BISHOP OFFERED TO RESIGN FROM B.B.C.

Correspondence published
CORRESPONDENCE between Bishop Heenan and Rothe Head of Religious Broadcasting about the B.B.C.'s apology for a reference to intolerance in Northern Ireland shows that the Bishop was prepared to resign from the
Central Religious Advisory Council.
It was only a few weeks ago that Mgr. Heenan was appointed to succeed the 1 a t e Archbishop Masterson on the council.
The Rev. Francis House replied that "no question arises of ending your membership," and the Head of Religious Broadcasting also stated that there was no change in the plans for another broadcast by the Bishop.
Bishop Heenan wrote to Mr. House :
A Y dear Francis : Needless to 1.V1 say, I am very sorry about the upset over Saturday's talk. The Press reporters tell me that the B.R.C. intends to hold an enquiry. I imagine that this is unlikely but 1 thought you might want to know the facts.
Before giving them, however, I must express surprise that the B.B.C. made the regrettable apology after the one o'clock news. The apology, as reported, does me less than justice.
But apart from that, the B.B.C. should not so quickly lay blame publicly on those who are serving them. Such a thing would not happen, for example, in the Civil Service.
But I must say that I do not imagine the Religious Division to be responsible for the apology. I am quite sure that you, personally, had nothing to do with it.
THE FACTS
Here arc the facts :
On Friday I was asked by the B.B.C. to reconsider the following passage : "Anyone who tells you that there is still religious freedom in those countries is either a knave or a fool. That is, either he does not know the facts or he is a liar. The Church is enslaved wherever Cornmunism is in control."
For the record it is important to say explicitly what objections were raised.
1. The B.B.C. felt that T should insert the word "full" before "religious" so that it would read : "Anyone who tells you that there is full religious freedom . . ."
2. Knave, fool and liar were all felt by the B.B.C. to be rather too strong.
3. The B.B.C. objected to the sentence, "The Church is enslaved wherever Communism is in control," on the ground that it was against B.B.C. policy to condemn Communism. It was explained that it is part of the general understanding between the B.B.C. and political parties that no attack on a party will be allowed unless in a specifically party broadcast.
(i) I rejected, without hesitation, the suggestion to insert "full" before the word "religious." I said that the only qualifying word I would use was "real."
REJECTED
(ii) I agreed to think about the offending epithets, knave, fool and liar.
(iii) It was the B.B.C.'s anxiety to he fair to the Communists that caused the most trouble. I said on the phone that I would he willing to insert "atheistic" before "Communism" since the political party does not call itself by that name. I said that I would think the whole thing over during the day.
Now comes the question of my personal integrity.
The public has been told one story by the B.B.C. and another by myself.
The B.B.C. says that I made a lastminute interpolation.
Belfast goes further and says that as soon as the producer left me alone I took out my pencil and stealthily changed the script.
Let me assure you that mine was no last minute interpolation. The B.B.C.'s anxiety to be fair to the Communist Party set up a train of thought in my mind.
I do not, for a moment, accept that a broadcaster should tone down references to religious persecution for fear of wounding Communists in England. But, at least, it is a point of view. So I began to question whether it was fair to talk of religious persecution in Communistcontrolled countries while making no reference to other kinds of intolerance elsewhere.
REVISION
Spain immediately came to mind. I know that there is no religious persecution there but there is intolerance of minorities. So I decided to mention Spain-a State associated in the public mind with Catholics.
But if Spain, why not Northern Ireland, where also there is intolerance?
So. having had all day to think about it, on Friday night I deleted the paragraph to which objection had been taken and inserted the following : "We are so used to tolerance for minorities in England that we take it for granted. They don't elsewhere in Spain, for example, and Northern Ireland. But their intolerance is nothing compared with the savage treatment of believers where atheistic Communists are in control."
There are the facts.
I expected that Falangists in Spain and Orangemen in Northern Ireland would resent reference to intolerance
But I must ask you to believe that when I broadcast on Saturday I did not think that there was any dispute about the fact of intolerance either in Spain or Northern Ireland. The only controversy. I imagined, concerned the causes and extent of intolerance.
I must say once more how sorry I am that you. personally. and Fr. Agnellus have been involved in this unpleasantness. As I have said. it never occurred to me that my remark would cause offence to any but fanatics. Perhaps it didn't.
However, Ihis puts you in a difticult position regal cling my own services to the B.B.C. I am due to record a programme on Thursday in the Leeds Studio, I shall quite understand if you would prefer this to be cancelled.
shall also be ready to resign from C.R.A.C. [Central Religious Advisory Council] if you think that I would no longer command respect in that assembly. Please believe that I am ready to do whatever is best for the cause we both have at heart. .
am, sincerely yours, oki John C. Heenan, Bishop of Leeds.
B.B.C. REPLY
Mr. House replied from Broadcasting House : MY dear Bishop : I was very grateful for your letter of the 29th which at last makes clear the nature of the misunderstanding which has had such regrettable consequences.
It was most unfortunate that circumstances beye ii d our control necessitated discussion of the script indirectly and by telephone.
The basic fact is that my suggestions for merely verbal changes were misinterpreted as requiring much more fundamental revision of your script.
In particular my suggestion that in the sentence "The Church is enslaved wherever Communism is in control" the word "Communism" should be replaced by "Communist governments" or "regimes" apparently reached you in a form which led you to suppose that some serious question of broadcast policy was at stake.
This was not my intention at all. There is no Corporation policy in relation to Communism of the kind you were apparently led to suppose.
THE APOLOGY
Actually, when it was reported to me that you were prepared to insert the word "atheistic" before "Communism," I said that this did not meet my point, hut did not follow the question up bechuse I attached so little importance to it.
This explains how we were at crosspurposes; unknown to me you were worrying about a supposed request to make a change of a kind which I bad never intended to suggest.
Secondly, I can assure you that the reference in the broadcast apology to a "last-minute interpolation" was not intended to reflect on your personal integrity or to imply that anything underhand had been done.
On Saturday morning the information reached London that the alteration had been made at the last minute. This information was based on the fact that you had said nothing to anyone earlier about a change. and that you had written something into the script at the last moment. It was naturally assumed that this was the sentence in question.
When we got in touch with you on Saturday morning, the question when the addition was made was not directly asked, and we were consequently still left under the impression that the alteration had been made in the studio. The apology was therefore drawn up on the supposition that there was agreement on this point.
NO DISCOURTESY
It was not until we were at last able to get in touch with you again at 8 p.m. that we knew that you had made the major alteration on Friday, and that only the kind of minor changes, which are customarily made in the studio by experienced broadcasters, had been made at the last minute.
Thirdly, in view of certain comments that have reached me, I must explain that in the apology the phrase "in a programme of encouragement and worship" was added merely to distinguish talks in "Lift up your hearts" in which a right of reply to a controversial statement could not be provided for, from other talks and discussions in which controversial issues could be handled.
Fourthly, as it has been suggested that the handling of the question of the apology was discourteous, I must explain that we made every effort to get in touch with you as soon as the question arose; that we did let you know confidentially that an apology might have to be broadcast; and that there was not time to consult you again between the time at which the decision to broadcast the apology was taken and the actual broadcast.
Repeated efforts to get in touch with you again all through the after