CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23994, 18 June 1941, Page 10

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS

Sir, — I would like to point out, in connection with your reports on my appeal, that on two occasions I have not been correctly represented. My appeal, which was based on religious conscientious grounds, was heard first on (5/6/11. when, in answer to a question by the Crown representative as to whether I knew that my Church (Catholic) laid down no rules regarding conscientious objection, I stated that the Church neither upheld nor condemned my attitude toward war. but left it to tho individual conscience to decide. I was reported on 7/6/11 as having said that the Church "neither upheld nor condemned war." There is a difference. The appeal was adjourned for evidence that I had held my views for some years, and at the rehearing on Wednesday, 11/6/41, the witnesses were heard. At the rehearing a statement bv "a prominent Church dignitary' regarding inv Church s attitude toward war was read, and on being questioned as to whether I agreed I replied that 1 did not agree with the general ruling, but t{iat the Church permitted individuals to hold my views, if conscientiously opposed to war and genuine in their beliefs. I was reported on I' 2/6/41 as saving that i did not accept the statement and that the Church's attitude was not mine. That is incorrect. As previously stated. T was not in agreement with the broad teaching of the Church in this matter, but the Church also teaches that a man's (oilscience is bis guide, and in my opinion it is obvious that a man cannot violate his conscience for a general principle, and if "the high dignitary" were consulted he could not say that ! am a disobedient child ot Mother Church. .1 osr.i'ii Bona v kntc arc C kkh ktti (Weill.