BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 24, 30 January 1933, Page 14

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

____-]__ - 'STATEMENT

ARCHBISHOP REDWOOD'S 7 pEPLY i

• iATcKEisKop Redwood has made the fol-lowing-reply to the statement published in "The^Posii" ok Saturday from the Bible in Scholia. League:— .'.■.; In your issue of ■ Saturday last, I read a statement of the Bible:iu-Schools League in reply to;a Pastoral I had ordered, to be reas"-on; 18th December' iv all the churchesl of the archdiocese of Wellingto*n. Iju'ihat statement,, I am .taken, to task fox'vjexpressihg strong opposition to proposals: Jwliich, according to the league, I lad already endorsed. The chief reas^ they set'forth in support of their co!* tention.is.that on.a previous date I was ia complete agreement with' Bishop Cleary, and they quote the late bishop's words as follows:— , • • •• • ■ ;"We : would leave our ■ friends -of other faiths the freest hand-in our power.' We only warit; two. things,- the'protection of the consciences •of our children and the protection-of the consciences of our teachers.; Apart from that, we give them full: freedom to bring as much religion as, theyVlike into the schools. The more there is, the better we shall like it. That is; what 1 ■-have.»sta ted many; a time on my own behalf, and as representing the views df the Catholic Archbishop and the bishops'of "New Zealand; We shall not ventureto Jdictate'to"the people of other faith's whit particular form of religious instruction or worship they should impart, as long as they let our teachers and children alone." - I notice that the bishop's frequently expressed opinion, which was necessary to explain those words, was not quoted by the league: - "Over and over again -we have' publicly expressed our desire to see the .Stateschool system 'made religious on fair conditions all round, for those desiring it religious.' Over and over, again.'we have publicly expressed our readiness to meet the representatives of, other religious todies in conference hereon, and to give fair and friendly consideration to any • proposals for the restoration of religion to bur State-school system. We have attached only one condition to such a round-table conference, namely, the recognition of the proper and equal rights of all before the law." I might add that vp r fo the .last expression on the subject by the late Dr. Cleary, he stated that all his offers, made on behalf of the Catholic Hierarchy and on his own;'account,; to;, the league had "not received "even the ordinary courtesy of ■an acknowledgment of receipt." : THE; LEAGUE'S ATTITUDE. Now, I am chavged-,w.ith. having altered my views since.-the above was written. If I had done'so (which'l do not admit), I should still-have justification for my present course of-action.!. But what about the BiMe-in-Sehool& League: has it not changed its "attitude? How do its members justify then- change of front? They studiously avoided-.meeting Bishop Cleary . in conference, though he repeatedly asked :,,them. to do so. ,~No sooner was he in his grave than. they welcomed a conference •with the Catholic Hierarchy, and now quote an extract '.from Bishop Gleary's closely reasoned opposition to former prorppsals of the league in support of their j contentions, though they would not meet "iim in life in a discussion on the purport of those words'. Is this not a changed attitude on their part? Have they not .now altered their views to such an extent jjiat they 'are "prepared to make concesfteons which, apparently their consciences .-forbade them to do during the lifetime o£ Jhe late Bishop Cleary? ' It is unnecessary to quote to the league Bishop Cleary's offc-repeated strictures on the form of conscience-clause to which the league pins its'faith. I was assured .that the league had met these objections, "both, as regards, pupils and teachers.- But 1-found on:reading the league's Bill that ;was recently defeated in the Legislative Council' that it. was; entirely illusory" on the point, and 'did noj^sa^isfy; the.con-scienee-conditJoHs- demanded. -;by Bishop Cleary with-the full concurrence of the Catholic Hierarchy.' Consequently, I think jfc will be 'agreed tliat the. league is far 'fronT^Ehe^trutrT when if says "His (my) Pastoral is entirely' inconsistent-with his Jmy) earlier views." Now; reference--is made to a- statement signed by- nje ,on. 25th July, .1930. The'le.aKU.eJ says":' "Tie ,honour -o£ the Eoman- Catholic- Church and the interests of all the children of the Dominion are at stake." May Ibe permitted to observe that (a) the Catholic Church is wise enough and venerable enough to look after its own honour; and (b) the Catholic Church, has, at; the great personal and financial sacrifice of its members, considered tha interests "of its own children long before the clergy: of the league woke up to lie dire effects of a secular system o£ State education that the Catholic Church envisaged over-52 years ago. I am accused of introducing extraneous matter in my recent Pastoral, namely, "the difference of versions of the Scriptures and the teaching office of the Church •with, regard to the Bible."" The league politely suggests that this is "suggestive of the herring drawn across the trail." These matters were introduced by me because they constitute the dogmatic foundation on which all questions and problems .of Bible-teaching rest. No negotiations with the Bible-in-Schools League could possibly -fob me of my inherent light to instruct my Catholic, people on the position 'of .the.; Church with regard to Bible-teaching. Again, it seems strange 'to me, as no doubt it will-to the .public at large, that a league prpfessing to believe in Bibleteaching (as-I-am. sure the league does) should imply that the teaching office of my Churehj of any other Church, should be surrendered to any-teacher, be he Jew, atheist, or agnostic,- without any protest being made from a Christian leader. But to the league'-this is "extraneous .matter." THEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES. The league gays that my Pastoral will not deflect its members into, "any theological controversy not bearing "on the plain issue." _ Does the league mean it has in mind a non-theological scheme of religious instruction "in the interests of all the children of the Dominion"? Ii it does not mean this, I ask what does it mean? Bud, apart from that, the league's reference to -theological controversy proves both the fundamental divergence oi thought between Catholic and non-Catho-lic, and the practical -wisdom o£ mj Pastoral. The. reference, is also an.unwitting admission of the theological difficulties that must necessarily arise from Bible-teaching in schools at which children of different beliefs must compulsorilj attend. I am not surprised that the league thus sidesteps, the issues raised ir my Pastoral. ■-. , "^ ' ' As t regards the financial aspect of -the subject to which reference is made in the league's manifesto, I give the league credil for a very clever and subtle quibble.. We are told first of all that ours is a "dog in the'&attger attitude."- We are kind]} left to* "provide religious instruction- in echools built, equipped, and .maintained at our Qwh-cost .without any-assistance from the- State; and we are informed thai the introduction of religious teaching intc the State schools would impose on us nc further monetary burden. But the league's proposal .amounts to this: That while the children of some Protestant parents (foi I am sure that all Protestant parents are not in favour of the league's proposals] ■will be receiving religious instruction ai the cost of the general taxpayer, Catholic and other- dissentient pupils will be re ceiving secular instruction. So-that the league will provide religious teaching al public cost for", its own followers, to the exclusion of children whose parents dc . not follow its tenets. Is this in "the in terests of all the children of the Dominion," as the league proclaims? The league seems concerned only to gel its own form o£ Bible-reading into the schools. Is it satisfied to submit the children o£ its. members to interprets tions of the Scriptures at the hands ol materialists, atheists, and even Com munists? .IW. everyone knows that the clause in. 'the. Bill prohibiting the teach ing of "any religious catechism or re ligious.'formulary which is : distinctive o! any particular., denomination," does nol prevent interpretation- of Scriptural pas sages under the class's. consideration. Eoj interpretation cannot be dissociated frpn Scripture-reading. I wonder, too, if tfi<

