Letters to the editor

Help us to build a political party on strong Catholic foundations

From Mr Paul Kennedy, general
secretary and treasurer of Resurgence


SIR – I noted with great interest the arguments from three Catholic MPs, representing their respective parties, as to the way Catholics should vote in next month’s general election (Feature, April 16).

Jon Cruddas of Labour has a poor voting record on pro-life issues and his party and their union backers are definitely in the abortion rights camp. Sarah Teather of the Liberal Democrats has a good record of voting for pro-life amendments but is a rebel as her party favours abortion and euthanasia. Julian Brazier of the Conservatives has an exemplary pro-life voting record unlike his leaders; and their chairman, Eric Pickles, at last year’s party conference declared that the Conservatives were now liberal.

Jon Cruddas plays on the historical common ground of the Catholic Church and the Labour Party. That is what Obama’s Democrats did and look at their pro-abortion agenda. Common ground is not the same as the common good. Sarah Teather chooses the common good and solidarity but is out of step with her party. Solidarity includes the child in the womb. Julian Brazier highlights the work of Iain Duncan Smith on social justice and, if they were in the ascendancy within the party, there would be some hope for the future.

In a rare show of unity all of their parties in 2005 gave manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the European Constitution. Labour reneged on that promise and with Liberal Democrat connivance approved the Lisbon Treaty. Remember how the Lib Dems abstained on the vote in the Commons and then voted for the Treaty in the Lords? The Conservatives stood by their promise but will not give the people a referendum on our future in the EU. So how solid are their manifesto promises in 2010? All their parties are the zero in the multiplication sum.

For a totally Catholic alternative in the future there is a political party called Resurgence, registered with the Electoral Commission in 2007, whose aims and values are the same as the political criteria for Catholics as set out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We will be a safe voting option for Catholics as we are pro-life and pro-family. Our first priority is to build the party on a strong Catholic foundation, which is why we want to hear from Catholics who have organisational experience and have previously been members of other political organisations or have been trade union activists.

The purpose of Resurgence is to restore and rise again. We have a tridentate strategy which is a vision of inspiration: hope for the future; a springboard of basic policies for renewal – foundations for the future; and a return to enduring and traditional truths and values – back to the future.

If you are interested in finding out more about this initiative, please contact me by post at PO Box 1070, Lincoln, LN4 4WE or go online at www.resurgenceuk.wordpress.com.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Kennedy
Lincoln

You don’t have to be a Newman scholar to write about his ideas

From Mr John Cornwell

SIR – Fr Ian Ker (Comment, April 17) accuses me of a “vicious and virulent attack” on the Holy Father in my essay in the Easter edition of the New Statesman. These are strong words to use against a fellow Catholic writer, especially as he signally fails to justify them.

My essay, which is free and online for those who wish to judge for themselves, is on the paedophile priest crisis, containing criticisms of Benedict’s response to it with contrasting reflections on John Henry Newman. If to be critical of the Pope is to be vicious and virulent then it appears that things are much worse in the Catholic Church than many of us ever thought them to be.

He finds it “bizarre” in me, moreover, that I should believe that Newman would not have found St Jean Marie Vianney a commendable model of priesthood, as did John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. The saint, as Fr Ian surely knows, slept on a stone floor with a log for a pillow, beat himself nightly with a metal scourge, and fed himself on cold, rotten potatoes.

Fr Ker well knows that Newman’s mode of “saying and unsaying” allows one to make all manner of conflicting claims about Newman’s viewpoints. While this means that familiarity with all of his writings is essential before making judgments, he surely cannot mean that his, Fr Ian’s, viewpoint alone must prevail in any disagreement with a lay writer. Yet his article implies that that because he is “Newman’s biographer” and that I am “no Newman scholar” I must hold my tongue. I may not be a Newman scholar, but I first began reading Newman in my junior seminary in the 1950s. I studied Newman for several years under the guidance of the late Mgr Henry Francis Davis, who initiated Newman’s Cause in 1958. For the rest of my life I have read and reflected on Newman’s work, I hope carefully and lovingly.

