Church and State

Press, 6 March 1978, Page 16

Church and State

Sir, — Questionable as may be the purpose of your inquiry into the religious affiliation of members of Parliament, the result should have discouraged you from taking the m tter further, judging by their commonsense replies. There was no referendum on the abortion issue and I fail to see the effect of an earlier disclosure of religious denomination. Moreover the proportion of Catholic members of Parliament seems to be roughly the same as that of the Catholic population, the feeling of which, you will agree, should not be ignored. The Catholic church much more so than the editor of “The Press” respects the freedom of the individual until the exercise of such freedom interferes with someone else’s. The church is not interfering with politics when discussing moral issues. Please do not revive fanatic antifanaticisms and let issues be sorted out democratically. — Yours, etc. (Professor) J. ARRILLAGA. University of Canterbury. March 4, 1978. Sir, —This morning’s editorial is unworthy of you and of “The Press.” You were responsible for the survey of M.P.s, not the Roman Catholic Church. While that Church makes its stand on the question of abortion openly and firmly, it does not force its adherents to think along the same lines, nor to take any action if they do. To my knowledge there are two small Protestant denominations that have as firm a stand as that of the Catholic Church, but whose adherents are far more enthusiastic in actively supporting this stand. Those of us who are Christians and who are opposed to liberal abortion laws, have thought the matter through carefully and prayerfully. We find denominational labels irrelevant.—Yours, etc., ERICA JORDAN. March 4, 1978.

Sir, — Your insulting editorial on abortion smacks of the kind of hypocritical and boneheaded bigotry that you yourself have commented exacerbates conditions in Ulster. It is insulting in that it suggests those 11 members of Parliament voted other than according to their own consciences and intelligence. It advocates hypocrisy in suggesting those’ 11 should vote other than according to what you concede is their “higher allegiance.” It is bigotry in that it isolates but one of the Christian faiths and denigrates it for standing up for its beliefs. Freedom of the press is not the only democratic right! It is boneheaded in that it indicates inability to appreciate that' those 11 might in 1977 reflect Catholic teaching through conviction and concurrence of opinion, not through compulsion. It is also shoddy journalism; you failed to comment that generally, the “ayes” were more forthcoming in stating their religious affiliations then the “noes.” —Y ours, etc., T. M. HEFFERNAN. March 4, 1978.

Sir, — What in the name of an abortion are you trying to prove? That Roman Catholics do not approve of abortions? No great news to anybody. That Roman Catholic members of Parliament are directed bv their church how to vote? It may well be that they have, in the light of their own integrity, the same convictions and do not wish or need to be directed. That eleven Roman Catholic members of Parliament find three times as manv nonRoman Catholic members of Parliament of the same opinion? It makes them fairly

ordinary representatives of New Zealanders; not freaks. That eleven Roman Catholic members of Parliament have tricked all those other members of Parliament into voting their way? Well! Well! Any conclusions of yours lacking, I deem Mr Bolger correct in saying that “The Press” is “desperately trying to keep this issue alive” and I consider your leader merely a morsel of journaille supporting his contention. —Yours, etc.. A. E. J. ARTS. March 5, 1978.