BIRTH CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 132, 2 December 1930, Page 12

BIRTH CONTROL

LAMBETH CONFERENCE

DECISION MISUNDERSTOOD

WHAT WAS INTENDED

(By Telegraph.) (Special to "The Evening Post.") AUCKLAND, Thia Day. "The resolution of the Lambeth Conference in respect to birth control has been misunderstood and misrepresented in every way," stated Archbishop Averill, oh his return from the Conference by the Marama this morning. "The whole idea of the report and resolution was tr> condemn contraception, but one exception was made, and that is what has been quoted. It was a reservation where birth might have a very harmful'effect upon the mother, and possibly cause her death. The exception is only to be made as the result of medical advice and a certificate, and although the resolution did not say so, the underlying spirit was to the effect that in such cases a dispensation of the Church should be granted. The Bishops condemned out-of-hand the use of contraceptives for selfish ends or for the pursuit of pleasure, and also in regard to unmarried persons, and they felt that they should say something on this point, and what has been agreed to seems to be quite rational. "When the first report was brought down by the commitee it was rejected by the Conference. When it appeared a second time it was referred back to the committee. It was not that we thought there was anything wrong about it, but we realised, ana said so—at least some of us did—that the question was open 'to misrepresentation." THE ARCHBISHOP'S ATTITUDE. "I was one. of six or seven bishops who opposed the resolution itself/ said Archbishop Averill, "not because I objected to what was said, but on account of the liability of a misunderstanding, and I still maintain that attitude. I told members of the committee frankly that the cables that went overseas would necessarily be brief and that the people who read them would not know what was behind the resolution, nor would they have the atmosphere in which it was promulgated. For those reasons there were many at the conference who' held the opinion that the resolution should not be carried. However, other counsels prevailed, and the very thing that I sensed at the time has happened—misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Of course, I must say that many of the bishops in England did not realise the effect that anything of the kind was likely to produce in countries that had not full details. One of the troubles in a case of this nature is that nothing is published of what is said in conference.' It is , all secret. Nothing is made known until the resolutions are given out. I said over and over again to the English bishops that I have had 36 years' experience in New Zealand, and that I know that the cables will be terribly abbreviated and the context will not convey the meaning intended. ON A HIGHER PLANE. "The whole idea of the conference was to raise tlie sex question on to a higher piano and to see that anything in the way of. control must be done conscientiously and according to Christian principles. This was in the minds of those voting for the resolution. I admit that it is a very big question, and I know and regret that some of the enemies of our Church are misrepresenting the intention of the conference." ■ .