The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1913. SOME UNANSWERED CHALLENGES

New Zealand Tablet, 27 March 1913, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1913. SOME UNANSWERED CHALLENGES

§ANON GARLAND had not been long before the public of New Zealand before we formed the conclusion that whatever gifts he might or might not possess as an organiser he was absolutely lacking, in courage and in that spirit of manliness which constrains one who has made a serious statement regarding an opponent to be ready at, all times to substantiate or to withdraw it. We have read as much of the press accounts of the Bible-in-Schools propaganda in the Dominion as most people, have at times been almost ' snowed under with the countless newspaper cuttings, extracts, and reports which have been showered down upon us by energetic correspondents and in all we have read we have not seen a single instance in which Canon Garland has stood straight up to a straight issue. But the most glaring example of the runaway tactics which have been consistently adopted by official League representatives which has yet come under our notice is one which has been furnished in connection with a letter recently addressed by Bishop Cleary to our Presbyterian contemporary, the Outlook. For • some time our contemporary was running a column headed ' Notes and Comments,' which was devoted to a weekly summary of the doings of the League; and although the name of the writer was not given, internal evidence was such as to make one safely conjecture that the matter was supplied from the office of the Organising Secretary himself. In its issue of February 11 the Outlook published in its 'Notes and Comments' column some gross misrepresentations of Bishop Cleary's utterances and some offensive charges in re-

gard to his relation to the opposition movement which is being organised against the Bible League's proposals. The nature of these misrepresentations and charges may be gathered from Bishop Cleary's letter of protest, the salient portions of which we reproduce herewith. It will be noted that Bishop Cleary not only denies arid refutes the Outlook statements, but also in each case challenges the writer of the paragraphs to produce adequate evidence or to withdraw. * Under the heading ' Bishop Cleary Protests,' Bishop Cleary, whose. letter duly appeared* in the Outlook, wrote as follows : ' Sir, —in your issue of February 11 the following appears at the head of " Notes and Comments' on the Bible-in-Schools League': " Bishop Cleary has stated that Roman Catholic children can take no advantage, of the system of religious instruction advocated by the League. On it being pointed out that for years past an average of nearly 1000 visits per annum had been paid to the State schools in New South Wales alone by the Roman Catholic clergy and other, accredited teachers for the purpose of instruction to the Roman Catholic children in the schools, Bishop Cleary replied that this had now ceased." So far as it relates to me, this whole story is untrue from beginning to end. (1) I.never even dreamed of stating that Roman Catholic children " can " take no advantage of the League's type of religious instruction. Every sane adult knows that they. " can." But they cannot do so and remain true and faithful to the Church of their Baptism, (a) Such children would thereby, in practice, accept the .Protestant principle of "private judgment" ; (b) they would thereby violate a disciplinary law of their Church, which forbids Catholics to read versions of the Scriptures or Scripture manuals not approved by competent authority in their Church; and (c) they would thereby violate another disciplinary law of their Church, which forbids Catholics to take part in such Protestant religious worship as is described by Rev. A. Don on pages 6, 12, 13, and 14 of the League pamphlet, Some Notes on the Australian System. Both these disciplinary laws are based upon, and arise out of, specific religious doctrines . I have over and over again stated that "the plain intent and effect" of the League's Irish conscience clause is to capture for Protestant religious instruction six specified classes of dissident children. . I have over and over again quoted Catholic authorities, League pamphlets, and the repeated utterances of the League's Organising Secretary to prove that Catholic and other dissident children and teachers are actually being systematically proselytised into violation of the faith and. discipline of the Churches to which they belong. If you call for that evidence, I am ready to produce it. * '2. I never "replied" that visits of the Roman Catholic clergy, etc. (as above) " had ceased in New South Wales." (3) It is not true that I manifest a "lack of correct information" on this point. (4) The writer of your "Notes" betrays a ludicrous lack of correct information'' when he professes to quote '' official returns of the New South Wales Parliament, which show that during the last 12 months" 31,940 Roman Catholic children "had the benefit of the teaching of their own Church in State schools during school hours." This "showing" exists only in the writer's exuberant imagination. '5. When and where did Bishop Cleary "ally himself with those why deny" "the Christian faith," thereby combining "Rome and Atheism" against the Bible-in-Schools movement To ally implies a positive compact or agreement of some sort. We Catholics one and all steadfastly refuse to "ally" ourselves even with the numerous Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and other Church people who advocate the secular system, much less with Atheists and deniers of "the Christian faith." Those are shocking charges to fling at any Christian minister in the columns of a paper which describes itself as " a Christian weekly for the home and "the official organ "of a great Protestant Church. They are, moreover, flagrantly untrue. Common honesty demands that they shall either be adequately proved or frankly withdrawn.'

Although several issues of the Outlook have since appeared we need hardly say that the false statement* have not been proved, and not the slightest attempt has been made to do so; nor have they been withdrawn. In connection with the outrageous and utterly baseless. allegations in regard to 'Rome and Atheism,' it would appear that what the Outlook writer meant to suggest was that some alliance had been formed with/ the N.Z. State Schools Defence League. To this it can only be answered, first, that there has been no alliance; and, second, that the Defence League is far from being an atheist organisation. On these two points, Professor Mackenzie, the Secretary of the League, has sent the following official statement to Bishop Cleary: ' I do not know of a single atheist connected with our defence leagues—many Portestant clergy, a large number of University professors and of teachers and educationists have accepted office in our leagues. There has been absolutely no communication of any kind that.l have heard of from you or your Church to us or from us to you. Probably ninety per cent, of our members belong to Christian Churches.' * In order to obviate any possible misconception it may be as well to make it perfectly clear once for all that all meetings addressed by Bishop Cleary on the Bible-in-Schools question, though called by Catholic committees, have been proper public citizens' meetings, with the utmost freedom of relevant questioning. This has always been recognised as one of the best ways of influencing outside opinion; and we may take this opportunity of mentioning, incidentally, that there is every likelihood of Bishop Cleary accepting an invitation that has been extended to him to address a meeting at Dunedin at an early date. At every meeting without exception, addressed by Bishop Cleary, two things have been made perfectly first,that Catholics could have no truce with the secular system, and second, that the representatives of the Catholic Church are desirous that Protestant children should have Biblical and religious instruction in the schools so long as the rights of conscience of others are not violated thereby. As we have said, not the faintest attempt has been made to face the challenges issued by Bishop Cleary, much less to substantiate the charges made. It may, however, be something more than a coincidence that since the appearanco of Bishop Cleary's protest the Bible-in-Schools 'Notes and Comments' column in the Outlook has been dropped. There are indications that before he is through with this campaign Canon Garland will have learned to be much more careful and respectful in his utterances regarding thinly and persons Catholic.