The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1913. THE CATHOLIC ATTITUDE IN N.S.W.

New Zealand Tablet, 10 April 1913, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1913. THE CATHOLIC ATTITUDE IN N.S.W.

fN entirely mistaken and unjustifiable use has N entirel y mistaken and unjustifiable use has T/wSwflt been . made by Bible League apologists of /iWmr certain figures which are given in a New South Wales educational return dealing (Ss£fts with the visits paid to State schools by the W*)jsW clergy of the different denominations; and in connection with the same subject a still qjF* >\ more utterly indefensible misrepresentation of the late Cardinal Moran's attitude has been perpetrated by Canon Garland in person in his capacity as director of the Bible in State schools movement ill the Dominion. Because the return (for. 1911) shows a paltry 711 visits by Catholic priests to the State schools it is attempted—absurdly on the face of it—to argue that the Catholics of New South Wales have no conscientious objection to the system and that their priests accept and acquiesce in it. By a gross perversion of an utterance made by the Cardinal it is' attempted, further, to make it appear that his Eminence approved of the system— which religious teaching is to be given alike by believing and unbelieving State teachers—on condition that the Douay ' four Gospels ' should be used in place of the prescribed Irish National lesson-book. It is important that our people and the New Zealand public generally should be placed in possession of the truth on these points; and in this connection we have pleasure in printing a complete and detailed statement on the matter which has been supplied by Bishop Cleary to a non-Catholic State teacher who had applied to his Lordship for information on the subject. This, statement is somewhat fuller than the necessarily condensed communication which Bishop Cleary has already contributed to the leading dailies in connection with the same matter; and our readers will do well to cut it out for future use. We direct especial attention to the paragraph numbered 4, in view of which it is difficult to see how Canon Garland can escape from the charge that his present misrepresentation of Cardinal Moran's attitude is deliberate. * ' Bishop Cleary writes: The following facts will, I trust, be a sufficient reply to your inquiries as to the distortion of the late Cardinal Moran's views on the New South Wales educational system by the Bible-in-Schools League:—(l) I personally know that, on well-known Catholic doctrinal grounds, Cardinal Moran utterly rejected this fundamental doctrine of the Bible-m-Schools League— that it is the moral right and duty of the Government to teach religion, or (in legal phrase) to impart "general religious teaching,". as a class-subject in the public schools. (2) At the Educational Conference in Sydney, in April, iQru i Cardinal Moran is reported to have spoken as follows'' That the New South Wales Scripture lessons are'garbled extracts," drawn up for proselytising purposes' by. the Rev. Dr. Carlile, "the. very worst proselytiser

