BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 117, 13 November 1931, Page 11

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

HECEiXT PACT

LEAGUE'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT

The Xew Zealand Bible-in-Schools League lias issued the following statement: —

-Roman C'atliolic Bishops have publicly .slated iiyain and ujjain that they were ready to meet, the other churches in friendly conference on the question oE religious education. In ID2G the lute Mishuii C'lcavy, .speaking before a Parlia-mentary-Committee, said:' '"We only want two things— the protection of the consciences of our children and the protection n[ the consciences of our teachers. Apart from that, we give them (i.e., the other churches) full freedom tq bring as much religion as they like into the schools. The more there is the better we shall like it. That is what 1 have stated many a lime on my own behalf and as representing the views of the Catholic Archbishop and Bishops of New Zealand. We shall not venture to dictate to the people of other faiths what particular form of religious instruction or worship they would impart, so long us they let our children and teachers alone." On lSth October, 3029, the Hon. Mr. Carrington, (who, it was known,. represented the Roman Catholic Church's position as set out by Bishop Cleavy) repeated these offers in the Legislative Council. In March, 1030, when a conference of representatives- of Protestant churches was held, the first of its kind after 1926, it was decided to put these representations to the test, especially as Bishop Clcary had announced that an agreement could be made "irrespective altogether of the question of grants'1 (vide Parliamentary evidence on liGth October, 1914). Consequently the conference reminded An-hbishops .Kedwood mid O'Slica of these assertions, and asked if they were a true statement of the position. The u'nswer was confirmatory. Clauses were then drafted by the conference, and the Bible-in-Sehools League executive for inclusion in their new Bill, and were submitted to Archbishop O'Shea in a letter, dated 14th April, 1930, by the ."pcrctary of the league for the consideration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. They wero forwarded in order to see if they adequately complied with the stated requirements of the Roman Catholic Church. These covered two main points: (a) The protection of conscience. (b) The freedom of non-participants from bearing any additional expense should such bo incurred by the introduction of the Bible into the State schools. The outcome of the above letter was a round-table conference between four Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church .and four representatives of the Protestant Churches' Conference and the Bible-in-Schools League, held at the house of Archbishop Kedwood on 29th April, 1930. Archbishop O'Shea was in the chair. Testimony is borne to the amicable nature of the conference in the oflicial letter sent by Archbishop O'Shea soon afterwards, for he stated: "May I here put on record the splendid impression made on our Bishops by the foul' gentlemen who acted as' the league's representatives at our conference." The conference, amicable in spirit, ended without any final decision, except that, at Bishop Brodio's suggestion, the hierarchy undertook to send a. written reply to the league's official proposals. Archbishop O'Shea has all along been the channel of communication from the hierarchy to the league, and accordingly an official reply in writing was sent by him on J2th May, 1930. No other letter «-as received that could be viewed as tho hierarchy's reply. Archbishop O'Shea's letter accepted the proposals of the league. Tho letter opens:— "After having given careful consideration to the proposals contained in your letter of Hlh April and to what took place at our conference with yourself and the other representatives of the Biblc-in-Sehools League on the 29th ult., the Catholic hierarchy hereby affirm their approval of the proposals and clauses set out in the above letter and discussed at our meeting." The correspondence clearly indicates that if the Bill fuliillcd the two conditions, automatically exempting Roman Catholics, and freeing non-participants from additional payments, then it would not be op|3osed. Legal advice was to be taken. That portion of the league's letter of 14th April to Archbishop O'Shea which contains the statement of the two conditions is expressed in the following words: —"Provided only that the consciences of your teachers and children are protected, and that such provision of religious teaching is not permitted to involve your church or the members of your church in any additional taxation." The financial proposal thus expressed was the outcome of the following resolution, passed at the conference of Protestant churches and forwarded in the same letter to the hierarchy as the basic principle regarding h'nancc:—"This meeting accepts the general principle that if the introduction of religious observances or instruction involves any additional cost, the Roman Catholics shall be exempted from paying any share of this additional cost." This was accepted by the hierarchy in Archbishop O'Shea's letter of 12th May. The position of Archbishop O'Shea, as representing the hierarchy in the correspondence with the league is recognised by Bishop Brodie in a letter to the league secretary written on 9th June, 1930, in acknowledging a circular received. He states, 'inter alia: "As I understand his Grace Archbishop O'Shea will reply on behalf of the hierarchy, it will not bo necessary to comment on tho circular of which you sent me a copy. With every irood wish, yours sincerely, Matthew J. iirodie." It is therefore quite clear that Archbishop O'Shea's letter of 12th May, 1930, was the official acceptance by the hierarchy of the league's proposals. On 25th July, 1930, the league executive published in the Press a full statement of the negotiations, and on the same clay a .parallel statement was issued by Archbishop Redwood for the Roman Catholic Church. Without giving the detailed information obtainable from tho official correspondence, these statements taken together supplied the public of New Zealand with tho information that a denfinite agreement had been made, and the lines of the agreement. This was freely commented on by editors throughout New Zealand, communicated to church and educational assemblies, freely discussed by then), and was taken for granted as a settlement by all concerned until eleven months afterwards. Then, without previous notification to the league officials, who surely should have had an opportunity to consider any point in dispute, Bishop Brodie published a denial that any agreement had been made. He was immediately contradicted in the Press both by Archbishop O'Shea and by the league secretary, tho two officials through whom all the correspondence had by general consent been carried on. It is significant that eleven months elapsed before any questioning of the two manifestos of 25th July, 1930. was made known. When, simultaneously with the publication in the Press of Bishop Brodie's denial, n letter was sent by him to the secretary of the league, he replied to the effect that all correspondence had passed through Archbishop O'Shea, as the official whom' Bishop Brodie himself had recognised as acting for the hierarchy. No suggestion was ever received that correspondence was to be directed to- anyone but Archbishop O'Shea. Accordingly tho Bill, having been endorsed by the principal Protestant churches in their official courts, was presented to Archbishop O'Shea, in accord with precedent, find because in the absence of Archbishop Redwood ho was acting-head of the Roman Catholic Church in New Zealand. He had been consulted by the league executive at all points. He was acknowledged by Archbishop Redwood and Bishop Brodie as the representative with whom the league should deal. Archbishop O'Shea consulted with their legal adviser, who; together with the solicitor acting for the league, agreed without question that the Bill as presented fulfilled the conditions of the agreement. Consequently Archbishop O'Shea published in the Press on 9th July, 1931, his statement of approval, which included the following: —"When the league's proposals were subu\iMo<l, both Archbishop Redwood and myself nciwl that they complied with l.ho conditions which lmd been published nvpp nnd over a«nin by the Catholic: T!islioTw. Whrn the Bill now being brought brfoip PniTiinnent was drafted it was submitted lor perusal to our legal adviser,

