BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE-INSCHOOLS "PROSELYTISM,"

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1695, 11 March 1913, Page 6

BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS "PROSELYTISM,"

Sir,—A teiegiaphic report in your issue of February 20 credits me with a statement not textually used by me. I was quite correct in quoting the Bible-in-schools organiser as having boasted at the Presbyterian General Assembly that ".'12,000 Roman Catholic children, with hardly an'exception, read Scripture lessons in tho schools" ol' New South Wales. These words are given in your verbatim report of November lti, and in the "Outlook" of January 21. I have before uie a considerable number of similar statements by him. This (1 added) means, "in other words," that tlieso children "have taen successfully proselytised into violation of tho faith and discipline of tho Church of their Baptism." This is also quite correct. Catholic faith is opposed to the sectarian doctrines of "private judgment" and of the moral right of tho Government to teach religion—or (as the law terms it) to impart "religious instruction" and "general religious teaching." Catholic ecclesiastical law is also against Catholics reading or explaining unapproved Bible versions, or taking part in the New South Wales sectarian instruction and worship described in a ltagtic pamphlet by the Rev. A. Don. The league has adopted, in aggravated form, the conscience clause devised by astute Irish proselytisers for the declared purpose of "weaning the Irish from tho abuses of Popery." That conscience clause legally embodies the following cunning falsehood:—That all parents—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc.—who fail to protest in writing against this State "religious instruction" thereby demand or approve that "religious instruction" for their dhildren in the public ijchools! And, without consulting parents," the Government requires the children* to accept this "religious instruction." ©

That'disreputable Irish conscience clause is, on the face of it, clearly intended to capture for sectarian instruction, among others, the children of objecting parents who (as formerly, in Otago) arc unaware of the right of withdrawal; (he children of objectors who cannot write, or who merely neglect or put off writing, or who are naturally shy about exhibiting their bad spelling and bad writing to critical teachers, or who belong to the fairly numerous class who would write a letter (so to speak) only at (lie point of the bayonet. The Irish proselytiscrs' conscience clause is also plainly intended to capture children who (even with written protests) forget or neglect to deliver them, or who (in the usual childish way) "do as the re9t do," or who (in one-roomed schools) have either to attend "religious instruction" or to stand outside, exposed, ' perhaps, to rain, sleet, or snow. If parents want State "religious inKtruction," they may be presumed to o?k for it. There is no evidence that Catholic parents in New South Wales either asked for or approved such "religious teaching." That false and cunning conscience clause provides legal' machinery for proselytising the children of non-approving as well as approving Catholic, Jewish, and other parents. No wonder "indignant New South Wales Catholics are year by year so eagerly demanding more and ever more Catholic schools to save their children from proselytism by Act of Parliament. There, as here, Catholics are strong advocates of Biblical and religious instruction in tlie public schools—but not on 1 the league's unjust terms.—l am, ctc., HENRY/W. CLEARY, D.D., ' 1 Bishop of Auckland. March\6...