PRIOR to the Coronation of Her Majesty the Queen, in June, the Education Committee of the County of Caithness had under consideration the matter of gifts to the children in schools of the county. The Convener of the County, Brigadier G. D. K. Murray, proposed that in addition to an ordinary gift, the children should be given a copy of the New Testament, a very commendable suggestion which was heartily and unanimously agreed to by the Committee. No qualifying proposal was mooted at the time this was approved. And as there was no special Government financial grant available to cover the cost of this additional gift of a New Testament, the Rev. Robert R. Sinclair,* a member of the Education Committee, proposed that the Churches throughout the county should be asked to give donations to assist in defraying the cost. The Churches responded to this, and as a matter of interest, the Free Presbyterian congregation of Wick, for example, donated the sum of £21. Now, we understand that when the New Testaments were handed out at the schools, some, if not all, of the 28 Roman Catholic children accepted the copies provided.
Following the Coronation, the Finance Sub-Committee of the Education Authority met on June the 5th. At this meeting the Assistant Director of Education intimated that the New Testaments as Coronation gifts were not acceptable to Roman Catholic pupils, and that the Rev. George G. Kerr, the Roman Catholic priest, Wick, had sent in a request by letter, which was read, that the Roman Catholic pupils in Caithness be given copies of their own Church Missal instead of the New Testament. And by the way, the Missal was to cost 3/6 per copy compared with 2/6 per the Testament.
We have thought fit to give a fairly full account of the proceedings of the Sub-Committee on June 5th, and the Education Committee itself on June 10th as being of public interest, and inasmuch as there have been reports in the press of Scotland, England, Ulster and Eire.
* We are on this Committee as a representative of Churches. Our name inevitably appears in this article.—Editor.
The Irish News, the Roman Catholic daily paper of Belfast, for instance, published a full account of the Sub-Committee’s debate and finding.
So when the request of the Wick priest was submitted to the Sub-Committee, Mr. Abrach MacKay, Castletown, moved that no action be taken.
The Rev. Dr. John MacInnes, Church of Scotland minister at Halkirk, said: “This is a matter in which we should have complete harmony. I do not want to raise any controversy, but I think it would be an act of grace on the part of this Committee if the request of the responsible pastor was agreed to.”
The extra expense involved, he said, would not amount to more than a few shillings, and would not be an improper expenditure.
The Rev. Robert R. Sinclair, Free Presbyterian Church, Wick, said that the Missal was an office book of the Roman Catholic Church. He used office in the ecclesiastical sense. The Missal contained the liturgy of the Mass, and the Masses to be read throughout the year.
Mr. Sinclair emphasised that he, personally, had no prejudice against Roman Catholic children as such, or any Roman Catholics.
Referring to the Coronation, Mr. Sinclair said that the Queen had received, at the hands of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, a copy of the Word of God, the Bible. That was one prominent testimony to the fact that we were a Protestant Realm.
“Therefore,” said Mr. Sinclair, “I cannot support any action whatever, even indirectly—and I emphasise indirectly—which will condone any disparagement of the Word of God in the open Bible or any part thereof, such as the New Testament, which has been presented to our children.
“As head of the Realm, the Queen is the Defender of the Faith, and we should be defenders of the faith in our own humble way.
“If Roman Catholics were in our position, would they authorise or condone the giving of New Testaments to a minority of Protestant children? In my humble opinion—I am open to correction—the answer is ‘No.'”
Replying, the Rev Dr. MacInnes said: “My point is that these children are citizens of this country, and under the Constitution they have a right to hold their own faith. We should not act on the hypothesis that if the proportions were reversed, Roman Catholics would act in a certain way. I would remind Mr. Sinclair of the golden rule, ‘Do unto others . . .'”
Mr. Sinclair said: “I am entitled to my opinion. It is on principle that I speak, and not against the Roman Catholics as individuals, who get plenty of rights as citizens in this country.”
Mr. Walter Sinclair, Chairman of the Education Committee, said: “I think we are taking a rather narrow view of this.”
The Rev. Mr. Sinclair seconded Mr. Mackay’s motion that no action be taken.
Dr. MacInnes moved an amendment that the request be granted, and was seconded by Mr. Walter Sinclair.
The motion was supported by eight members and two members supported the amendment.
On the 10th of June the recommendation that no action be taken was debated by the full Education Committee itself, and confirmed without an amendment, although at this meeting Provost John Sinclair of Thurso also condemned the action of the Sub-Committee. Other members strongly supported the recommendation.
In connection with this whole business, we would like to point out that the intention to present the children with a copy of the New Testament in addition to the ordinary gift agreed upon was made public in the local press time and again, and yet it was not until after the Testaments were actually handed out that any objection was raised and the request for Missals for the Roman Catholic children proposed. Then this was purely a local gift, made possible in part by financial help from the Protestant congregations throughout the county. Being a gift of this kind, the Committee were under no obligation to substitute any other gift in its place, for those pupils who refused to receive it. A gift offered and a gift refused seems to end the matter. But not in this case as can be seen.
The charge of lack of tolerance was made against the Committee because they would not agree to giving the Missal to the Roman Catholic children. This charge is wholly unfounded, irrelevant and illogical. The Committee did not interfere with the religious rights of the R.C. children. They did not force them to take or to read New Testaments, but negatively refused on Protestant and Christian grounds to provide Roman Catholic literature to these children. Surely it is not intolerance for Protestants to refuse to put the liturgy of the blasphemous Mass into the hands of others. Roman Catholics who wish the Missal for their children have a cool nerve when they ask Protestants to pay for these and provide them.
But finally, for any person calling himself a Christian to even indirectly acquiesce in the rejection of the New Testament as a gift to children, condones a line of action arising from the darkness and oppression which still characterises the Romish Church. Imagine in this year 1953 that in the County of Caithness, and in this nation, there are children who are barred from possessing and reading the New Testament. For any minister or layman claiming the Christian faith to even hint at furthering such anti-Christian action is deplorable in the extreme. A simple illustration in conclusion. All true Protestants hold that R.C. teaching regarding the Mass is blasphemous and poisonous doctrine and ruinous to the precious souls of sinners. In the
light of this, are Christian Protestants to assist in any way to put this “poison” in the hands of even R.C. children in order to avoid the charge of intolerance? Let the Psalmist answer, “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Ps. exix. 128).