Dr. Gibb Again

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIV, Issue 27, 5 July 1906, Page 18

Dr. Gibb Again

The Wellington ' Evening Post ' of June 2C contains the following paragraph :— 'An echo of the discussion, which last month was conducted in the columns of the newspapers of Wellington, was heard at last night's meeting of the Council of the Evangelical Churches of Wellington. In a casual reference to the controversy, Dr. G-ibb saki that throughout the argument if had been assumed by the Rev. Father Cleary, editor of the " Tablet," that the Council of the Churches had specially directed its attacks against the Roman Catholics and their bazaars. As a matter of fact, the coincil had, by twelve votes to seven — namely, two t<o one — disapproved the special indication of Catholics made in -the Rev. Mr. North's motion. Yet from the "beginning to the end, Father Cleary assumed that the council accepted Mr. North's motion. The assumption was a fair sample of the rev. gentleman's argument.' Assuming the substantial correctness of the ' Pos.t ' report, this is ' a fair sample' of the sort of controversy with which the Rev. Dr. Gibb has at times surprised the public. Our readers will readily recall the long series of scandalously faked and garbled 1 quotations ' from Catholic theologians and Catholic journals which the ' Tablet ' editor exposed in the columns of the Dunedin secular press. It does not seem that ©T. Gibb has amended his controversial ways to any great extent sine? then. Now mark how plain a tale shall put him down, as regards his latest ' break.' (1) In our very first contribution to the recent church-lottery controversy, (a) we quoted the Rev. Mr. North's motion textually. (b) We quoted textually the words of the amendment which eliminated the exclusive reference to cne particular denomination ("the Roman Catholic Church "), and extended the attack

to "certain Churches" iplural).^ (c) We stated ex-* pressly that the amendment was carried.^; And the article embodying all this was printed in full in the Wellington papers of May 12. (2) Neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end of the. controversy did we either say or " assume that the Council accepted Mr. North's motion." (3) But we did assume throughout that the Catholic Church in New Zealand was one— and, we may here add, apparently the principal one— of the " certain Churches " that were made the object of the attack. The grounds for that assumption _ were perfectly clear and unmistakable, and were supplied by the whole course of the discussion, which (as reported by the ' Post ') is before us. As Catholics, we were entitled to repel the attack, so far as our Church was concerned. We had neither light nor title to set up a ple a for any other creed.

Our business was with the Council of the Churches. Dr. Gibb's personal beliefs of opinions regarding the controversy are of no interest to us, except in so far as we object to be held up to Wellington readers as having adopted in discussion an unworthy resort which is really the creation of our accuser's own exuberant fancy. It would be something to the purpose if the Council of the Churches disclaimed -any intention of including the Catholic Church in New Zealand as one of the " certain Churches " that it pilloried. If they were so minded, they had abundant opportunities of doing so both during and since the recent controversy. But they have made no such disclaimer, for the simple reason that they cannot. Any such disclaimer would render the discussion of April 30 a tangle of aimless verbiage. Dr. Gibb's mathematics—making twehe equal to twice seven — furnish another, though minor, example of his looseness of thought and expression. The substance of these two paragraphs was for warded as a letter for publica-tion in the ' Evening Post.' ■