Mr. P. J. O'Regan, who hasi reported that as it stands the Bill does not violate any of the conditions that had been laid down by the Catholic leaders and accepted last year by tho Bible-in-Schools executive. Consequently, as repeatedly promised, Catholics will withdraw their opposition to the present Bill. I am speaking not only for myself but for the Metropolitan (Archbishop Redwood), who has already made a pronouncement to this effect. . . . Now that the Bill is before us, and tho best legal advice confirms our view that the proposals it contains fulfil tho Catholic I conditions, we are bound in honour to j island by our dead colleague and our oEtrepeated promises, and withdraw our former opposition to the enactment." Thus the official sanction was publicly and officially placed on the Bill so far as j the Roman Catholic Church was concerned. It is worthy of notice that more than once in tho official correspondence the league secretary, on behalf of tho league executive, had promised full consideration of. any point of difficulty, or of any suggested alteration that might be proposed from the Roman Catholic side. Any difficulty arising therefore could readily be dealt with, if mentioned to tho league secretary. Yet on Tuesday, 1-lth October, 1031, without any notification to tho league, the majority of the hierarchy—Archbishop O'Shea not being included—submitted a letter to the Educational Committee _of tho House of Representatives condemning tho Bill that had been officially and publicly approved. The above is a plain statement of fact. We make no comment. Let the facts speak for themselves. Meanwhile the league will continue its well-considered policy as expressed in the Bill, confident of its fairness to all and the great need for its enactment.