Page images
PDF
EPUB

in their number and diversity. Το whom is control to be given? From whom is it to be withheld? The difficulty will further increase with Disestablishment; for, within the Church of England to-day, there is such a diversity of opinion as to doctrine, that, with Disestablishment, will come a break-up and a further increase in the number of Churches. The State has to deal with all Churches alike. It cannot be supposed to share in the religious convictions of individuals who themselves differ widely. Direct control delegated to one Church or sect will be resented by the rest. Control given to a few will arouse the anger of the many. The ideal State would surround the child with religious influences all through its education. But what is the concrete State to do? Diversity of belief makes its choice of a Church almost impossible. A recognition of all forms of belief would introduce a system impossible because of its complexity. With all these difficulties in view, it is not easy to see how the State is to delegate its power over secular education to the Churches.

There still remains the question of efficiency. What reason is there to believe that the Church school would prove an efficient secular educator? It is here that the claim of the Churches can be judged apart from abstract reasoning, by the test of facts. It may be urged, by the supporters of the Church school, that it cannot be judged by the past, that want of the necessary control or lack of funds was a bar to its efficiency. These reasons cannot be given in favor of the American Church schools, which are entirely under the control of the clergy, nor of the Irish National schools under clerical management. Taking these two classes of schools as a whole, they do not give as efficient secular instruction as the ordinary American or English State school; nor do they give such re

[blocks in formation]

In almost every American diocese there is an expensive Roman Catholic school system, side by side with the State schools. The Church schools are maintained on the so-called voluntary system: that is, by money raised by the pastors from the laity by annual subscriptions, often not voluntarily, and in very many instances grudgingly given. A number of these subscriptions are given by the poorer and more ignorant members of the Church, generally by Irish emigrants, whose feelings are excited by vigorous sermons. portraying in vivid colors the dangers to Catholic faith and morals of State school education. Enthusiasm for the Church-school system is generally confined to priests and nuns and other religious, the lay element in the Church being mere subscribers to a system they often condemn in private conversation. The richer and more independent Catholics, while on the best terms. with the Church authorities, send their children to non-Catholic schools. Many of the more intelligent Catholics, even among the poorer classes, refuse to send their children to the Church schools, preferring the State schools because of the better education given there. As one woman who sent her children to the State school said: "The teaching is better; and my children have to make their way in life." It is an extraordinary organizing power that has enabled the Roman Catholic Church in America to collect millions of pounds to build up its Church-school system, and to expend enormous sums yearly on its up-keep, in order to carry out an idea the majority of educated laymen do not approve of, and some of the more intelligent American bishops discountenance. One of the most prominent American Catholics, who possesses in a high degree the confidence of his co-religionists, expressed

perhaps the feeling of the whole of his class when he said of the Churchschool system:

It imposes an unjust and excessive tax, mainly on the artisans and poorer store-keepers. Viewed from an educational standpoint, it gives a lower training than the State school. It defeats its own purpose on the religious side.

On being asked what he meant to convey by the last sentence, he explained:

I shall illustrate it by my own example. I was educated at a New England State school with Unitarian schoolfellows. No attempt was ever made to interfere with my religion. The moral standard of the school was of the highest. Occasionally a school-fellow sneered at some article of my faith. He generally got well beaten for his sneer; but, if I did not understand the point he objected to, I took care to ask my mother, when I went home, to explain it to me; if she couldn't explain, the priest was called in, and I was instructed. I have a good working knowledge of my religion now; but I got it through contact with my Unitarian school-fellows. I left that school carrying with me the respect and affection-which I retain to this day-of school-fellows who differed then, and who differ now, from me in religion. Boys who attend the Church schools now-a-days never hear of an objection to their religion until they are grown up. The slight religious instruction they bring with them from the Church school is of little use to them, and they fall an easy prey to unbelief.

This is an intelligent appreciation of the American school question. The Church school, as a rule, follows the same course of instruction, but with less efficient teachers and insufficient inspection, as the State school. There are, besides, purely formal religious exercises which, while they perhaps create a religious atmosphere of a certain kind, in no way add to the pupil's

One

knowledge of his faith or of the moral law. One of the leading Church schools in New York placed no higher ideal of civic morality before its senior class than to vote with their Partyin their case "Tammany Hall." of the most common objections to the Church school in America is, that it produces no influence whatever on civic morality, and that, in New York especially, the Church-school pupils are, in many cases, the most corrupt politicians.

