schism between East and West point out an obstacle in the way of the eirenical proposal to revoke "the mutual excommunications made in 1054"? These were not directed against the whole East or the whole West. The edict of the Patriarchal Synod is quite clearly directed against unknown strangers purporting to be Papal legates. The Patriarch himself may have been aware of their identity, but his Synod certainly did not commit themselves to anathemas against the whole West or against the Holy See.
Nor did the legates intend to condemn the church and people of Constantinople, whose orthodoxy they acknowledged in the bull of excommunication against the Patriarch and his intimates. I think it can be shown that this exchange of gestures was not regarded as a schism between Rome and Constantinople before the thirteenth century, or inflated into the final schism before the seventeenth. l have tried to do this in a small book, Mis understandinge between East and West, which has just been published by the Lutterworth Press here and the John Knox Press in America.
(Brother) George Every, S.S.M.
Sir,—Surely it is not right that any group should be allowed to monopolise a public church on a Sunday?
In several churches lately I have been asked to move to the back to make room for children or some parochial organisation.
I personally find this least justifiable in regard to child
ren. While I know there is something to be said in favour of classes going to Mass together on certain Sundays, I am doubtful of the value of making Sunday Mass an annexe of the classroom, particularly when it involves the official grabbing of the major part of a church, teaching neither respect nor consideration.
A. Francis Harris Wirral, Cheshire.
Sir,--I fully sympathise with K. E. A. Cooper who pleads (November 12) for leniency for adherents of the Latin Rite. but is this the real question?
Hitherto we have been taught and believed that the Mass was the offering of the body and blood of Christ—the continual renewal of His sacrifice on Calvary, Moreover, quite recently, the Holy Father has seen fit to reaffirm the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Now, however, in several churches communion tables have been set up while altars, duly consecrated, are in desuetede. An earlier contributor to your paper referred to such as a work table or meal table, but not apparently as an altar, i.e., a place of sacrifice.
Is the Mass then a medieval superstition, "a dangerous deceit" and a "vain thing fondly Sir,---Why ask "Have the Unions had their day?" (November 19), Nobody suggests they have. but this does not mean that all is well with them, or that there is no need for fresh legislation. Sir William Carron's article on the unions fails to get down to the details of the situation, and puts forward quite irrelevant arguments for leaving things as they are.
At the very start, he makes the erroneous statement that membership of the British Medical Association is a necessary condition for the practice of medicine. It is about time that he and others like him realised that this is a purely voluntary body to protect the interests of the doctors who choose to join.
It exercises -no control over the profession. This is exercised by a quite separate body, the General Medical Council. The standard of procedure before the General Medical Council is comparable to that in the Courts, and a doctor may be legally represented. There is. moreover, an appeal to the Courts from the decisions of the Council.
On the other hand, expulsion
invented"? Are our clergy priests who offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead. or merely presbyters or elders whose function is to preside at a cornmunity hymn singing?
Perhaps, Sir, one of your more informed readers can enlighten us on these questions?
1. R. Soma Lowestoft, Suffolk.
/-1/4 /A Sir,---During a recent TV programme on Eton it was noticeable that the boys were allowed to decide on the length of their hair—with or without side whiskers; Winchester School, among many others, allows similar freedom of choice.
Why do the headmasters of so many Catholic public schools insist that their pupils have the "short back and sides" cut? The Army now allows more scope in this matter and I feel that it is completely unreasonable that this "square" attitude seems to be the hallmark of the Catholic school.
Parent of several "cropped" boys.
Sir,—Fr. Francis Ripley (November 19) has taken a very orthodox stand on the question of pop music. While nobody will deny that teenagers are financially exploited in many ways, it is surely an untenable argument to hold out that parents should prohibit their children from enjoying and participating in popular music.
It would be interesting to learn exactly what "concerted Christian action" is planned by Fr. Ripley. Perhaps we could hear some more. It is perhaps ironic that the report of Fr. Ripley's was in close juxtaposition to your story about Fr. George Giarchi who far from condemning p o p u l a r music actually uses it as his essential medium.
David Fanning London, N.10.
Sir,—Last Sunday we had an appeal in our church from one of the Columban Fathers in the course of which he told us that in large areas of the Far East Catholics can attend Mass only once in five months.
From October 17 to 31 we had a mission, poorly attended, given by two priests who night after night preached to a congregation three-quarters of whom arc regular churchgoers anyway. The week-day Masses, usually three, are attended by only a handful of people.
Is it presumptious to ask whether there is not something wrong with the distribution of our precious manpower? Would it be such a hardship if we had to make do with fewer Masses so that priests could be released for the greater needs of those with whom we are one in Christ?
