-1 MUST say how much 1 2de lore the fashion in which Bishop Cashman's taste for shooting was reported in the CATHOLIC HERALD of September 13.
Qute apart from the fact that there is surely more momentous news to cover other than such trivia, the article could be misconstrued. Television, current sick humOur, and the modern novel have all conspired to give certain ianocuous words unsoughtfor c nnotations.
I m surprised that your paper :, which presents the ChurO to the modern world, could be so ingenuous as to leave itself open to such misconception.
J. B. Fairgreve-Taylor Souttsea, Hants.
ATi the risk of appearing to wish to dominate your columns I must say that I am surprised by some of your cornmentS in the September 13 issue of the CATHOLIC HERALD on the controversy over Bishop Cashrrian's remarks on blood sports.
I agree with you when you say that you find the bishop's attitude refreshingly frank, but not when you say that you cannot Understand what all the fuss is about. Surely the fuss is about whether or not the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals can be justified.
Moreover, to attribute social prejudice to those who (I fervently hope) are simply concerned to come to the defence of helpless animals seems to
me unworthy, especially as you yourself, Sir, a little later, imply disapproval of the killing of animals for pleasure.
"If a bishop wants to shoot, why shouldn't he?" Come now, as the editor of an enlightened Christian paper you must know the answer to your own question.
J. G. Evans Walsall, Staffs.
HAVE never hunted, shot or fished, but I have often discussed chamois shooting with addicts, and I am sure that Bishop Cashman 'did himself less than justice in his lighthearted suggestion that "bloodlust" was a factor in his enjoyment of shooting. The pleasure common to all sports, including shooting, is derived from the satisfaction of solving a technically difficult problem.
"Our aim", writes Fr. Basil Wrighton, acting chairman of The Ark, the Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare. "is
that animals sl-e,pld be treated with respect an dignity". Do all members of the Ark refrain from eating meat,' poultry or fish? It is absurd to claim that an animal which is killed to provide the pleasures of eating has been treated with more "respect and dignity" than an animal or bird which has been killed to provide the pleasures of shooting.
Arnold Lunn London, S.W.I.
DESMOND ALBROW gratuitously asslinses (September 13) the 'opposition to the "bloodthirsty" bishop proceeds from class hatred. I am a Tory, and my objection to blood sports is based on reverence for life and horror of cruelty.
John H. Talbot Bray, Co. Wicklow.
This correspondence is Now closed.— Editor
ALETTER from Bishop
Dean of Cariboo in your issue of September 13 recalls the various occasions. from 1930 onwards, on which the Lambeth Conference has approved artificial birth control. If he will retrace his steps yet another ten years to 1920, the Lambeth Conference of that year pronounced quite differently, as follows:
"We utter an emphatic warning against he use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers—physical, moral an religious— therein incurred.
I'In opposition to the teaching which, unde the name of science and eligion, encourages married people in the
deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing consideration of Christian marriage, the gift and heritage of children."
On a moral 'issue of this nature, will bishop Dean please explain how such a voile face is possible on grounds other than expediency?
L. R. Shepherd Almondsbury, Glos