BIBLE LESSONS IN SCHOOL

Taranaki Daily News, 25 June 1931, Page 4

BIBLE LESSONS IN SCHOOL

DENIAL OF AN AGREEMENT REFLY MADE to BISHOP BRODIE. ARCHBISHOP O’SHEA EXPLAINS. "DENIAL SOMEWHAT BELATED.” “The denial from the south oi any agreement between the Catholic hierarchy and the Bible in Schools’ League is somewhat belated,” eaid Archbishop O’Shea to a Daily News representative last evening. “It is nearly a year ago since a public statement was made> by Archbishop Redwood to the effect that if the Bible in Schools’ League complied with the conditions which, were first laid down by the Catholic bishops many years ago, Catholic opposition would be withdrawn. “The Bible in schools executive on the same date announced that it was prepared to draft a Bill which would meet these conditions. Consequently the only honourable course for the archbishop was to announce that an agreement was in sight. Until now no puolic protest was made against his actionThe conditions laid down by the Catholic hierachy seventeen years ago have been published time and again, not only by the bishops who drew them up, or whom I was one, but as late as 1929, when in Parliament the Hon. Mr. Carrington, with the full approval of Bishop Cleary and myself, again repeated, them. “No.-protest whatever was then made by anyone from our side against his statement that we would withdraw our opposition to a Bible in schools measure which would meet these conditions. LEAGUE DEFINES ITS POSITION’. MEETING OF SUB-COMMITTES. By Telegraph.—Press Association. z Wellington, Last Night. A gub-committee of the New .Zealand Bible in Schools League executive, considered at WeUington to-day Bishop Brodie’s disclaimer of any agreement her tween the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the league, and approved of the statement issued by the secretary, the Rev. Blamires, last night through the Press Association, quoting the official acceptance of the league’s proposals by the hierarchy. Tho committee states that only one letter had previously come to the secretary from Bishop Brodie, dated June, 1930. It acknowledged receipt of a copy of a circular letter and a paper. Its closing message is: “As I understand Archbishop O’Shea will repiy on behalf of the hierarchy it will not be necessary to comment on the circular, of which you sent me a copy ” A continuous correspondence was earned on last year, however, with the Archbishop. He had received all official correspondence and from him all official communications from the hierarchy had been received -by the league. “If, therefore, any withdrawal from the position taken up last year by the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been decided on it would have been notified to the official secretary of the league by the official representative of the hierarchy, but as no word of any euch position had ever been mentioned by Archbishop O’Shea, although a letter was received from him by the same man as that which, brought the letter from Bishop Brodie, ho official notice can at present be taken by the executive with relation to Bishop Brodie’s interpretation,” stated the committee. “It will be necessary to await an official communication from Archbishop O’Shea. “From the standpoint of. the league the present position is quite definite. There has been nd suggestion of any withdrawal by the league, nor any hint of the kind from Archbishop O Shea, and consequently the league’s official letter of April 14, 1930, conveying definite proposals, the hierarchy’s acceptance of the proposals on May 12, 1930, and the league’s acknowledgement of the acceptance in a letter of May 21, 1930, remain unaltered. “A general statement of the position was issued to the Press on July 24 for the Roman Catholic Bishops by Archbishop Redwood and for the league by the Dominion executive. There were independent statements and harmonised in essential points. These statements stand as the official reports of the agreement.” 1