Like Fr Ian, I too have read through the 32 volumes of Newman’s letters and diaries, plus countless monographs, proceedings of conference, and all the major biographies, including Fr Ian’s.

Fr Ian, I note, takes the opportunity to use his attack on me to promote the reissue of his biography. Was it a mere oversight that he failed to mention my own upcoming biography of Newman, Newman’s Unquiet Grave, to be published by Continuum on May 31?

Yours faithfully,
John Cornwell
By email
From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR – John Cornwell’s attempt to align Newman with liberalism (Report, April 9) was something that Newman in his own day resisted as firmly as he resisted ultramontanism and rigid conservatism.

“Rome’s over-centralisation” might make him uneasy; but his conversion itself was an acknowledgement of Rome’s central role. He did criticise the Vatican, but the curia – not the Pope. He did say of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith – which would, he felt, give him “a rap on the knuckles” if he expressed the theological views that the time demanded – that though only “a clerk ... with two or three other clerks under him” it acted “as an arbitrary military power”.

But of the Pope: “The Church is a church militant, and as the commander of an army is despotic, so must the visible head of the Church be.”

In the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk Newman illustrates the Church’s affirmation of the primacy of conscience. An individual Catholic conscience – as distinct from “the liberty of self-will” – may conflict with a Pope’s non-infallible laws or commands. The grave duty is “with prayer and fasting” to inform conscience and scrutinise motive; only then to follow conscience’s final dictate.

But that Letter also spiritedly defends the 1864 Syllabus of Errors – though distinguishing the Pope’s intention from the curia’s implementation – and argues from the Pope’s thoughtful words of paternal charity on salvation outside the Church. Reciprocally, when the London Oratory accused Newman of violating the Oratorian rule, Pius stood by him against the Congregation.

I doubt if John Cornwell can find one word in Newman critical of Pius IX. Wouldn’t Newman, were he alive today, suffer the same intolerable liberal wooing, the same treatment by conservative officialdom – and regard Benedict exactly as he regarded Pius?

Yours faithfully,
TOM McINTYRE
Frome, Somerset

We have not responded to the abuse scandal in the right spirit. We must stop pointing fingers.

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR – I am concerned that we are not looking at the scandal of abuse within the Church in the right spirit. Far too many are concerned with the reputation of the Church alone. It is because some in the Hierarchy were so concerned about the Church’s reputation that they suppressed exposing guilty priests and reporting them to the police. This not only was wrong, it also gave the evil minority of priests the green light to abuse yet more children.

So the reality is that there is a scandal that shames the Church; it will be by how we address the issue that we might be able to rise above this sick period in the Church’s history.

We must also stop seeking scapegoats. Pointing the finger at simply the media, Jews or gays is not only ridiculous; it also shows we are not willing to accept our own guilt. Even more sickening is that a minority are condemning the abused for speaking out. One person said about the Irish apology by the Holy Father that the abused should “now shut up, the Pope’s apologised”.

I, thank God, have never been abused so I have no idea what long-term damage is done. I hope I will have the good grace and sense not to speak on behalf of the abused by telling them how to react. If they are vocal, so be it – they lived in fear and silence for too long.

To move forward we must as a whole Church repent, apologise again and again and pray not only for the Church but, most of all, for the true victims of this awful scandal.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1
From Mr Brian Richards

SIR – The current anti-Catholic media witch-hunt (Report, April 16) has been brewing for quite some time. We’ve seen forerunners of it in the attempts to link the Church with the Nazi Holocaust, and the hysterical abuse of Pope Benedict in sections of the media over HIV.

On both these issues the facts, which strongly back the Church, have been ignored in favour of hysterical smear campaigns. Rabbi David Dalin, in his excellent book defending Pope Pius XII, pointed out that the real aim of those attacks was to undermine the Church’s current stand on moral issues.

Similarly, the current liberal media feeding-frenzy is based less on a genuine interest in child protection than on the same agenda of demonising the Catholic Church. The whole affair centred on a non-story: a 40-year-old abuse case in which the Pope was never actually involved. But this provided an excuse for two weeks of banner headlines with the sole aim of raising the widespread perception that institutional abuse is unique to the Catholic Church.