A few of the Church schools in America are highly efficient. One in Chicago is perhaps one of the best primary schools in the world-the pastor happens to be an intelligent and highly cultivated man, with abundant

means.

But he is not hopeful of the future of his school. "When I go," he said, "it will fall through. The people take no interest in it. They find the cost, too, a great burthen." The farseeing American Catholic parent often sends his children to the Church school up to ten years of age: "The sisters look after them," one of them said, naïvely. At ten the children are sent to the State school.

Two objections are brought against the Church school in America, which would apply with equal force in the United Kingdom. One is, that celibate clergy and nuns are less fit than lay people to instruct the young in the ordinary secular duties of life; the fact that clergymen ex professo place the end of all their efforts in another life, makes them, it is said, the worst possible guides in the struggle for material and social advancement. The second is, that the Church school tends to keep alive religious bigotry which is injurious to the welfare of the State. The State aims at efficiency of citizenship, not mere skill in arts and crafts only, but citizenship in a much wider sense. The State has urgent need that all its citizens should be men grounded in the

civic virtues, in municipal and political honesty, in that charity which will enable them to regard their competitors and fellow-workers of a different religion, as fellow citizens all equally interested in the welfare of the State. Insistence on religious differences all through the school years of children tends, it is said, to destroy civic charity; experience has shown that it tends to produce civic hatred and distrust. This view seems to be confirmed by facts in the north of Ireland. In Ulster, three sets of schools are maintained by the State-Catholic, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian. Intense sectarian bitterness prevails, pervading the whole business, social, municipal, and political life of the province. In the west and south of Ireland, on the other hand, where Catholics and Protestants attend a common school, peace and charity prevail. It is a curious anomaly, if civil discord arises from religious interference in secular education!

Secular education given in Irish primary schools under clerical management is not, even in a moderate sense, efficient. Dr. Starkie, the Roman Catholic Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, said so, some years ago, in an Address delivered to the British Association in Belfast. He was immediately condemned in a series of resolutions by the clerical managers, who, however, can hardly be considered impartial judges in their own case. The Irish National school system has been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as a solution of the religious difficulties in regard to primary schools, and has been held up as a model to England and America for the solution of similar difficulties. It is but a poor solution. If the Irish National school may be taken as an example of what the school under clerical management can do towards the secular instruction of

children, the claim of the Church school as an efficient secular instructor falls to the ground. Nominally an undenominational system, with schools open to children of all forms of religious belief, it is, to the knowledge of the Government, worked on denominational lines. The local manager is, with very few exceptions, either a Roman Catholic, Episcopal, or Presbyterian clergyman. The religion of the manager is the religion of the pupil. Clergymen become managers, practically ex-officio, on being appointed to certain clerical positions, irrespective of their knowledge of, or interest in, educational matters. Very often they have neither the knowledge nor the interest. The manager, in civil law, has the sole right of appointment and dismissal of teachers. For appointment a teacher must have a National Board certificate of competency. Teachers may be dismissed on three months' notice, without cause, or reference to the National Board. The manager is supposed to regulate the programme of instruction, the approval only of the National Board being necessary. Provided four hours' secular instruction is given each day, it is open to the manager to make what provision he pleases for religious instruction. Not even the most ardent supporter of the Church-school system can deny, that here we have the utmost clerical control of secular education, paid for out of State funds, that any modern State is likely to countenance. Yet impartial observers have written its history in the one word: "failure." It is founded on an untruth which recognizes a denominational school as undenominational; it gives the administration of public funds to irresponsible individuals; it is inefficient in its management and in its educational results; it is not even a help to the Church in promoting religious education. These are strong statements; but they are abundantly borne out by facts.

To take the last first; no real help to religious education is given in the Irish Catholic National school. The pupils are not more remarkable for their love of truth, of obedience, and of justice, than their fellows in the State schools in England or America. The only religious education given in the Irish Catholic National school is for a halfhour each day, generally in the morning, before all the pupils are present. There is a glib recitation of prayers, and of an elementary catechism, the meaning of which the pupils rarely understand. Irish Roman Catholic bishops have admitted these facts when dealing with this aspect of the question locally. Catholic bishops and priests in Australia and America are always deploring the religious ignorance of the Irish emigrant. No help is given to the pupil towards a decision of the grave moral issues that underlie the franchise. In fact, less religious instruction is given in the average Irish Catholic National School in a year, than an intelligent priest could give in a few hours' instruction.

