THE EDUCATION QUESTION

New Zealand Tablet, 20 April 1911, Page 705

THE EDUCATION QUESTION

The following is the full test of a letter which was sent to the Thames Star, but, owing to want of space, only a portion of it was published: Sir, — I furnished you with a few excerpts from Dr. Cleary's illuminating exposition of the educational demands of Catholics in reply to the Post's hostile criticism, . I had not the slightest intention of raising a discussion on the merits or demerits of the question. However, since a correspondent has seen fit to open up the controversy, I appeal again to you in the name of truth and justice for space in your valuable paper to reply to the ill-founded charges which ' A Catholic, but not a Romanist' has caused to be promulgated. As regards his dream, there is really nothing to say by way of reply. I simply counsel him to overcome the painful weakness by giving more careful attention to diet and by contracting habits of industry. In the words of Shakespeare—

' Dreams are the children of an idle brain, Begot of nothing but vain fantasy; Which is as thin of substance as the air, And more inconsistent than the wind.'

It 13 quite evident that your correspondent lingered too long in the garden with the insectisides (which uncanny things were the dramatis personam of the dream of ' nightmare ' referred to above) under exposure to the hot noonday sun which has warped his intellect, as he is conspicuously incompetent to handle the Catholic education question. _ Getting down to bedrock I will deal with the wild assertion that Roman Catholic education was responsible (I am pleased he uses the past tense) for more than Dr. Cleary or I would be proud to publish, which contention is ' supported ' by an array of discredited denominational returns of crime culled from the Year Book tor 1905 (which source of information was prudently concealed). m I am grateful indeed to my Anglican friend for dragging in such 'overwhelming evidence' of 'Romish corruption,' as it affords me the opportunity of refuting its value. 'I have left out the Church "of England,"* quoth..he, 'because there are thousands (of criminals) who set themselves down as belonging to the Church who are really nothing.' Feeling certain that 'thousands' was Sretty wide of the mark, I had recourse to the same Year 00k and found that the actual criminal returns for that denomination were only 1147. So your correspondent has unintentionally libelled his Anglican brethren, or some of them, and he owes me a little debt of thanks for the correction. Considering the numerical strength of the Anglican Church, the figures are not high, and I readily admit the probability of their inaccuracy. But on what authority or evidence, by what process of reasoning does he arrive at the conclusion, with a cocksureness as if he ■had compiled the statistics himself, that the denominational returns of crime are correct in every instance except one? Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and others have as much cause to complain of the worthlessness of these returns for purposes of comparison. It is now generally admitted that no reliance can be placed on the official declarations as to religion by prisoners. The same prisoner at one time declares himself a Protestant, at another time a Jew or Roman Catholic, or of no religion. The best and most complete refutation of the figures supplied by your correspondent' is to be found in the fact that the very compilers of the Year Book have themselves become so entirely convinced of their inaccuracy and unreliableness that they have ceased to compile them, and your correspondent will search in vain, in the Year Book for 1910,.. for the old tables relating to denominational returns of crime. In Australia these tables have been so frequently used as a weapon of calumny against Catholics that Cardinal Moran has taken some steps to have the returns clarified somewhat. From the reports supplied by gaol chaplains he found that, on an average, one-third of those who register themselves as Catholics, are Protes-tants-of one or other denomination, and have neve*- had any connection with the Catholic Church; that three-fourths of the Catholic convicts either had no education at all, or had frequented the public schools. As a result, not more than 2 per cent, of the Catholic convicts are found to have received religious instruction in their school days. So that when you deduct from the incongruous total the Protestant convicts who have falsely registered themselves as Catholics and the Catholic convicts who attended State schools you will be able to contrast the merits of the two systems' and decide whether or no the fruits of the religious school are not incomparably superior to, and infinitely more cherishable, than those of the irreligious school. Having established to his satisfaction that religiouseducation is a potent factor in begetting criminals "your correspondent asks why he should be expected to pav for our religious system The query would be pertinent if Catholics contemplated such a proposal. Put we are not calling, upon the State to tax Protestants for the supnort of our religious dogmas We are asking the State simnlv to refund to us OUR (not YOUR) quota of the contribution to the general education fund. Under the present system the State provides education of one kind—and takes Catholic money for the purpose— kind Catholics

never have accepted, and never can conscientiously accept Does it appear in the least way just to your corespondent that Catholics should be compelled to support State schools for non-Catholic children in addition to making stupendous sacrifices for the erection and maintenance of their own schools? It is no wonder that the Dominion was moved to exclaim: 'So far as the Catholic schools are concerned, their separation from the State is surely not an argument for the penalising of those who support them.' 'Ought not these Romanists to try the Methodist or some otner system.' Will your correspondent tell us what is the Methodist system. lam sorry that he has not yet learnt all his manners. Does he not know that ' Romanist,' according to a writer in remote 1812, was no longer applied to Catholics by any gentleman or scholar. If he is not a scholar, he should at least act the gentleman even if the role be found somewhat arduous at first. I would like to add more to this letter, but, recognising that there are limits, I refrain. I thank my anti-Romanist friend for the good-natured suggestion of his to send Catholic investigators to Spain and Portugal for some reason or other. Personally speaking, I would much prefer a trip to Rotorua, where the presence of active geysers and boiling pools would serve during my retreat to keep me in constant remembrance of the futile vaporing and ebullitions of my friend, who in the interim could utilise his time in studying standard works on the Catholic education question.. I shall be glad to oblige him in that direction.—l am, etc., A CATHOLIC April 5.