction provided was Protestant ' mixed ' and ' Protestant denominational.' The version of the Scriptures"used was the Protestant one (Appendix, p. 90); it was interpreted by (almost exclusively) Protestant teachers in a Protestant sense. - Said Bishop Moran (Appendix, p. 87) ; ' Distinct sectarian teaching, never Catholic, can take place, and does take place, in the Government schools. . . . Whilst it [the system] pretends to be unsectarian, it is intensely anti-Catholic, practically Presbyterian, and therefore denominational; in favor of one denomination, to the exclusion of others.' The Presbyterian Shorter Catechism, was used in a number of the schools, and"(Ap-' pendix, p. 89) Catholic children were not ' afforded the opportunity of religious instruction in consonance "with their religious tenets.' (b) So far from making ' war ' upon Christ and Christianity in the schools, Bishop Mora.a pleaded for a system of religious training therein which would 'do equal justice to all denominations ' (Appendix, p. " 85). ' I find,' said he (p. 85), 'in reference to this province in particular, from the public prints, that leading members of the several Protestant denominations are either satisfied with the present [system] or would be satisfied witli the purely secular one; this being the case, the community practically resolves itself into two denominations — the Roman Catholic on the one side, and all the other denominations on the other. What I would propose, therefore, is, shortly, this: Recognise the claim of Catholic schools to aid wherever there is a sufficient number of scholars, and the character of the secular education satisfactory to the inspector, and that there be an honest conscience clause obligatory in all schools ' (Appendix, p. 85). Here we have Bishop Moran making ' war ' upon Christ and religion in the public schools by offering to hand them- over, on two easy conditions, to the Protestant denominations to teach therein whatsoever religion or nonreligion that might seem good in their sight. There is not a word about all this either in the articles of ' R.W. or in the ' fully and fairly-told ' tale of the Rev. C. S. Ross. (c) The Select Committee admits in its report (Appendix, p. 80) that in some of the schools the law was violated in regard to Scripture instruction. It furthermore grants (p. 80) that *in several of the schools catechisms are taught' (this was also illegal). The evidence of tho teachers (Appendix, pp. 91-108) showed that the Shorter Catechism and other denominational catechisms were taught during school hours in at least tweny-five of the schools. Mr. John Hislop (secretary of the Education Board) testified (Appendix, p. 84) that this had been even more common in previous years. ' The Education Board,' added he, ' has neither enjoined nor prohibited the use of any catechism in the schools. This is a matter which has been left to the committees and the teachers ' (Appendix, p. 84). The power thus left in their hands was abundantly, though illegally, used to make the Otago system as denominational as they pleased. On the evidence, the Select Committee found it necessary to recommend ' that the schoolmasters throughout the province be enjoined to adhere strictly to the terms of the Ordinance in regard to the reading of the Scriptures and religious instruction.' There is nothing about all this justification of Bishop Moran either in the articles of ' R.W. or in the ' fully and fairly-told' tale of the Rev. C. S. Ross. - (2) Second Grievance. — Clause 40 of the Education Ordinance (said Bishop Moran, Appendix, p. 87), '"not only permits, but obliges, teachers, in opposition to the faith and discipline of the Catholic Church, to impart religious instruction to Catholic children, unless their parents object.'' -This was described as 'a wily and insidious attempt at proselytising,' as 'few parents pan be expected to be aware of this provision of the law, and few are, consequently, in a position to object.' As a matter of fact, the teachers' evidence (Appendix, pp. 91-108) showed that, in connection with a large number of schools, neither the children nor their parents were made aware of their rights under this tricky conscience clause. The Catholic grievance in this respect was admitted by the Select Committee to this extent : It recommended ' that the schoolmasters throughout the province should be enjoined ' to ' take care that the parents and children be informed that attendance at such reading and instruction is optional ' (Appendix, p. 80). Note well: The committee was restricted to ' such redress ' for Catholics ' ' as v may be practicable under

the existing Ordinances' (Votes and Proceedings, July 19, 1871, p. 124). There is not a word about these justifications of Bishop Moran in ' R.W. nor in the ' fully, arid fairlyitold ' tale of the Rev. C. S.