That no general local interest is shown by the Irish people in education, is evident to the most casual observer. The Irish elector has never given a vote on a purely educational issue. He has no real voice in education, beyond the paying of taxes. He does not advert to the fact-often he does not even know that he pays for the education of his children. He has hitherto been heard of only as the dumb signer of petitions, the purport of which he never enquires into. The local clerical manager, when he acts at all, acts on his own or his bishop's initiative. Unfortunately, he is often inert, and takes no interest whatever in his schools beyond resenting any interest that is shown by others. It has recently been suggested-a confession of the failure of clerical management and one-man control-that the local control should

be taken out of the exclusive hands of the clerical managers, and vested in elected committees, with a view to try and promote a local interest which at present does not exist, and without which no true educational system can flourish. This proposal is, and will be, strongly opposed by the clerical managers, who, while making no effort to prevent the spread of dry-rot which is possessing the whole system, cling to an inherited power, and resent change.

The inefficiency of National School instruction is generally recognized. It leads to nothing; it takes no account of local conditions; it promotes a scrappy and insufficient literary instruction, without any relation to the future life or prospects of the pupil. It has no practical side. Efficiency of instruction depends largely on good management and local interest. The present system of management is opposed to all three. Many efforts have been made to promote efficiency of instruction, notably by Dr. Starkie. But all the schemes proposed depend for their success on local co-operation, which is not forthcoming. The local managers either are not interested, or do not understand the schemes, or refuse to help, for considerations in which educational efficiency is the last thing thought of.

The practical obstacle to efficient secular education in Ireland narrows itself down to the local clerical manager. As a rule, he is inefficient. There are notable exceptions; I speak only in general terms. The great majority of managers are not to be blamed. They are merely the instruments of a policy in the direction of which they have no voice. Yet they occupy an unfortunate position, to the lasting injury of the children of Ireland of this generation. Many of them are excellent priests, of great zeal, and high moral character. They occupy their present

position because their years of service in other spheres of Church work entitled them to promotion to an office that practically carried with it ex-officio a school-managership. They have had

no training in educational affairs. During the long professional training of Maynooth, modern educational problems are rarely heard of; and the future manager gets no hint as to how he should fit himself for his office. When appointed manager, he generally contents himself with signing papers which he never reads; in paying flying visits to his schools, mainly to see if the average attendance is being kept up; in giving an occasional vague sermon in church on the great blessings of education. A few do more, many not so much. The few managers who try intelligently to improve educational conditions, are often so hampered in their action by their bishops, that they despair of achieving any permanent results. Not the least strange fact in the Irish so-called "undenominational" National School system is, that it is dealt with by the Catholic episcopacy as part of their ordinary diocesan administration. They use their ecclesiastical power to control the managers, who, by a legal fiction, are supposed to be independent officers holding power directly from a Government Department. Holding the right of appointment to parishes, the bishops practically appoint all school managers. The bishops also intervene in the appointment of teachers, and in many other details of administration, often in such a way as to destroy initiative in the few managers who are really interested in education. The Irish bishops, therefore, have a final claim to the credit or discredit attending the good or ill success of that remarkable experiment in secular education under clerical control, known as the Irish National School system.

The only logical conclusion from

what has been said is: that the Church ought to re-consider her position. The position she has taken on the education question is injuring both Church and State in all English-speaking countries. Even to us, who are in sympathy with the spiritual mission of the Church in the world, her education policy has no foundation, either in reason or religion; to descend to a lower plane, it is not expedient. It is based on unproved assertions, and on fears that are groundless, or, if real, that can be otherwise easily guarded against. It has given rise to a new antagonism between Church and State, that will go far to prevent the realization of Christ's essential mission. The scaffolding is not the building; nor does a pile of dead bodies make a living Church. Charity and peace are the law of the Christian life. When the preaching of the law provokes strife and all uncharitableness, the Church ought to take pause, look carefully to her methods, and, if a mistake has been made, boldly change her front and adopt new ways of spreading the leaven of spirituality, of which there is such urgent need in the material world of to-day. A clinging to organized power has often been the bane of the Christian Church. Forgiveness, and love, and the suffering of all things gladly, are not less necessary to-day than when Christ spoke in Galilee and Judea. Nonconformists and Agnostics are no less the objects of Christ's love than Roman Catholics. If Roman Catholics believe that they have realized Christ more perfectly than other men, let them show it to the world. The mission of the Church is, by being all things to all men, to gain all for Christ. Human means are fallible; but the eternal mission of love is ever the same. If a human theory of the relations of the Church to the State fitted one age, and does not fit the next, the Church, having within her a life that never dies, can adapt herself to

« PreviousContinue »