BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 71, 1 April 1913, Page 6

BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

[To The Editor Stratford Post.] Sir, —The esteemed Vicar of Stratford requests me to put forward a scheme of non-proselytising religious instruction in the public schools. (1) My merely personal view on the subject would he of little interest, and of 'no authority. The Bible-in-Sqhopls League has had every opportunity of asking the collective view of the natural leaders of our church in this domnion on the matter. Unfortunately, the League prefers the ,old policy of ignoring our feelings in this connection, declining even to take notice of repeated public protests against its grave misrepresentations of particular Catholic views and facts bearing on the questiop. (2) Catholics have long had, in steadily extending operation, a scheme of religious instruction for their children who unavoidably attend the public schools. But I am unable to see how-—without a mutual understanding with those immediately interested—Catholics could dare to formulate a scheme of religious instruction for children of denominations so sorely divided from us and

, from eacli other on this and other. | subjects as are Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, etc. No such J mutual understanding has been sought or desired by the League. (3) In their official pronouncements of 1901, the New Zealand Catholic Hierarchy made it clear that they desired Biblical and religions instruction for Bible-in-scbools children in the public schools. But, on specific grounds of religious faith, moral principle and sacred right, they could never agree to the folio ing League proposals: Compelling conscientious objectors to contribute to tho exclusive endowment of, the League’s view of religion; (b) forcing objecting teachers to teach what their conscience forbids; (c) embodjing a glaring consciencqclause falsehood in the statute-book, thereby providing by law for the proselytism 'of six oft-specified classes of dissident children; (d) majority rule in matters 1 of religion and conscience. This last proposal would justify the Jerusalem mob in preferring tlie'thiel Barabbas to the GodMan Christ.

The Anglican General Synod of 1898 and the Bible-in-Schools organi«itipn of 1904 sought to minimise the legalised proselytism of teachers by giying the teachers a conscience clause. \yiiy not do so now ? And why not, substitute for. ‘the League’s Irish, proselytising conscience clause a clause to impart religious instruction only to children whose parents ask for it in writing? Relatively poor and few as Catholics are, they nave, at their own vast expense, partially solved the question of. religious education. If the Bible-in-Schools organisation had the laity at its back, it could, wth contributions of a penny a week, work, wonders ip l religious education, and save its parents and clergy the humiliation of agitating to force one of their sacred duties on the. shoulders of unwilling State officials.—l am, etc., HENRY W. CLEARY, D.D., 1 Bishop of Auckland. March 29.