BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21314, 15 October 1932, Page 13

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

BILL lIEFORE COUNCIL OPPOSITION EXPRESSED MEMBER'S CHANGED ATTITUDE [nv TELEGRAPH —mKSS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON. Friday The debate on the Religious Instruction in Schools Enabling Bill was resumed in the Legislative Council to-day. The Hon. W. H. Mclntyre (Nelson) said it was indiscreet for a private member to introduce a bill of such a controversial nature. Legislation of a national character and of national policy should be introduced by the Government, which was composed of God-fearing men, who were just as anxious to protect the welfare of children as anyone else. There was an onus on the promoters of the bill to prove that the moral and intellectual standard of New Zealand children was inferior to that of those taught under other systems. Although they had inferred that, they had not proved it. The Hon. 0. J. Carrington (Auckland) said that a child, in order to be safeguarded against the perils of the world, needed the protection of religion, but the bill was a poor safeguard for the child. Undenominational teaching was a distinct danger to Christianity. The real solution for sound religious education in the State schools was the Nelson system and the Bible iri Sch&ols League would accomplish more than it could by the bill if it put its energies, behind the Nelson system. He had decided to support the bill until that morning, when he realised the great difficulties which had to be overcome. The passage of the measure would impose grave disabilities on the teacher and he intended to move in the Committee stage to make provision for the right of appeal by teachers who considered that they had been victimised. Even the amendment would not overcome the difficulties and ho intended to vote against, the measure. Sir William Hall-Jones (Wellington) said there was a necessity in the world for more obedience to the teachings of i Christ. If Christ's teachings had been followed there would have been no war and the present troubles would not have followed. He did not object to a more symplified system of religious instruction than was proposed in the bill. The debate was adjourned until Wednesday. ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW ATTITUDE OF BISHOPS FORMER DISAPPROVAL [BY ~ TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, Friday A comprehensive statement of the position of the Roman Catholic Church in regard to the Religious Instruction in State Schools Enabling Bill, now before the Legislative Council, was made to-day by Archbishop Redwood, Metropolitan of New Zealand. Archbishop Redwood states that the New Zealand hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church consists of the Metropolitan and the Bishops of Christchurch, Dunedin and Auckland, Bishops Brodie, White and Liston. When the Bible in schools representatives met the Catholic bishops in conference, their proposals received sympathetic consideration and they were asked to reduce their legislative programme to writing, and to submit it at a later date for the hierarchy's perusal and comments. When that programme was submitted to Archbishop O'Shea, Archbishop Redwood was absent from New Zealand, and Archbishop O'Shea, without consulting the three bishops, wrote,, approving the suggestions made. The bishops of Christchurch, Dunedin and Auckland were unaware that the Bible in schools representatives had submitted the programme to Archbishop O'Shea, who assumed the concurrence of'the bishops in his approval. When the statement of the Bible in Schools Committee, referring to Archbishop O'Shea's approval as that of the Catholic body, appeared in the press, the bishops named, for the first time, knew of Archbishop O'Shea's approval. In turn each of the bishops dissociated himself publicly from concurrence. Later, -on his return to New Zealand, Archbishop Redwood summoned a meeting of the hierarchy, and in a considered statement signed by four members of the hierarchy, expressed to the Parliamentary Committee then taking evidence on last year's bill their joint disapproval of its contents. The statement, which is quoted in full, is a repetition of the statement of the hierarchy in 1925. REMARKS CHALLENGED THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY BISHOP LISTON'S STATEMENT I*e following statement in regard to the Leg'slative Council debate on the Re ligious Instruction in Schools Enabling Bill was made by Bishop Liston last evening:— " Sir James Allen is reported to have said in the Legislative Council on Wednesday that ' the majority of the Catholic hierarchy was in favour of the measure.' If Sir James is correctly reported, his statement is contrary to fact. The Archbishop of Wellington, the Bishops of Christchurch, Dunedin and Auckland, are in charge of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, and they have in public pronouncements jointly and severally recorded their emphatic protest against the many hills produced by the supporters of the Bible in Schools movement. And if Sir James has made the statement attributed to him, I trust he will now correct it publicly. " The Hon. L. M. Isitt is reported to have said yesterday that ' Catholics, in agreeing to tlie bill, had promised not to press for State grants.' Let it be said that Catholics will gladly follow the guidance of their bishops in this matter, and that these bishops have not agreed to the bill and have made no promise in public or in private to anyone." CONVERSION OF BONDS LONDON DISCUSSIONS NO FURTHER INFORMATION [BY TELEGRAFII —PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, Friday Reference to the suggested New Zealand convcision loan in London was made in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour —Wellington Central) asked whether the Prime Minis : ter would indicate to the House what progress had been made in London. Mr. Forbes said that Mr. Downie Stewart, and Mr. A. D. Park, Secretary to the Treasury, were at present discussing with financial circles in London New Zealand's position generally with respect to the Government's requirements. He was in possession of no information other than that which had already appeared in the press.