The Church response to these assaults has so far been weak. The Church has not loudly protested and demanded fair, principled and unbiased media coverage. Questions we should be demanding answers to on a daily basis are:

1) Why, when such abuse and cover-up occurs at similar rates in all groups and institutions – religious, secular, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and other – is all coverage of institutional abuse focused on the Catholic Church?

2) Why are the facts of similar practices in other institutions never presented in the context of coverage? When Islamic violence is mentioned, for example, a statement is always made that terrorists are a small, unrepresentative minority of Muslims. Such statements are never made with respect to Catholic abusers.

3) Why, if the media are genuinely interested in such abuse, have they not given at least as much time to airing and investigating the many British and American abuse scandals in secular institutions, childrens homes, social services and schools?

The premature shutting down of the Jersey cases is just one example of incidents never properly investigated by the British media. Undue concentration on any one group with regard to a particular crime is an example of the worst form of media bias.

If someone physically attacks the Pope or ordinary Catholics incited by this false reporting, the media will deny all responsibility. The Church needs to take a far more pro-active stand in demanding fair reporting and the disciplining of those groups responsible for the anti-Catholic agenda in much of the media today.

Yours faithfully,
Brian Richards
By email

From Mr Michael Dewane

SIR – All practising and many non-practising Catholics must be greatly saddened by the great harm that has been done to individuals by those in positions of trust and authority within the Church and the shame that has been brought upon the Church as a consequence.

But rather than expending its energy trying to defend, in many instances, the indefensible the Church should now, in a spirit of humility, be looking to build a more positive future.

In my opinion this can only be achieved, with credibility, by the convening of a Third Vatican Council which would enable the Church to redefine its mission in the world, to re-focus itself as well as revitalise and re-energise all those hard-working priests, nuns and others who have devoted themselves to the work of the Church as well as inspire and give fresh hope to millions.

At the time of the Second Vatican Council the mantra on the lips of many was Ecclesia semper reformanda. It seems to me there has been little of that since the Second Vatican Council, 45 years ago. If ever there was a need for this call to be taken up again it is now.

I fear, of course, that the Vatican establishment may not welcome another Council to be convened and for that reason it will be necessary for the “demand” for this to come from others – from the laity, priests and national bishops’ conferences and, I might add, the media.

To have relevance and credibility it should be a Council that is not confined just to bishops but should have representatives from all sections of the Church.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Dewane
By email

From Mrs Ann Farmer

SIR – It is highly unlikely, but if Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens succeed with their call for the Pope to be arrested when he visits this country (Report, April 16) and put on trial for the vile crimes of paedophile priests, His Holiness would undoubtedly be found not guilty; indeed, if the tables were turned, it would be his accusers who would be tried and found wanting.

But we should resist the temptation to issue arrest warrants against campaigning atheists; after all, the amusement afforded by their inept antics (such as the bus advertisement proclaiming that there “probably” is no God) must outweigh the benefits to society of their incarceration. Catholics everywhere eagerly await their next Big Idea.

Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer
Woodford Green, Essex

An open question

From Mr John Hanrahan,

Convenor of the Medjugorje Apostolate

SIR – Donal Foley’s letter (April 16) claims the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) was sceptical about the Medjugorje visions, based on the local Bishop of Mostar’s recent ad limina meeting with Pope Benedict. This assertion conflicts with the statements made by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, a long-standing confidant of the Pope as a CDF member, who reported that the outlook for Medjugorje was promising in relation to the new commission, following his very recent meeting with the Pope on his return from Medjugorje.

Donal Foley’s claim that the former Yugoslavia bishops’ conference Zadar declaration 1991 was “essentially negative” is also incorrect. As investigations into Medjugorje had already been passed to the Vatican, the CDF secretary, Cardinal Bertone responded by stating that “although it was not proved that these events were supernatural it did not mean to say that they were not supernatural”, meaning that the process of discernment continues. He also said that “the Bishop of Mostar’s opinions were his own, which he was entitled to”. Archbishop Alessandro D’Errico, the Apostolic Nuncio to Bosnia-Herzegovina, also spoke about the Pope’s recognition of the spiritual fruits which had taken place among the clergy in Medjugorje.

