BIRTH CONTROL AND THE CHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19242, 2 December 1930, Page 8

BIRTH CONTROL AND THE CHURCH.

BISHOP COMPLAINS OF WRONG REPORT. (Special to the “Star.”) AUCKLAND, December 2. “The resolution of the Lambeth Conference in respect to birth control has been misunderstood and misrepresented in every way,” stated Archbishop Averill on his return by' - the Marama this morning from the Conference. The whole idea of the report and the resolution was to condemn contraception, but one exception was made and that is what has been quoted. It was a reservation, where birth might have a very harmful effect upon the mother, and possibly cause her death. Exception is only to be ntade as a result of medical advice, and a medical certificate, and, although the resolution did npt say so, the underlying spirit was to the effect that in such cases the dispensation of the Church should be granted. “ Quite Rational.”

“The Bishops condemned out of hand the use of contraceptives for selfish ends or for the pursuit of pleasure, and also in regard to unmarried persons. The Bishops felt that they should say something on this point, and what has been agreed to seems to me to be quite rational. When the first report was brought down by the committee, it was rejected by' the conference. The second time it appeared it was referred back to the committee. It was not that we thought there was anything wrong about it, but we realised—at least some of us did—that the question was open to misrepresentation. “I was one of six or seven bishops who opposed the resolution itself, not because I objected to what was said, but op account of the liability of misunderstanding, and I still maintain that attitude. I told members of the committee frankly that cables that went overseas would necessarily' be brief, and people who read them would not know what was behind the resolution, nor would they have the atmosphere in which it was promulgated, and for those reasons there were many at the conference who held the opinion that the resolution should not be carried. Other Counsels Prevailed. “However, other counsels prevailed, and the very' thing that I sensed at the time has happened—misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Of course, I must say that many of the bishops in England did not realise the effect that anything of the kind was likely to produce in countries thfit had not full details. “One of the troubles in a case of this nature is that nothing is published of what is said in conference. It is all secret. Nothing is made known until the resolutions are given out. I said over and over again to the English bishops that I have had thirty-six years’ experience in New Zealand, and 1 know that cables will be terribly abbreviated, and the context .will not convev the meaning intended. The whole idea of the conference was to raise the sex question on to a higher plane and to see that anything in the way of control must be done conscientiously and according to Christian principles. This was in the minds of those voting for the resolution. I admit it is a very' big question, and I know and regret that some of the enemies of our Church are misrepresenting the intention of the conference. *