league members -would be agreeable to materialists, atheists, not to 6ay Communists, compiling a text-book of their respective doctrines and' having it imparted to children at the public expense while dissentient children, were given secular teaching. They could not logically refuse such a demand. Even if the league asked the Catholic Hierarchy alone to compile a text-book ■of 'Bible-reading for the State schools, we should in fairness and justice refuse to do so. . "I MADE A MISTAKE." Now, as to my signature to the statement of 25th July, 1930. I was not present at the meeting of the bishops-with the Bible-in-Schodls League representatives. I left the whole question, during Bishop deary's lifetime, in the capable hands of ■that! .energetic t aud scholarly prelate. After his death, I entrusted the details of the question to Archbishop O'Shea and my three suffragan ' bishops. When: the statement of July, 1930, was placed before me' for' my signature, I admit that I- took' it that this was the unanimous considered '[ opinion 'of my coadjutor and the , three bishops, . and signed lit without any. further consideration or inquiry. Later, to my. surprise, I found that it did not express the views jof the bishops. On looking into the matter further, I found it did not express my own views. I realise now that I made a mistake. Surely,- the Bible-in-Schools League is too honourable' to 'take advantage of that mistake.1 My residence in New Zealand of over ninety 'years has convinced me of the fair-mindedness of my fellow-citizens; and I am sure that, as I honourable men, the gentlemen ■ of the league /will readily agree that the proper way is to correct and not to pursue a mistake. . . .- . In the light-of the foregoing statements, I 1 think the fotur'questions put to-me by the league are satisfactorily answered. The league suggests that I was lacking in courtesyin not communicating my withdrawal of my connection with the statement of July, 1930. At no time had I any communication directly with the league, and1 the bishops in turn were reported in the, public Press as. opposing the league's. proposed Bill. In conclusion, I wish to state that the Catholic authorities will ever oppose the proposals 6f the Bible-in-Schools League in their presenfc'<forra... <As an Englishman, and, as I hope, a good New Zealander, I personally - cannot understand why the league will .not ptromote :"the fair conditions all round" that pertain in regard to .religious instruction in England and in Scotland. ■ I t ask: Wall .the league support a' system here that has worked so harmoniously in those lands? If the reply is in the affirmative, they can.count on my cordial co-operation to pn4:into being by means • of! this just;. system in this I Dominion (in the words' of Dr. Cleary of which they so cordially .now approve), "full , freedom; to/bring, as much, religion as they; like into- the schools,"