The list of names appointed to this commission, the first of its kind in the history of the Church, represent some of the most qualified in theology and human sciences, addition to the five cardinals, all offering significant levels of professional expertise and experience.

Yours faithfully,
John Hanrahan
Surbiton, Surrey

Workers will come From Mr Antony Dowling

SIR – While accepting Canon Burke’s point (Letter, April 9) that Mass should not be rushed, I would want to draw a quite different lesson from the report to which he refers (“Speedy Mass boosts congregation tenfold”, March 5). People come to the Mass not because it is speedy – after all, it is a weekday Mass and they are not obliged to be there at all. They come because it is celebrated early enough in the day for them to get to work afterwards.

The ubiquitous 10am weekday Mass caters almost exclusively for the retired and leaves most workers starved of spiritual nourishment. Provide an early enough Mass and the workers will come.

Yours faithfully,
Antony Dowling
Newcastle upon Tyne

16 April 2010

The scandals are a call for us to attend Mass rather than avoid it

From Mr Brendan Kennedy

SIR - A number of friends have said they will no longer attend Mass because of the scandal of clerical abuse of minors, the cover-up by the hierarchy and the seeming lack of compassion for the abused children. One person said that the scandal hasn't damaged her faith in the spiritual because the Church did not own that, and never will.

I, too, have found this whole episode very upsetting but I will continue to attend Mass. I agree that my spirituality is my own and no church can take that from me. It will take more than the offences of the hierarchy to keep me from attending church.

I express my faith and gain spiritual nourishment through attendance at church. As I stand at Mass I unite with everyone who has been badly let down and hurt by these scandals, and I admit I am not above sin, just as the person beside me is not a walking saint. I also realise that the priest who stands at the altar is also a man who has been hurt and badly let down by these scandals. It is this unity in our common need of salvation that fulfils the words: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst." The sins of others serve as a reminder of our personal need of God's love. We are like the good thief at Calvary who prays: "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

I believe our personal spirituality is nourished through an acknowledgement of our weakness and our dependence on God. The scandals are a cause for participating at Mass rather than avoiding it.

Yours faithfully,
Brendan Kennedy
Belfast


From Mr Alec McCluskey

SIR - Kevin Greenan's proposal (Letters, April 4) for a universal day of repentance in the light of the child abuse scandals currently afflicting the Church is surely an eminently sensible one. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the precise allegations being levelled against the Church and its bishops in the media, very real harm is being done to the reputation and authority of the Church by the widespread perception that there has been a lack of frank acceptance and repentance for the Church's role in the atrocious acts committed against so many children.

In practice, however, Mr Greenan's proposed universal day of repentance is likely to prove difficult to arrange, and would require the involvement of the Vatican. What ought surely to be possible in this country, however, is a service of repentance at which substantial numbers of Catholics, both clergy and laity, could publicly mark our revulsion and dismay at what has occurred. The obvious location for such a service would be Westminster Cathedral, and the obvious celebrant would be the Archbishop of Westminster, though one hopes that many of the Bishops of England and Wales would wish to attend in a very public demonstration of our collective sentiments of repentance.

Surely it would be possible to arrange such a service at short notice, before further damage is done to the Church's standing in this country, and at all events before the Holy Father's visit in the autumn.

Yours faithfully,
Alec McCluskey
London, NW1


From Mr John Kenny

SIR - If the image of Scotland Yard could survive its corruption scandals of the 1970s, which led to the early retirements of hundreds of suspect officers from a strength of 30,000 and cast doubts on the moral fibre of those tasked with the job of supervising, then there is no reason why the image of the Vatican cannot similarly survive its current problems of having a couple of thousand priests being found wanting in a work force of about 400,000 priests and brothers.

It took the calibre of a man like Sir Robert Mark to sort out the Metropolitan Police. Perhaps some cardinal of a similar calibre should be catapulted into Rome in the near future to do a similar job for the Catholic Church.