Whatever inconvenience we are caused is minor as compared with the spiritual needs of Catholics in the mission territories.
(Miss) H. Langerak. London. W.14.
a4,d_ a -€44w
from a trade union can be made after a far more summary procedure, and a member has no right of appeal to the Courts, unless he can argue that the expulsion is contrary to the union rules.
Sir William claims that he is opposed to discrimination, but in fact he is very discriminating in his opposition. He forgets that the trade unions are subject to a discriminating law that gives them absolute immunity from being sued for their wrongful actions. Is this special privilege really necessary in this day and age?
It is wrong to use industrial pressure for political ends, and it would be equally wrong to use political pressure to weaken the power of the trade unions to protect the legitimate interests of their members. It is, however, misleading to identify any legislation to control the abuse of power by trade unions or to ensure that collective bargaining is carried on in a manner consistent with the public good with such an abuse of political power.
Department of Economics, Queen's College, Dundee Sir,—Mr. Patrick Wall's letter (November 12) was presumably written before the Rhodesian declaration of independence. Since this has now taken place I feel, as one who lived in Rhodesia for four years, that it even more urgently needs a reply.
He states that the 1961 Constitution was presented to the people of Rhodesia as the Constitution on which independence would be based. True, but not by the British government.
He refers to the additional requirements specified by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. and says: "the majority of these points Mr. Smith conceded when he was recently in London". But of those points he lists Mr. Smith conceded only one, the least significant.
After discussing the question of sanctions he goes on to say: "The problem of Rhodesia is surely not one of principle, but of timing" (of advance to majority rule). But of course it is one of principle. The shortest period I have heard of a Rhodesian Minister publicly considering for advance to majority rule is 50 years, which is simply a euphemism for never.
But it is not a matter of fixing a time, or of saying two years is too short or 50 years too long; it is a matter of intent. And there has been no sign whatever that the present Rhodesian government intends to make any progress.
They canot be expected to. Mr. Wall refers to the white Rhodesians' standard of living, which is far higher than in Britain, and they would he quixotic to jeopardise it willingly. Independence under the present constitution or present regime clearly condemns the African majority to a perpetual state of helstry, while the regime lasts.
The dangers of white settlement in Africa were wellrecognised more than a century ago. Britain's responsibility for the present situation lies in forgetting these dangers and granting self-government to the settlers in 1923. For this abdication of responsibility we are now paying, but it doesn't lessen responsibility for trying to remedy the situation we have created.
Token sanctions, which Mr. Wall seems to advocate, would seem to be giving a blessing to a racialist coup d'etat. It would he simply a final abdication of responsibility by Britain, and the rest of the world ought not to be blamed if it decides to take the situation into its own hands.
Mr. Wall continues: "The rapid hand-over of power in Kenya has led already to the exodus of 50 per cent of the European population of that country." The actual figure is. I believe, nearer 30 per cent than 50 per cent; but in any case, what is wrong with that?
It is surely reasonable that those who dislike living under an African government should leave. Much is made of the fact that Rhodesia is the White Rhodesian's own country, and that he should be able to jive there in peace.
But in fact a majority of adult white Rhodesians were not even born there; one can only wonder that people who seem to fear and distrust the Africans to such an extent should have chosen to live in a country which is nearly 95 per cent African. The solution would seem to be to enable them to leave. not make it possible for them to stay on their own terms regardless of the majority.
In his reference to Kenya, Mr. Wall seems to imply the favourite Rhodesian argument that events in countries to the north of Rhodesia show that Africans are unfit to govern. In view of the shameful and scandalous history of European contact with Africa. it seems to Inc notable how little racialism there is in such recently independent countries as Kenya and Zambia.
Even the European standard of living has not fallen, since African goveenmenls find that they have to pay high salaries for the skills Europeans bring with them. But what does Mr. Wall think makes Africans fit to govern? I cannot conceive of any answer which would justify the present policies of the Rhodesian government.
The Rhodesian situation is a grim one, and I see little hope of a satisfactory and just outcome. I do not think that under present circumstances either minority or majority government can work; the only solution I can see is a period of direct rule by Britain. in preparation for majority rule.
But first the illegal regime would have to be broken, and this should be the aim of sanctions. It seems to me that if Mr. Wilson has erred, it is in the direction of compromise and moderation.
Peter Butterfield Dublin, 9.
We regret that in view of the1 numbers of letters submitted we cannot acknowledge recdpi unless readers enclose postage kr return of letter. if unpublished. or p.c. acknowledgment of receipt of letters.—Editor. "C.H.".