BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 37, 14 February 1933, Page 5

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

REPLY OF LEAGUE

ARCHBISHOP REDWOOD'S POSITION

The following statement has. been issued by the executive of the Bible in Schools League:— The reply of Archbishop Redwood to the league's questions, which was published in the Wellington-papers of January 30, 1933, was early considered at a meeting'of the Bible in Schools Dominion Executive, and was viewed by its members as entirely unsatisfactory. The Archbishop in his reply had stated:— I entrusted the details of the question to Archbishop O'Shea and my three Suffragan Bishops. When the statement of July, 1930, was placed before me for my signature I admit that I took it -thai this was the unanimous considered opinion of my co-adjutor and the . three ' bjshops, and I signed it without any ' further consideration or inquiry. Later, to my surprise, I found that it did not '■ express the views of the bishops." On ! looking into the matter I found that i it did not, express my. own views. I , realise now that I made a mistake; The league's rejoinder, now issued .to" the Press for publication, is as follows:— What does this explanation amount to? That Archbishop Redwood'signed without ' due "consideration and inquiry" a docu- | ment immediately hailed throughout New Zealand as an agreement between" the Roman Catholic Church on the one hand and the Protestant churches of New Zealand on the other. Was that a document to be signed without the fullest "consideration'? It purported to end. a controversy of over fifty years' standing. Waa it likely such would be signed and published broadcast without the most careful "inquiry"? . The Archbishop must have been aware of. the course of events and of the negotiations between the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and-the league. He must- hava known:— 1. That, prior to his signing the pub- . lie statement of July,- 1930, an official letter on behalf of the whole Hierarchy had been, received by the league accept"ing the definite proposals made. 2. That the league's statement of the agreement and the statement signed by himself were published on the same data by the Press Association in all the" leading papers of New Zealand -as public statements of official negotiations then made known. _^. ....... 3. That the agreement as completed ' was placed before the various" church. : courts associated with the league for their endorsement. The church courts met at various intervals. during twelve months, and all ratified the league's agreement with the Roman Catholics. All this was fully reported in the papers. 4. That,, when the Bill was finalised for Parliament in July 1931,' his representative,' Archbishop O'Shea (after tfie legal adviser of the Hierarchy had" reported to Mm that the league's Bill was in accordance with the agreed conditions) officially announced in the names' of Archbishop Redwood and himselfthe withdrawal of opposition and tfio: endorsement of the Bill. (See footnote ) 5. That when the Bill was thus submitted to the Roman Catholic authorities by the league, a covering letter had requested that, if any point in the Bill was riot satisfactory, notification of 'this should be given to the league, which - promised that it would receive full consideration. Did the Archbishop make any demur during.the long course of these many transactions? Did he give any indication I? "If.'eague or the public of any point iv the -Bill not m; harmony with the agreed conditions?- None whatever. He was both. f' 1?!^ and in accord with his co-adjutor Archbishop O'Shea, up to and after tKat time. But note his strange procedure : when he finds, fifteen months after sign- ' ing the document of July, 1930, that lie > has made a mistake." What does his! Grace do? He says not a word to the : party -with which he made the agreement. Intimation of his change of front is not given m any notification to the league or by an approach suggesting further con- • sideration of any disputed point 'but by suddenly repudiating the agreement by means of a. letter to the Education Committee of the House-of Representatives indicating complete opposition to the Bill By this means the league executive learned io l the first tune of his volte face JNo explanation has been given by Archbishop Redwood for such a method of repudiation. . , Archbishop O'Shea published in the Press on July 9, 1931, his statement of approval, which included - the folloWm«t^f nw l .IeA guS.: R roposals were submitted, both Archbishop. Redwood arid myself agreed that they complied with. : the conditions which had been publSh. <4 °ver an4, over by the Catholic bishops. When the Bill now being brought before Parliament was drafted it was submitted for perusal to our legal .adviser, Mr. P. J. O'Regan, who has reported that as it stands the BUI tw h°A^° laK a¥ of the conditions that had been laid down by the Catholic leaders and accepted last year-by the Bible in Schools executive. Consequent- .' vit^ repe + \te^ ly Promi^d, Catholics will withdraw their opposition to the present »if" w 2"? s Pe, akui& not only for myi^lHl 01' *¥ Metropolitan (Arch-. ■ bishop Redwood), who has already made . to this effect - Now that the. Bill is before us, and the best legal advice confirms our view that the proposals it contains fulfil the Catholic conditions, we are bound in honour to stand by our dead colleague! SSL™ oft-r?P eated Promises, g a nl »™X, V m" former opposition to the In view of the official commitments WfotML still less is it satisfiid\vlth th* manner of his repudiation