Church and State

Press, 9 March 1978, Page 16

Church and State

Sir, — Congratulations on the research that culminated with last Saturday’s editorial. Judging from today’s letters to the Editor it has also prompted yet another S.P.U.C. letter-writing campaign. — Yours, etc., R. FRIZZELL. March 6, 1978.

Sir, — Your editorial “The Church and the State” is a classic example of a man fairly beaten in an argument resorting to any weapon to discredit his opponent. A very human failing, but one a man in your position had no right to use. There are enough storm signals flying for New Zealand community life at present without your raising the ugly and hateful banner of sectarianism. You seem determined to place every possible obstacle in the way of the C.S.A. Act instead of supporting a fair and reasonable trial. After all, its main purpose (abortion sections) is only to give the unborn child some protection and curtail the open slather that was going on at the Aotea Clinic. — Yours, BRIAN BARRY. March 7, 1978. Sir, — Your editorial article, “The Church and the State" presupposes that all Roman Catholics have no conscience but are mere puppets of the Pope. No Catholic is a member of his or her church through coercion but through free will; thus the Catholic members of Parliament voted on the abortion bill according to their individual consciences. This, of course, applies to all churches and to all members of Parliament, if they so wish to vote on that basis. Does “The Press” wish to take away individual conscience? The abortion vote m Parliament reflected a Christian, moral, or humanitarian viewpoint but, either way, represented majority mews. The fact that only 12 members out of 87,are Catholics makes your editorial very illogical and bigoted. — Yours, etc., T. J. KAVANAGH. March 4, 1978.