~Ross. (3) Third Grievance. — Bishop Moran and the other petitioners objected as follows, in the interests of Catholic children : That (apart from the sectarian instruction provided for at the opening and closing of the schools) lhe instruction given was, legally, purely secular (Appendix, pp. 85, 86 ; cf . p. 84). - It was therefore opposed to the well-known principle of the union of religion and education which Catholics have ever held sacred. . In the view of the petitioners, therefore, the system did not offer sufficient religion for Catholic children. Verily, that was a rather curious way of making '.war 'upon Christ in the schools of Otago. Here again r R..W.' and tfce Rev. C. S. Ross are dumb. (4) Fourth Grievance. — The petitioners complained (Appendix, p. 86) that not alone was the Catholic religion ' ignored ' under the Otago provincial system, but that it was 'contemned or misrepresented'; that the class books used 'contain matter which is most offensive to Roman Catholics and, .as they are persuaded, untrue and injurious to their religion and its ministers ' (Appendix, p. 81). These statements were backed up by a great mass of detailed evidence and references. Again and again the reading books placed in the hands of little Catholics scourged, their faith with such offensive epithets as 'Romish,' 'Popish,' 'Papist,' 'Popery,' 'superstition,'- ' superstitious doctrine,' ' false religion ' (cf . Appendix, -jk 87). There were besides the unhistorical bitterness 'of Collier and others; and teachers and other wrGnesses d§f scribed some of the lessons as ' not only objectionable, bu\£ repulsive to- Catholic people'! (p. 87); ' unfit " for Catholic children to read' (p. 87); 'the bitter feeling expressed in these books ' (p. 89) ; ' most objectionable lessons. . . . with the numerous train of offensive epithets which permeate throughout the studiously prepared series . ". .• a most glaring insult to the~ feelings of every Catholic *- (p. 89); 'passages' 'calculated to throw disrepute upon the Catholic religion and. its supporters.' And so on. In consequence of these offensive text-books, Catholics (said the petition) ' have been obliged to withdraw their children from the public schools,' and establish, without State aid, schools of their own (Appendix, p. 81). Was this protest a ' war ' against Christ in the school ? The Select Committee reported (Appendix, p. 80) thaE most of the offensive statements in the text books placed in the hands of Catholic and Protestant children were 'accepted as historical by other Christian denomintaions!' As if this were a denominational question and not one oF history, and, to a real extent in the circumstances, also cf justice and mutual charity and forbearance! The Select Committee admitted that' ' there are, however, a few expressions in some of the books which, in the opinion of your committee, are fairly 1 objectionable ' (p. 80). And (p. 80) they recommended 'that schoolmasters throughout the Province should be enjoined ' to ' avoid the use of any lessons containing words or expressions offensive to Roman Catholics or other denominations of Christians.' There Is not a word about these admissions and recommendations in the articles of ' R.W., nor in the ' fully and fairly-told' tale of the Rev. C. S. Ross. (5) Fifth Grievance. — The petitioners pleaded (Aplpendix, p. 81) that ' Roman Catholics consider it a hardship and an injustice to bear the entire expense of their own schools, whilst very large sums are voted out of the public revenue, to which they contribute in common with their fellow-colonists, for the maintenance of public schools, to which they conscientiously object ; that Roman Catholics bear their share of the public burdens, and take their part of public duties, and are therefore entitled to a share,, in proportion to their number of the moneys voted for'education.' These demands were opposed by the Select Committee on the plea of alleged increased cost, possibly lowered efficiency, and — fear of denominationalism I (See first" paragraph under ' First Grievance,' above, in which it is shown that the Otago Provincial system was already largely denominational). Besides "(said the committee, p. 80), Catholics ' cannot be satisfied with any system of education which is not under their own exclusive control.' But' there is nothing in the evidence to suggest such a claim. On the contrary (a) Bishop Moran, in a passage already quoted, stipulated for State control of the secular instruction in Catholic schools, and of another matter; (b) he never even suggested ' exclusive control ' in, the matter of finance; but (c) he did rightly claim ecclesiastical control in the -matter of the faith and morals taught to the children in our schools. There is, of course, nothing about this vn • R.W. nor in tho 'fully and fairly-told* tale of the Rev. C. S. Ross.

(6) Sixth Grievance. — On account of the matters set forth under the first and fourth grievances, it was held that 'no Catholic, acting up to the principles of his Church, can accept the situation of teacher "under the system,' and that ' Catholics need not apply.' (7) Seventh Grievance.— Objection was also raised to ' the constitution of the board and committees,' and to the lack of r protection for minorities ' in these respects. Considerations of space compel me to forego' comment on the two last-mentioned grievances. Throughout the third part of this article I have been mainly occupied in supplying facts, vital to -the proper understanding of the case, which were omitted, .or suppressed, both in the articles of ' R.W. and in the ' fully and fairly-told,' tale of the Rev. C. S. Ross. The reader is asked to compare the facts set forth above, fiom official documents, with the 'history as she is wrote ' by the man in the domino noir. What justification has lie to offer for his misrepresentation of the content and piirport of the book of his friend, the Rev. Mr. Ross? What plea can he advance to sustain the dishonoring, accusation which, with mask on face, he flung at a great and good friend of religious education, whose voice, stilled in death, can no longer hurl back the calumny?