BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE-INSCHOOLS "PROSELYTISM."

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 11 March 1913, Page 6

BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS "PROSELYTISM."

(To tha Fxlitor.) 'Sir, —1 was incorrectly quoted by the i-ev. organiser of the Hiblc-in-scll)oLs League in your issue of February 2(3. 1 correctly quoted him a.s boasting before the Presbyterian Assembly that "32,000 JRomaii Catholic children, with hardly an exception, read Scripture lessons in tlio schools" of New. South Wales. The quoted words were taken from two verbatim reports of the speech, and I have before me at least a dozen similar statements of his and of League pamphlets. [ added that this means, "in otlie* words," tlilat these children ".have .successfully proselytised into violation of the faith and discipline of the Church of their Babtism." This is also quit? correct. Catholic faith is opposed to the sectarian doctrines of "private judgement" and of the.moral right of the 'Government to teach religion—.or (as the Ir.v means it) to iimpart "religious instruction" unci "general religious teaching." Catholic ecclesiastical law is also against Catholics reading or explaining unapproved Bible versions, or taking part in the "New 1 South Wales sectarian instruction and.worship described in the League pamphle-t' by JRev. A. Don. The League, has adopted, in aggravated form, the conscious clause devised 'by astute Irish proselytiser* for the declared purpose- of "weaning the Irish from the abuses of Popery." That orJiiscience clau.se legally embodies the following cunning' falsehood: That all parents, Protestants, I Oatholics, Jews, etc., who fail to pro- j test in writing against the State" religious instruction," thereby demand | or approve that "religious instruction" for their children in the public ' ! schools! And, without consulting par- ; ents, the Government requires the children to accept this "religious in- ' struction." That disreputable Irish conscience clause is, on: the face of it, clearly intended to capture for sectarian' instruction among others, the children of objecting parents who (as formerly in Otago) are unaware of the right of withdrawal; the children of objeo&ors who cannot write, or who merely neglect or put off writing, or who are naturally. shy al>out exhibiting their bad spelling and bad writing to critical teachers, or who belong to the fairly numerous class who would write a letter (so to speak) only at.the point of a bayonet. The Irish Proselytisers' conscience clause is also plainly intended to capture children win (even with written protests) forget or neglect to deliver them,' or who (in the usual childish way) "do as the •rest do," or who (in one-roomed schools) have either to attend "religious' instruction" or to stand outside, exposed, perhaps, to rain, sleet, or 'snow. If parents want State "religious instruction," they may be presumed to ask for it. There is no evidence that Catholic, parents in Now South Wa'lea either asked for or approver! such "religious teaching." That false and cunning conscience clause provides legal machinery for proselytising the children of non-approving as well as approving Catholic, Jewish, and other parents. No wonder indignant New South Wales Catholics arc year by year so eagerly demanding more and even more Catholic schools

to save their children from, proselytism by Act of Parliament. There, as here, Catholics are strong advocates of Biblical and religious instruction in tho public schools —but not on the League's unjust terms. —I am, etc., Henry, W. Cleary, 1). IX. Bishop of Auckland. Thursday, March ('hi. 1913.