FRENCH SCHOOL NEUTRALITY

New Zealand Tablet, 22 June 1911, Page 1142

FRENCH SCHOOL NEUTRALITY

—s —— CRUSHING EXPOSURE BY MGR. GIEURE, BISHOP OF BAYONNE The Bishop of Bayonne, Monsignor Gieure, has addressed an open letter through the French press to the Minister of Education, in reply to a public denunciation made by the latter against Ins lordship, in the French Chamber, for hostility to the ‘neutral’ State schools. We Catholic Weekly) give below the chief passages of this eloquent and fearless rejoinder as published in La Croix. ‘ Monsieur le Ministre, —After quoting- a passage which you attributed to Louis Yeuillot, the authenticity of which you have since been unable to establish, you denounced the Bishop of Bayonne, during the sitting of February 3, for his having condemned neutral education. This discovery roused you to anger, and you sought to communicate your indignation to your colleagues in the Chamber. You read five lines of the incriminated letter. How unfortunate that you did not read out the whole, as Deputies pressed you to do! ‘Most certainly, M. le Ministre, I have condemned neutral teaching—not once merely but many times. The Bishops of France have also condemned it with one voice. But were you not forgetting that others had done the same? Your colleague in the Ministry, M. Caffere, has written: 1 Were neutrality admitted as between the theocracy and the Republic, such an act would be a betrayal of lay thought and of the democracy.” M. Aulard, who, be it said without offence, enjoys greater authority ‘ than yourself upon the University Staff, writes: “ Neutrality is .all a hoax, a deceptive show, a term void of meaning.” . M. Jules Simon said There is no such thing as a neutral school, 1 since there is no teacher without a philosophic or religious opinion. Or, if he have none, he stands outside the pale of humanity. And if he have any and hides it in order to retain his post, he is the basest of cowards.” ’ Monsignor Gieure then quotes-once more the famous avowal of the rabid infidel ex-Minister, Viviani, to the effect that ‘ neutrality ’ is “ a convenient ’ ; and ‘ diplomatic lie for quieting the timid.’ His Lordship continues; ‘ No doubt M. Buisson, to meet the needs of'the occasion, would declare the above to be ‘ an absolutely mistaken view.” y Nevertheless, in January, 1910, he himself wrote, in the Manuel General de. 1’ Instruction ” : “A country that should dream of having svMi masters (neutral teachers) would deserve for its disgrace,. to get them. Let us not speak of a. teacher neutral in heart and mind, . . A teacher has the charge 'of souls; he is expected to build the child up into the man and the citizen.” Moreover there are a good number of teachers—besides the Bishops! i.iM. Oulard, Caffere, ... Buisson, and doubtless yourself, M. le Ministre—who have understood the real meaning of neutrality. . . Let us take the case of the Basses Pyrenees. I only quote one instance, though it is the most eloquent one, but I could : cite others. A teacher —the ..one employed at Herrere—taught such things as the following; “Jesus Christ is not - God; He is a man like the rest. The miracles ascribed to Him are pure fables. A person who goes to confession is a simpleton; the priests

laugh -up their sleeves at those who present themselves. The priests make a trade and commerce of religion. The Catholic faithwhich educated people are now discarding more and morehas been, and is still, the cause of ruin to the nations.” Now, the parents complained three separate times to the inspector of the Academy. They received no reply. The teacher openly avowed in the public press the accuracy of the teachings attributed to him ; in fact, boasted of them and defied authority. At last an inquiry was begun; the alleged facts were admitted to be correct. _ But there the matter ended. That teacher is still at his post; his school is empty, or nearly so. ‘You see, then, M. le Ministre, that “diplomatic lies” are done with. We have the real neutrality; but not the kind which Jules Ferry and Paul Bert pictured in unctuous phrases to the Chamber, but that of Jules Ferry _when he proclaimed. within the Lodges that “social morality might now cast away its theological crutches,” and that “contemporary theologism was but the embodiment of human folly the neutrality of Paul Bert, declaring to his brethren, and friends that Catholic doctrine easily and inevitably becomes the school of imbecility, fanaticism, anti-patriotism, and immorality.” ‘ I am aware of your statements from the tribune that quiet prevails in the land, that the assailants of neutra 1 teaching find themselves checked by the indifference of the public, that the attitude and discretion of the teachers is admirable, that they respect the conscience of the child. People tell you all this, and you respect it. The contrary is the truth as regards the Basses Pyrenees. In any place where a teacher respects religious beliefs and does not turn himself into an electioneering agent, complete peace reigns. But wherever the teacher is aggressive, carries on the political business, and practises neutrality as understood by MM. Aulard and Buisson, there is a state of* war —and, unfortunately, this is the case in a large number (f the communes. And your teachers are far from slow to engage in the strife and to embitter it.’ In proof of ibis Monsignor Gieure proceeds to quote the following resolution passed by the Radical and Radical-Socialist Committee at Pan: .-‘This congress, after noting the strife over the schools occurring in various departments, testifies with as much indignation as regret that, in spite of the good will shown by the prefectorial and academical administrations, the Church appears to be more powerful than the Government in the Basses Pyrenees ; and it expresses the wish that the Government and the Chamber should take means to reverse this scandalous situation.’ ‘There is,’ the Bishop adds, some truth in these lamentations. These gentlemen want the teacher to be a uolitical agent, anti-clerical, an electioneering “tout.” Where a teacher has lent himself to this role, he has caused dissension and strife; oftener than not ho has been worsted in fight. For parents hold that the teacher should keep to his school and not meddle with politics, and still less with religion. ‘ I know well, M. le Ministre, that our respective standpoints are different. I speak as a Catholic and a bishop. _ You are a Protestant and a freethinker. At the root, this battle over the schools is a religious one, waged and led by Protestants M. Buisson, M. Doumergue, M. Steeg, and— must not forget it— all Protestant freethinkers, the declared enemies of the Cathode faith. You have lost your gods and wander about at haphazard without doctrine, moral system, or principles. It m you who would have us place pagan divinities and the God of the Christians on the same level; it is you who propose that we should confer the freedom of the city alike upon the deities of freethought and upon our God, upon our Bold Jesus Christ. This cannot be. ■■ We are believers and will not suffer such indignity to be cast upon our religion. ' c Ere long in your impatience to attain your ends, you will seek forcibly to bend down our hearts' and wills with aggressive laws against our faith and consciences. .Even should these laws be enforced with penalties of fine and imprisonment, our answer will be: No, we shall not obey we cannot.”

Fr. M. Gieure, Bishop of Bayonne.