BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 189, 31 October 1927, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

CATHOLIC CASE STATED

EQUAL RIGHTS CLAIMED

THE Catholic case for oppocitioato the proposals in the Reli. gious Exercises in Schools Bill' was stated last evening by Bishop H. W. Cleary to a large congregation in St. Patrick's Cathedral. The speaker deplored the leapt* clergy's neglect of the children . B schools, and said that their snbstitu tion o£ political activities was a o-* fession of lost faith in the pulpit anij pastoral service and spiritual gu-a. ance. By the threat of imaginary "huge majorities.” they were trying to stampede legislators into passing g Bill that would create a new State religion, set creed against creed, and provide three serious penalties for the crime of dissent.

Catholics would never surrender their just claim to grants for the State work of secular instruction given in their schools by State certificated teachers according to the State pro. gramme and under State inspection with enormous annual savings to the State finances. Therein they claimed less than the Government was su'd giving or had given tor other and much lesser State work.

"A NEW SITUATION" For 25 years they had not pressed that claim for secular instruction on Parliamentary candidates or legist tors. But an entirely new situation had been created by the Bibie-ii* schools clergy. These continued la demand huge State grams from th» common purse, not for secular instnio tion or any other secular service, bat for the support of an established and endowed and State-conducted Stata religion for the exclusive benefit of themselves and their friends and allies, They also demanded the equiv* lent of compulsory tithes from gre4 masses of conscientious dissenters. CATHOLIC RIGHT TO GRANTS The Catholic prelates had neve# ceased to protest against the groal injustice of these exclusive religious grants to one section of the people at the cost ot all. Catholics had a natural right to a fair share of the grants for rei* gion in school, which the league had ail along demanded as its own sole perquisite. On his own personal account the speaker had begun boili privately and publicly in 1911 to press for equality of treatment for Catholics in connection with this demand of thq ; league for religious grants. Bishop Cleary added lhat the Call, dies older claim for grants for their State work of secular instruction would also be pressed again “with a new force and wider extension.” But they had

officially and publicly engaged not t* allow that old claim to interfere is the least degree with any form of religious exercises the league might desire on its own formerly professed but now abandoned basis of “equal rights” for all. The Catholic prelates’ offers for a conference on that basis were admittedly refused eve* an acknowledgment of receipt by ths league executive. Now, as in 191 k 1914, that offer was open to other denominations, whether singly or 1 groups, or to the league as a whole. It was widely admitted in and out of the daily Press that if the present Bill became law the Catholics’ claiit for grants would be irresistible. Os this account well-meaning friend! within and outside the league had repeatedly pressed them to aid in passing the Bill or at least not to opposs its progress. To all such proposals the same answer had been returned both privately and publicly. “What we gain herein, we will not gain by a subterfuge; what we lose we will not lose by an ignoble silence when the defence of sacred rights demands that we should speak and speak loudly enough to be heard."

“In all New Zealand there Is nod enough wealth to bribe us into accept, ance of the league's Irish proselytising conscience clause; in all X'e* Zealand there is not enough wealth to buy our consent to tampering with the faith of even one Catholic teacher of one Catholic child, by our agreeing his taking an active part even once i* the exercises of the league's ne» ‘common - denominator religion’ which the present Anglican Primate once described as 'an emasculated caricature’ of Bible teaching.” Under cover of Parliamentary privy lege, Mr. Isitt had said of the Catw olic prelates’ offer of a conference; “The league regarded that offer as veriest propaganda, made only for th* purpose of misleading members of th® Catholic Church, and such people as were unfamiliar with the facts of ue case.” i On October 21 a request had bee* | made for either a withdrawal of tn& j imputation of wanton and delibed*jf ; deception, or an opportunity to vinos I cate the preacher’s honour. Neither I request had yet been complied wit#.