CATHOLIC ATTITUDE

Hokitika Guardian, 20 October 1932, Page 5

CATHOLIC ATTITUDE

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS CRITICISM BY THE LEAGUE. (Per Press Association — Copyright .) WELLINGTON, October 19. Signed by Archbishop Aver ill, Primate of New Zealand, and others, a statement has been issued by the ißible-in-Schools League, replying to the recent statement, by Archbishop filed wood, Metropolitan of New Zealand, defining the Roman Catholic altitud e towards the Religious Instruction in Public Schools Enabling Bill. The reply is also signed by Rev. .E. 1). Patchett, vice-chairman of the Bibh Jo-Schools League executive, Sir James Allen. Lieut.-Col. J. Studholme, and Rev. Air. Blamires, secretary to. the League, the represent?' tives of the Protestant- churches ap ■pointed at a - conference to conduct negotiations with th 6 Roman Catholic Hierarchy.

The statement says: The recent statement of Archbishop Redwood reveals how the Roman Catholic leaders hav 6 been speaking to New Zealand with two voices. First, there is issued in the public press, on July 9th, 1931, an authoritative official pro* nouncemettt of Archbishop O'Shea, acting head of tl'ie Roman Catholic Church in New Zealand, who speaka, it Is stated "Not only for myself, but for the Metropolitan (Archbishop Redwood), "When the League’s pro* poeals were submitted, he said, “Both Archbishop Redwood and myself agreed they complied with the conditions which had been published over and over again by the Catholic bishops.” Now r , on October 14th, 1932, Archbishop Redwood makes a public pronouncement in an entirely opposite direction. It is gratifying to find his acknowledgement that Archbishop O’Shea gave the above endorsement, and the citizens of New Zealand will appreciate the fact that Archbishop O’Shea honoured his own word, and the earlier word of Archbishop Redwood in perfect consistency, but Archbishop Redwood has spoken now with a different voice.”

‘■fhei Catholic - Hierarchy invited the conference,” the statement, concludes. “The lines of agreement were quite definitely settled. Every Bidnop knew them. Archbishop O’Shea was their acknowledged correspondent and representative. He .endorsed the Bid, now before Parliament, in Archbishop Redwood’s absence in • Australia. - H© was th e acting head of their church. Hi,s endorsement harmonised with Archbishop Redwood's earlier pronouncement. When-Archbishop Redwood returned to New Zealand, after a brief absence, he superseded Archbishop O’Shea, and appears to have differed about that time from the action of his co-adjutor. Ho 'said .nothing whatever about it to the Protestant representatives in the contract asked for no further and made no explanation,' but ' deliberately opposed the Bill - after it had been introduced into Parliament, and was ■ under consideration by the education committee of the House.