BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18914, 27 June 1931, Page 20

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC ACCEPTANCE. . TERMS OF AGREEMENT. The organising secretary of the New Zealand Bible in Schools League supplies the following statements in connection with the agreement between the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and the League. The statements were published in July, 1930, and “both still stand.”

The League’s Statement. For many years the New Zealand Bible in Schools League has endeavoured to introduce Bible reading and simple religious exercises into the State schools of New Zealand. Any opposition there ha*s been has come mainly from the Roman Catholics. Their opposition has been inspired chiefly by the fear that the consciences of their children and teachers would not be protected. Inasmuch’, then, as the League insists upon the protection of consciences, and inasmuch, also, as the Hon. Mr Carrington stated last year in the Legislative Council that if the Roman Catholics were assured of such protection, others would be given full freedom to bring as much religion as they liked into the schools (quoting the words of the late Bishop Cleary), it was felt by the League that the chief reason for Roman Catholic opposition could be removed. At a conference of representatives of the Protestant Churches, held in Wellington last March, to consider matters relating to the Bible in Schools question, this statement was discussed and a letter forwarded to Their Graces Archbishops Redwood and O’Shea, quoting Bishop Cleary’s words: “We only want two things—protection of the consciences of our children and the protection of the consciences of our teachers,” and inquiring if this represented the Roman Catholic position. The outcome was the opening of negotiations with the object of meeting the difficulties that had previously prevented the opposition of the Roman Catholics from being withdrawn. Protestant and Roman Catholic alike approve the close association of religious teaching with general instruction, and agree in viewing the present system of secular instruction as based on an inadequate conception of child nature.

The difficulties were frankly faced in conference and correspondence, with the result that the proposals made by the League Executive (empowered by the' Conference of Churches to continue negotiations) have now been accepted by the Roman Catholic leaders.

These proposals are as follow: 1. That an interpretation of the League’s earlier conscience clause exempts, ipso facto, all Roman Catholic teachers and pupils from participation in the Bible lessons. 2. That Roman Catholic taxpayers be freed from paying any portion of the additional expense that may be involved in the introduction of the Bible into the schools.

3. That during the time set apart for religious instruction, exempted pupils be given lessons in secular subjects. They were embodied in the following clauses:—

1. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Act, all Roman Catholic teachers, and all the children of members of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be exempt, ipso facto, from participation in the religious observances and religious instruction provided for- in this Act.

In addition, no child shall be required to attend the religious observances at the opening of the school or the religious instruction given, as herein provided, if the parent or guardian of such child notifies the teacher in writing that he has conscientious objections thereto. 3. Should any teacher, other than those exempted under the provisions of the foregoing sections, inform his school committee that he desires to be exempted from participation in the aforesaid religious- observances or instruction, or in both, exemption shall be given, and should there be, as the result of exemptions given under this or the preceding sections, an insufficient number of teachers to conduct such religious observance, then in all such cases the school committee, after consultation with the head teacher, may authorise and appoint for the purpose one or more persons as required from outside the school staff. 4. During the time given to religious instruction, any children who may be exempted shall receive separate instruction in the secular subjects, except that, the Board shall be empowered to make other arrangements whenever the parent or guardian of any child thus receiving such secular instruction objects to the conditions under which such instruction must b? given.

The principle was also affirmed in the conference of representatives of the Protestant Churches, and approved by the executive of the League, as follows:

If the introduction of religious observances or instruction involves any additional cost, the Roman Catholics shall be exempt from paying any share of this additional cost. These clauses, etc., represent the proposals made by the League Executive and accepted by the Roman Catholic I-lierarch3 7 ', which will be forwarded to the governing bodies of the Churches comprising the League. They are embodied in a Bill called “The Religious Instruction in State Primary Schools Enabling Act,” which will be considered by these Churches, with strong recommendation for acceptance by them. The report of these Churches will be received before the Bill takes final shape, and, it is understood that the Bill cannot, therefore, be placed before Parliament until 1931. Regarding the question of State aid, the League throughout has been quite definite in the decision that negotiations must be carried on without committing it in any way to the Roman Catholic claims. The negotiations have been conducted from the beginning without involving any surrender of principle on either side. The following statement in the League’s official letter to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy makes this clear:—

“We understand that though the present taxation involved under the secular system is and will continue to be viewed by your Church as unfair in its incidence as related to Roman Catholic taxpayers, yet this view of present taxation will not affect your consideration of such religious instruction in State schools as we may suggest, coming as it does within the scope of the meaning conveyed by Bishop Cleary’s words, ‘Catholics would be satisfied with even a partial settlement irrespective altogether of the question of grants.’ ” This position the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has approved. In the negotiations, opposition has been manifested on both sides to all unjust discrimination or intolerant spirit involving suffering for conscience sake. Equality in citizenship with respect to conscientious conviction is mutually approved and supported. These negotiations have happily resulted in complete agreement between the League and the Roman Catholics on the above proposals.

Archbishop Redwood's Statement. The following statement was issued by Archbishop Redwood “Catholics. I need not say, are strongly opposed to a purely secular system of education, because we consider it incomplete and inadequate. Therefore have we set up in New Zealand our own system of religious schools. If in the past we have felt 1our duty to combat the proposals of the Bible in Schools League, this was not bee., use we were opposed to .lie principle 01 leligion in the school, out only because of the methods adopted by tbe League on former occasions. “The Catholic Bishops, while always insisting that any complete and fallsolution of the education question in this country should include State aid to Catholic schools for the secular results achieved, and while in no way surrendering the claim to receive from the Government' for this purpose an equitable share of the money contributed by the Catholic taxpayer toward the cost of public education, have many times during tile last twenty years or so expressed their willingness to meet the Bible in Schools League and consider whether even a partial solution of the question of religious instruction in the State schools could not be arrived at. We have stated publicly over and over again, not only in joint statements made by the Bishops of New Zealand, but frequently through the late Bishop Cleary, who was the official representative of the hierarchy whenever this question came up, thar eJu-gefhei apart from the question of State aid to our schools, we were willing and anxious that some religion should be fought to Protestant children in the schools. It was provided only that the rights of conscience oi Catholic teachers and pupils and of all others concerned were adequately protected, and that Catholics were not obliged to contribute anything towards the cost of such Protestant teaching.'

“God Speed the Proposals.” “Recently representatives of the Bible in Schools League have approach ed us with the desire to come to some kind of agreement on the matter. The proposals are the outcome of our conversations. If a Bill containing the exemptions and safeguards for the consciences of Catholics and of other, already mentioned is introduced into Parliament it will not be opposed by

“Of course, I repeat that, in adopting this attitude, we do not for a moment mean to give up our just claim that Catholic schools are entitled to receive for the secular instruction given in them a fair share of the money contributed by the Catholic taxpayer toward the cost of educating the children of the Dominion. This claim we can not in conscience surrender.

“But any proposals for religion in the schools that fulfil the conditions we have so often insisted on for the protection of the consciences of Catholic teachers and pupils as well as of all others who cannot accept the proposed religious teaching, and which will exempt Catholics likewise from contributing toward the cost of such teaching, will not be opposed by us. To use the words of the late Bishop Cleary, ‘the more (religion in the schools) there Is, the better we shall like it, and 'we will wish our non-Ca-tholic friends God speed in carrying out their proposals.’ ”