BIBLE IN SCHOOLS, "FORGERY" AND "HAPPY" TASMANIAN CATHOLICS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1652, 20 January 1913, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS, "FORGERY" AND "HAPPY" TASMANIAN CATHOLICS.

Sir,—l have just now (January 17) received from a,friend in Wellington a copy of your issue of the 15th, containing an excited communication by the reverend organiser of the Biblo-in-State-Schools League.

In a Bible-in-Schools pamphlet the following shockingly untruo statement was credited to tho late Director of Education in Tasmania, Sir. Neale: That the Bible-in-schools system in that State is "accepted by all denominations as a happy solution of the religious difficulty." This amazing assertion was flung at mo in controversy, and gave rise to tho following two issues: (1) The question of its authorship, and (2) tho question of its objective truth.

1. Information received by mo from Tasmania (the accuracy of which I could hot, of course,'guarantee) was to .the following effect: (a) That the quoted statement was certainly signed, not by tho Director of Education (Mr. Neale, then alleged to bo absent), but by a secretary Director; (b) tho secretary was 'understood to bo the author of tho statement so signed' by him ; (c) it was made to appear at least doubtful that so flagrant an untruth was fathered by one so well acquainted and sympathetic with Catholic educational grievances as tho Director of Education was known to be.

On November 10 the organising secretary of the loaguo asserted in vour columns that tho statement quoted/above was signed by "the secretary of the Director of Education." This, obviously, left.the mystery of its real authorship precisely where it had been before. So did two communications received by mo from tho present Director of Education (Mr. M'Coy), on my return to Auckland, just beforo Christmas Eve. He failed to give a specific solution to these two doubts: (a) Was this cruel misstatement made by its signer (tho secretary) as his own personal view, or (b) was it dictated, written, or approved by the Director of Education?

On January 3 my esteemed neighbour, ■tho Rev. Mr. Jolly, published in the Auckland "Star" a letter in which tho present Director of Education (Mr. M'Coy) affirms that his predecessor actually twice wroto with his own hand the 1 statements in question. Here, for tho first time, wo had a clear, express, and' categorical statement in point, which (as acknowledged by me in the "Star" of January 4) set at rest tho question of authorship, and proved that my informants wete: mistaken' in' their grounds for supposing that the'signer Of tho statement wjis also its originator. No charge of forgery was laid at any t.imo or by any person in.this connection. This charge was illogically deduced as the only working'infcrencej.yet there were no fewer than four quite innocent inferences which ought to have been taken into consideration before iixing on- one. that involved a grave criminal accusation. May I bo permitted to remind tho rev. organiser of the league that I am amenable to'the laws, which provide a speedy remedy for anyone against whom a charge of forgery is improperly made,or implied? May I, furthermore, add that, in the caso of the present' alleged, charge, the questions of tact would be decided by a jury composed wholly, or in great part of my Protestant fellow citizens? .

■ In .my letter of January 4, in the Auckland "Star," I stated that I had already planned to utilise the correspondence "in hand" and "expected shortly," "in a public pronouncement arranged at an early date." What may possibly be an important communication, in'this connection, is still awaited. Those who know me will havo no fear that I shall'herein bo lacking either in candour or in personal honour.

'2. I now come once more to the question of the objective truth of tho statement that the Bible-in-schools system in Tasmania is "acceptod by all denominat'ons as a, happy solution of tho religious difficulty." ' Not to mention Jewish and other objectors; Catholics hold a. very important. pjfioe ,in.,tho 'list.of ;"all deuoniinations" in Tasmania. ' How do they view tho system?

(a) The Catholic denomination in Tas-. mania, as elsewhere, notoriously denies the moral'right of the Government to impart what the law in several Australian States terms Biblical and "general religious teaching. (b) The Catholic denomination in Tasmania, as elsowlierc, publicly and notoriously objects to 1 paying tithe.'; (in the shape of taxes) for tho exclusive establishment and endowment of a. form of Biblical and "general religious teaching" at variance 'with the religious'convictions of its adherents, (c) On specific and oft-stated grounds of doctrino and discipline, Catholic teachers cannot, without at least a material violation of their Catholic ' conscience,- impart ' the sort of Biblical and "general religious teaching" referred to above. An authoritativostatemsnt on this subject has been before the [public of 'New /Zealand, repeatedly, at least since October. Catholic teachers in Tasmania _aro forced by law either io forfeit their bread and butter or .riolato their'conscience and do, at State expense, work . .which properly belongs' to the Bible-in-schools .clergy and parents, (d) For. over two months past, there has been before tho public of .this Dominion a declaration; by the official head of tho Catholic denomination in Tasmania, of tho,wrongs which Catholics there believe they have'been suffering under: the sham"protection" of tho Irish proselytising conscience clauise which has found favour with our Bible-in-schools League.

Yet, in spite, of those well-known facts, the league, is still officially circulating tho notorious and cruel imtruth that the Bibk-in-schools system in .Tasmania is accepted by Catholics "as a happy, solution of the Teligious difficulty." Once more—for, I think, tho fifth time —I thus direct the league's attention to this grave matter. It will also be my duty to focus public attention upon, numerous other league errors in matters of fact, and especially uijon a. long series of repeated and,, at. times, altogether amazing misrepresentations-by its official organiser. As a Christian man, with some knowledge of human frailty and of the principles of right reasoning, I decline, unless in the presence of clear evidence,: to impute wilful malice,' conscious error, or deliberate dishonour to any\one, evcli in the case of flagrknt and obvious misrepresentation. Thus far not one leader of tho league has had the courage, though often challenged, to attempt a justification of tho seven remarkable changes which that organisation demands in tho existing laws of this Dominion. Instead, they present to tho public a mass of argumentative matter having little or no relation, to the real issues involved, and (as to a great part of it) bearing not tho remotest fenship to objective truth or distributive justico.—l am, etc., . .. HENRY W. .CLEARY, Bishop of Auckland.' January 17.