Herald praised for coverage of controversy

WE are working journalists who are also members of the National Commission for the Mass Media which was invited by the Hierarchy of England and Wales to advise them on the Church's relations with the Press.
We wish to commend the C'atholic Herald for its policy of recording and reflecting the controversy that has followed the publication of the Papal Encyclical. Humanae Vitae.
Our individual attitudes in this controversy may be as divergent as those of your readers, but we are united in praising you for giving a balanced picture of it, and for encouraging sober discussion and debate.
It distresses us to learn that you have been unfairly criticised for providing a vital service to the Christian cornmunity, and you have even been banned in certain parish churches.
We are confident that this will not deter you from continuing to fulfil what at this time is an essential apostolic duty.
Douglas Brown Tom Burns J. E. Crossley T. F. Lindsay Joe Minogue Marguerite Peacock Patrick O'Donovan Auberon Waugh London, W.I.
HAVING read in your issue of August 23 that you have been bitterly attacked for your coverage on the question of the birth control encyclical, I feel bound to thank you most sincerely for this same coverage.
At the same time I would like to thank Mr. St. JohnStevas for his articles, particularly that in. the issue of August 23, and say how heartily I endorse the points he makes particularly No, 5.
It is this question of communication between all of us Catholics that is so vital and that is often so sadly lacking.
I was really horrified to read of the priest who tore up most of your paper so that it was not available to his parishioners.
If a thing is true and right, it does not matter how much one reads about it from every angle. Discussion can only lead to clarification. Forbidding such reading and discussion strikes me as showing a fear that full knowledge may find a weakness in the argument which many would prefer to remain hidden.
H. A. Lash (Mrs.) Chu rt, Surrey
MAY I, as a regular reader of your paper, show my appreciation of the way in which you have given. space to the expression of different views about the encyclical.
I share the opinion of those who find it difficult to follow the reasoning and accept the conclusions of the encyclical, and I fervently hope, for the sake of the Church, that the teaching on birth. control will be modified in the near future.
This will best come about through open discussion, held in a spirit of charity, and in this you have given an excellent lead.
L. Kuras Conington, Hunts I WRITE to pm/se the stand -Iof your paper on the issues raised by the recent encyclical. It was your clear duty to reflect the sincere feeling on both sides.
You have presented the issues honestly, without undue glamour, and allowed both sides a fair allowance of space. It is indeed sad that some have thought fit to ban your paper and vituperate "Pope Norman," If the truth is on their side, why should they fear discussion, from which the truth must emerge still more clearly? G. J. Sasse Ampleforth, Yorks
I SHOULD like to record my
appreciation of the way your paper has presented a wide coverage of opinion on the recent encyclical.
It is good to know that we have a medium of communication which can be used to discuss issues within the Church and which will reach people who do not have access to the more expensive publications.
G. D. Bowyer Beckenham. Kent I N the same week that the
Russian rape of Czechoslovakia started, I was horrified to read that some Catholic priests have prevented their parishioners from obtaining copies of the Catholic Herald because, apparently, it has not been a "hard liner" (to use the current expression) on the Pope's encyclical on birth C ontrol.
Arthur Godfrey Twickenham