CHURCH PRACTICE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 20, 18 October 1919, Page 5

CHURCH PRACTICE

• 'AN ECCLESIASTICAL COURT . MATTER DISCUSSED. Sir,—ln the judgment of the Bishop of Christchurch, which was published in most of tho New Zealand papers last October, the Bishop thought fit to mako an attack on mo peraoiinKy, quito apart from his 'decision on the facts charged by me, all admitted by tho defendant, upon which he had to adjudicate. As I at once appealed against the judgment to tho Bench of B.shops, tho matter remained sub judice, and whilst that was so I was debarred by well-known principles of English justice from public,ly defending myself from tho Bishop' 9 attack.

Nov,' that the Bishops have given judgment in tho appeal ense. I ara at last at liberty to defend myseTf against tho Bishop's attack, and supply tKb whole of the facts, only a portion of which are Bet out Ml tho judgment. The attack made upon mo by the Bishop was to the effect that tha proceedings instituted by me under tho Canon were wholly without excuse:

0) because I well 1 knew before tho proceedings wero instituted,that ho had already admonished Mr. Perry as to three of the charges, and that Mr. Perry had readily aigrecd to accept his ruling. , (2) Because "in th-s sfd time of war *e are sworn to peace among ourselves, and the Church should have been the last to break it."

I will deall with tho second branch of the attack first: It is easy to shelter behind the war and the nece.?sity for peace among ourselves, but there is also tho danger of crying "Peace, peaco, when tliero is no peace."

I knew that tho practices whioh I myBfilf saw at. n particular service, and other?, of which I heard and subsequently embodied in my charges (all of which were admitted by Mr. Perry), wore causijiK widespread comment and unrest nroonf.' earnest church people, and wero drivinsnold parishioners of St. Michael's away from the church to wh'ch they had in many instances been long attached. ] could not ferf that tho fnet ihnt it was war time was sufficient to justify me in' frtiintr slill and making no effort to havo th" practices stopped.

To iro back to the first brnncli nf tho Bishop's attack on me, viz.. that I knew before T instituted proceedings Hint his Lord«liip had admonished MY. Perry ns rowrds thro* of tho ivronrnlnritiea pointed out bv me, and that Mr. Perry had accepted his ruling and undertaken i.n future to- abstain from the practices in question.

This statement is utterly misleading, ;n that, whilst correct as far as it goes, it doec not indicate the point upon which tlra Bishop and I were at variance. It mokes no mention of the fact that it was his refusal to make public tho fact that these irregularities, which ho <js well as I had seen tako place, were irrogulari;ies, on (I disapproved of by him, which

obliged 'me to tako action through tho Kecjosiostical Courts. Tho only nieiins opeu to me to. reassure churchmen and allay tho linrest caused by tho Bishop's apparent sanct.on o' theso practices. 11l oi-dor fully to explain my position, it will bo necessary for nno to set out tho facts in their sequence. •

My first letter to the Bishop on ttio subject in question was dated February 1, 1918, nearly a month after the servicu at wh ch the irreguSnritios to which I was d-iawing lms attention had taken place, 1 having waited till then in hopes that he would take action himself. In that letter I also expressed the opinion that tho condemnation of such action should ho as public as had been the action itself.

The B'shop wrote on February 4 that ho was in communication with Mr. Perry, that his action would depend largely on Mr. Perry's attitude in the matter, and as soon as ho had anything to cominuni' eate he would wr:'to again.

On February 25 the Bishop wrote tlmt lis had envied Mr. Perry's attention to certain irregularities, and that .dr.. I'erw had undertaken that they should not occur again, but that he could not agree that the rebuke of such action should bo as public as the action its-elf. I wrote again point'ng out that lie —the Bishop—having been present at, and 'haung taken part in, and having given the Blessing at tho conclusion of tho sen-ice at which the irregularities for which he was admonishing M.r. Perry had taken place, church people were necessarily under tho impression that hu was altogether approving of the scrvico in quest'on, and were entitled to be put right on that point. I suggested that the Bishop slioufd put a statement in the "Church News," the gazette of Uie diocese, that his Lordship had been present at St. Michael's on a certain date at which grave irregularities had taken place, that, as otherwise it jniglit lie thought that the Bishoo approved, he wished church people to know that he had drawn the vicar's attention to them, and that the vicar had loyally undertaken that they should not recur. I pointed out that this course could do no h/irm, but rather good, to the vicar,' and would put the Bishop right with lis people. Church people will see that, had tho Bishop fa.llen in with my suggestion, my interference in the matter would have been unknown, the Bishop would have l-een put right with his people, and I could thereafter have crone to tho Bishop privately, -'m a friendly manner, a.s _to other matters which might require action on lr:s part. His refusal to put himself Tight with church people, and Ms refusnf, somewhat later, to deal with other matters at St. Michael's, in answer to a further letter of mine, left me no other cotjrse but to seek justice in the Ecclesiastical. Courts.—l am, etc., C. H. COSSET.