BIBLE IN SCHOOLS DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 8 July 1931, Page 3

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS DISPUTE

CATHOLIC ATTITUDE.

DOUBT ABOUT PROVISIONS OF BILL.

ASHBURTON, July 6

“It has come to my’knowledge* that considerable misundirsianding exists concerning the Bible in schools question and Bishop Brodie" s attitude thereto,” said. -Father. O’Brien in a statement read on instructions from Dean O’Donnell at both Masses in the Catholic Church on Sunday.

“It is useful to a correct understanding of this matter to know who are the parties to the alleged concordat. On the Catholic side the party ■is the .Hierarchy. What does that mean? It means the bishops of the dio-

ceses in Which New Zealand is divid,ed, namely Archbishop Redwood ('Wellington), Bishop RrOdie (Christchurch), Bishop Whyte (Dunedin) and Bishop (Liston (Auckland). At the conference held in ■ Wellington on' April 50, 1930, between the Hierarchy and representatives of the Bible-in-Schools -League, the three bishops were present. The Archbishop was not present, but was represent by the Archbishop of Cortyna, Dr O’Shea. The proposals of the Bible-dn-schools party were strongly opposed by the three bishops and the conference ended in failure to reach an agreement.

SIGNATURE REFUSED. “Subsequently, without any change in the attitude of the bishops, the Bible-in-schools leaders were informed that their proposals were accepted. In consequence of this, Mr John Studholme and Mr L. M. Isitt waited on Bishop Brodie and requested his signature to a document purporting to embody the alleged agreement. Bishop Whyte was present and agreed with Bishop Brodie when the latter reminded his visitors of what had taken pjace at the Wellington conference and refused to sign the document. In face of these, facts, how can it be said truthfully that an agreement was arrived at between the parties ? “A Bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by the member for Christchurch North. As yet ■the text of the Bill has not appeared ijn the Press, and so we are in the dark as to the conscience clause provided. Neither has anyone so far publicly suggested how Catholics are to be exempted from bearing any share of the cost of’putting the Bible-in-schools scheme into operation. Surely these are points that should be satisfactorily settled before Archbishop O’Shea is entitled to say that the Hierarchy’ are bound in honour to withdraw then- opposition in accordance with -former statements. .... •.. . -

A TRIFLE OF SUSPICION. “The Archbishop appears to trust absolutely to the honour of the other side, but as, according to his own statement, it has taken them seventeen years’ to accede to He very moderat terms of the Hierarchy, one need not bo surprised if the latter show just a trifle of suspicion. “Mr John Studholme was present at the conference in Wellington and ’s therefore thoroughly conversant wi h What took place. He and Mr Tsitt' know what took place at Bishop Brodie’s house when they met him and Bishop Whyte. Both Mr Studholm? and Mr Isit-t are, I am sure, men of honour. J put it to them as men of honour that it 'is up to them to come forward and state publicly whether Bishop Brodie was right or wrong when Instated that no agreement had been arrived at. To say that ‘the denial from the south is rather belated’ o: to appeal to what some may consult: honour requires, ignores the real issue and is merely a piece of specal plead inti. The crucial point is, dd a majority of the Catholic Hierarchy agree to th proposals of' the Bible-in-schools representatives, and if so, when? 11 not, then the person who informed the leaders of the Bible-in-schools party that the bishops had so agreed wa simply affirming the ' thing which wa: not.” »>■ ' : l ■