BISHOP CLEARY'S 'BLESSING'

New Zealand Tablet, 9 October 1913, Page 26

BISHOP CLEARY'S 'BLESSING'

The following letter from his Lordship Bishop Cleary appeared in the Outlook of October 7: Sir,—As a matter of elementary fair play, I ask your insertion of this letter. I was entitled to expect that Rev. Gray Dixon would either clearly prove or frankly withdraw his statement that the National Schools Defence League was ‘ blessed by Bishop Cleary.’ But he has done neither. He merely * explains (1) that ‘Bishop Cleary and Bishop O’Shea’ (according to the Dominion ) declined to take part in the Defence League’s recent deputation to the Prime Minister and (2) he clearly intimates that this refusal constitutes, in some mysterious way, a ‘blessing’ of the Defence League by Bishop Cleary! He, furthermore, conveys the seriously wrong impression that this refusal of an invitation is a flat contradiction of the following statement in my letter; that the Defence League declares that it has received ‘no communication ’ * from the authorities of my Church.’ \ J The just-quoted statement of the Defence League, though . written some weeks ago- is still literally true. Archbishop (not Bishop) O’Shea and Bishop Cleary are not ‘ the authorities ’ of my Church in New Zealand. Our courteous refusals of circular invitations were our own personal and individual act as private citizens. ‘ The authorities ’ of my Church in New Zealand are two Archbishops, three Bishops, and five other prelates (vicars-general) who constitute ‘the same court with the several episcopal heads, in accordance with the provisions of our canon law. No communication has been sent to, or received from, the National Schools Defence League by ‘the authorities’ of our Church, or even by our episcopal body, in New Zealand, i 2. In the * Century ’ and other voluminous dictionaries in my possession, there are nine grouped meanings to the word * bless.’ In no one of all these various meanings could I, by any stretch of legitimate interpretation, bo deemed to ‘ bless ’ a league with whose fundamental principles I am, and have always been, in irreconcilable antagonism, A * blessing ’ (no matter in which of its meanings) is something positive a refusal of an. invitation is a ‘no’ or negative. How could a ‘no’ constitute the ‘yes’ of a ‘ blessing ’ ? Did my refusal to attend prize-fights, and Orange lodge functions, constitute a ‘ blessing ’ of those functions? Did the written refusal of certain Bible-in-schools officials and branches to meet me in question or debate spell a blessing of my antagonism to certain planks of the League’s platform? Did my several communications with the League Executive, and the League Executive’s communication with me, constitute a mutual blessing, each of the other You editorially accepted the disclaimer of Mr. Atkinson, even though there was evidenceof a sortin your favor. Why does no* the Rev. Gray Dixon as frankly accept my disclaimer of ‘blessing’ the Defence League, when that disclaimer is backed up by my public and notorious attitude of long years, and when he has not so much as a scrap or atom of evidence to sustain his statement? His own credit is here at stake, as well as the duty of truth and justice towards me. 1 I am, etc., . * Henry W. Cleary, Bishop of Auckland. September 16.