in Ireland," and by Archibshop Whately, " a professional proselytiser." "Certainly," the Cardinal added, "we cannot accept those gentlemen as general exponents of the religious opinions which should form part of, the school system in this country; but, rather, we must, look ■ upon them as forced upon the country by those proselytising agents, who certainly had fell designs against the Catholic Church. It is not an ennobling feature' of our system that those Scripture lessons, which have been cast out as unworthy from the Irish National schools, should be taken up and put into the hands of all our children." Statements similar in import were made on the same occasion by Archbishop Kelly. Archbishop Whately (said Cardinal Moran), .'.' whilst openly disavowing proselytism, was privately boasting to his friends of his efforts to undermine the faith of the Irish Catholic people." * ' (3) In a telegram read in the Queensland Legislative Council on October 25, 1910, Cardinal Moran said of the New South Wales Scripture lessons: Scripture lessons are avowedly Protestant and are condemned and denounced by me and all Catholics." Archbishop Kelly habitually refers to the New South Wales system as "a system of proselytism." This appears to be a rather common designation of the system among Catholics in New South Wales. (4) In a letter in the Brisbane Courier of November 1, 1910, Canon Garland (the League's organising secretary) described the opponents of the Bible-in-school system as being "under Cardinal Moran's banner" (quoted in the Queensland Legislative Council, November 1, 1910). (5) At the Catholic Educational Conference of New South Wales, held in Sydney on January 17-21, 1911, Cardinal Moran declared that the New South Wales system, "from its inception, had been hostile to the Catholic Church" (Report, p. 41); that it was "unsound in principle"; that its founder (Sir Henry Parkes) had declared its object to "be death to the calling of the priesthood of the Church of Rome" (Report, pp. 4950) ; that the motto of the champions of Parkes's Bill was: "Give to the principles of Catholics no quarter" (Report, p. 50). " In the face of all this," added the Cardinal, "it was unjust to ask Catholics to send their children to schools which were avowedly for the purpose of , destroying their faith" (Report, p. 50). i-V ■<.■■:'. » '(6) At the same Conference Cardinal Moran reaffirmed the standing archidiocesan legislation that the clergy should on no account teach religion in the public schools, but should " bring the children to a neighboring church or house or elsewhere. He did not think," the Report continues, " they should enter the school except in the case of extremest necessity. They must make it plain that there was no peace with the system as far as Catholics were concerned" (Report, p. 40). "The reports of the Education Department," said he, "made it appear that they had paid 900 such visits last year. Those visits were in the remote country districts, where there were no Catholic .schools, and where the children were obliged to attend State schools. The priests merely called at the schools to assemble the children for preparation for the Sacraments, but did not actually teach them in the schoolroom, taking them to a neighboring house, if available, or otherwise gathering them under a gum-tree" (Report, p. 31). But even if the Catholic clergy taught religion within r the State schools of New South Wales, this would no more signify approval of that system than does similar work by the Catholic clergy in New Zealand imply approval of the secular system. (7) At the same Conference Cardinal Moran (p. 31) condemned "the entire State system" in New South Wales. Quite apart from any such Conference, and on well-known grounds of Catholic Moral Theology, Cardinal Moran strongly opposed the legal compulsion of State school teachers to impart a "general religious instruction" which their consciences forbade. As one intimately acquainted with his views on many subjects, I personally know, from his own declarations, that he both objected to

this and to.the. proselytising Irish conscience clause in force in New South Wales. * '(8) From the condensed newspaper report, from the statement (which can be produced) of a teacher present, and from statements made by the Cardinal in my presence, he took up the two following further positions at the Educational Conference in Sydney in April, 1904 : (a) As the law (to which he vehemently objected) stood, it would be a vast improvement—as being open to less abuse— substitute " the four Gospels*" for the Governments Scripture extracts "garbled" by two notorious Irish proselytisers for the avowed purpose of proselytism. Most Catholics would agree that this would, indeed, be some mitigation or improvement in an oppressive and intolerable system of State proselytism. (b) The Cardinal suggested ■ that "the four Gospels" should be supplied to the children. But he was particularly careful to declare, "in the matter of expense," "I do not think it is a matter in which the State should be called upon at all—think each denomination would be able to present its own children with the necessary books." So runs the condensed newspaper report. The Cardinal always vehemently opposed what he believed to be the exclusive State endowment of Protestantism.#n the public schools, at the expense of the common purse. "For my part," he added, "I would be most willing to supply all our Catholic children with the four Gospels according to a revised Douay version" (not "the Revised Version," as was incorrectly reported) "to be read in our schools." New Zealand Catholics supply the Catholic version of the Gospels to Catholic children in Catholic schools, and, where feasible, also to Catholic children unavoidably attending public schools. But, faithful to conscience and to the laws of the Church in point, neither Cardinal Moran nor we could ever consent to Catholic children being taught Scripture lessons by State officials of all faiths and of no faith. For the rest, the Catholic Hierarchy of New Zealand, m their official pronouncements of 1904, made clear their willingness to agree to any reasonable scheme for imparting Biblical and religious instruction to the children of Bible-in-schools parents in the public schools. There is, therefore, no divergence, in substance, between Cardinal Moran's views and those expressed by me, and in 1904 by the New Zealand Catholic episcopate.'