Thinking about peace after involvement in Falklands

THE ARTICLE 'Catholic Rebels' by Christopher Howse, June 18, and the recent hostilities in the Falklands illustrates the utter pathetic hopelessness of the human condition when faced with a conflict of interests.
In the last analysis bodies such as the League of Nations of the United Nations are simply an expression of what small amount of unselfish idealism there may be among some people in some nations — but they are totally ineffective.
They do not exist per se but as the collective opinion of a group of countries_ most intent on gaining their own selfish interests.
After the Falklands experience we see how powerful and self interested nations can simply veto any decision — so we may as well disband the UN now.
I know all about the Irish question. After 11 years of torment in Ulster from 1969 to 1980 what I observed and suffered destroyed my concept of patriotism, my health and my spirit and forced me to the conelusion that hypocrisy is the first essential of war.
I would certainly support the right of the native Irish in the six counties to that self determination which Mrs Thatcher holds so dear for the Falklanders but I am quite sure that no ideal or principle justifies the wanton setting on fire of passers by, the use of Napalm-type bombs on innocent people having a social evening, as in Le Mon, or the corruption of the young so that they become school-boy killers.
Thousands of people have been wiped out or mutilated in Ulster leaving a legacy of bitterness and suffering. Had the effort in destroying been channelled into construction and the money wasted on gambling and drinking (millions and millions of pounds) been used to improve home and family conditions, then the native Irish would have achieved their aim without slaughter, simply by bettering themselves and the lot of their children.
I cannot admire the bitter twisted hate and venom which justified atrocities both in the period described by Christopher Howse, and in the recent 'troubles'. and I consider what was done in some instances then, and is being done now, to be totally in opposition to the teach ings of Christ. E. Rodgers Storrington IN THE midst of my deep concern for peace and justice in the world, I, as a recent convert to Catholicism, cannot repress a wry smile at the thought of Catholic laity, conservatively minded, who, pre-Vatican II, may hdlie been the first to support the teachings of the Church and the pronouncements of the Holy Father. who are now finding it difficult to swallow what I consider to be true Christian teaching, given from the highest authorities.
As two examples of this. I refer to Sir John Biggs-Davison's calling for the removal from office of Bishop Guazzelli for his plea for peace in the Falklands May 21 and Mr MacKenzie's assertion June 18, that the Pope has no right to judge "uninvited" such issues as the Falklands, and that he didn't really mean what He said at Coventry, that war today is "Totally unacceptable as a means of settling the differences between nations."
Peace and justice are supranational issues, especially from the Christian point of view, and I think our first obligation as Christians is to speak out against bodies such as the World Arms Sales Organisation, and try to prevent military regimes from exercising power unequal to their public status, rather than equating the Argentine people with armed aggression, the majority of whom live in poverty, and some in repression.
I have read the appropriate sections of "Vatican II" and subsequent statements of the Church on war in general and nuclear war in particular. Their content shows a decided move towards change in attitudes to war, at the forefront of which are the Pope Himself, the Justice and Peace commission, and Pax Christi. Let us all pray and work for peace.
Mr J. Parkinson Justice and Peace Group, St Hugh's, Timperley, Cheshire.
IT CERTAINLY is news to some of us that in Britain "the Bishops are surrounded by such reactionary schoolboys as Conservative MP, Sir John BiggsDavison."
Such insulting and uncharitable remarks made publicly about a fellow-Catholic from one who professes to be a Catholic priest would certainly make one beware of the movement 'Pax Christi' (the Peace of Christ) of which he is said to be a prominent member.
How is it he has time to gad off to New York to attend a peace rally, when we are supposed to be so short of priests that even the sick and housebound are denied priestly ministrations and have laymen, and women, foisted on them as "extraordinary ministers"? (What happens if the sick person felt the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance before "receiving"?) Politics should be left to the laity and the priestly functions to the priest.
G. Jarmulowicz London NWIO YOUR REPORTER quotes me as saying that Sir John Biggs Denson is a "reactionary schoolboy". This appears as a quite unsolicited insult for which I would unequivocably apologise.
What I believe I said (in a telephone conversation) was that Catholic public schools shape their pupils through cadet corps training in a way that makes it difficult for them to question established news about the legitimacy of war.
I would still wish to arrow that Pope John Paul has helped to further away from this, and I wonder how successful Sir John has been in the appeal he was reported to be going to make for the removal of Bishop Guazzelli from the episcopate for declaring the South Atlantic was unjustifiable.
It may comfort Sir John to know that last week I was among those listed in The Sun as "dupes of the Soviet Union".
Owen Hardwicke Clwyd I. K. Johnson THERE is no legal way in which Mrs M. R. Miller (June 18) may refuse to pay that part of her taxes which the government devotes to armaments.
However, the peace tax campaign is very actively trying to change the law so that those who, like Mrs Miller, have a conscientious objection to paying for war or military preparations may have that part of their tax payments paid into a fund for non-military peacemaking purposes.
Details can be obtained from 26 Thurlow Road, Leicester LE2 I YE.