Yours faithfully,
John Kenny
By email

Negative judgments

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR - Regarding John Hanrahan's letter (April 9)_about the new Medjugorje commission, it should be pointed out that Benedict XVI, while he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was fully conversant with the "Medjugorje phenomenon", but it is questionable if he recognises its "special importance" in the way that Mr Hanrahan implies, apart from a pastoral concern for pilgrims.

As for the Pope finding it difficult to believe that "there can be so much opposing information about the same matter" this is essentially at odds with what Bishop Peric, the Bishop of Mostar - the diocese in which Medjugorje is situated - reported following his ad limina visit to the Pope in February 2006. Regarding Medjugorje, the Pope indicated that for some time the CDF had been sceptical as regards the claims of daily visions made by some of the visionaries.

The facts are that both the original bishop of Mostar, Bishop Zanic, and his successor, Bishop Peric, have been resolutely opposed to Medjugorje, while the Zadar declaration by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia in 1991 was also, if understood correctly, essentially negative. It said that after nearly 10 years of alleged visions, it could not be affirmed that "supernatural apparitions and revelations" had taken place. In other words, after thousands of alleged visions none could be verified as being supernatural. Surely it is stretching things beyond the bounds of credibility to maintain that the Yugoslav bishops were genuinely holding out some hope that, perhaps after several thousand more alleged visions, they would be able to come to a positive conclusion.

It is only natural that committed Medjugorje supporters such as John Hanrahan should attempt to put a positive gloss on recent announcements concerning it, but the reality is that all the indications are that, given Pope Benedict's expressed position on Medjugorje, and previous judgments about it, that a negative declaration is the most likely outcome of the commission's deliberations.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Chilwell, Nottingham

A debt mountain

We signed the letter because we believe that parents are the first educators of children

From the Very Rev Leo Chamberlain OSB

SIR – I am among the hundreds of signatories to the letter in the Sunday Telegraph of March 28 to which your correspondent refers (Report, April 2). It should not be assumed that the signatories are discontent with the amendments to the Children, Schools and Families Bill secured by Bishop McMahon and the Catholic Education Service. Nor should it be assumed that the Secretary of State’s comments about the duty of a Catholic school under the Bill as amended, for example to provide access to abortion services, are accurate. He might (probably does) wish this were so but it is not the case. Provided the governors and responsible staff of Catholic schools fulfil their duties, this is simply not in question. SPUC and others who fear the amendments are insufficient are, I believe, having listened carefully to their arguments, mistaken.

The governing body of a Catholic school is the employer and has the power to ensure that teaching and pastoral care are in accord with the religious character of the school. At primary level, schools will continue to work carefully in support of parents.

At secondary level, teenagers are not dummies, and are fully aware of questions of morality and behaviour. They have, in a Catholic and supportive context, the opportunity to accept for themselves the teaching of the Church on these issues, and to learn the depth of thought that lies behind Catholic convictions. Thanks to the amendments made to the Bill, if it becomes law this will remain emphatically the case.

The issue raised in the carefully drafted March 28 letter promoted by the Family Education Trust (FET) is broader. None of the safeguards regarding Catholic schools are in place for families with children in state schools. The signatories of this letter are of a variety of religious faiths, and of different professions.

The letter’s essential concern is for the common good, what belongs to everyone by virtue of their common humanity, to quote the recent document from all our bishops. It is Catholic teaching that parents are the first and principal educators. The FET letter makes it clear that this fundamental principle has broad support, and that its undermining by this Bill is an undermining of the basis of a free society.

Lord Alton, who was not a signatory to the letter, spoke in the House of Lords on the Bill on March 8. He was not simply speaking for Catholic families when he said: “The Bill therefore represents a radical appropriation of power by central government, enabling them to dictate teaching on a matter over which many parents have strongly held moral or religious convictions. The Bill would further erode parental influence in an area which many parents would assert is a matter for the family rather than for schools”.

In sum, and for other reasons too, this is a bad Bill, Lord Alton citing the relevant clauses 10 to 14 as “some of the most unenlightened clauses that I have ever encountered in my 30 years in Parliament”. As over the Catholic adoption societies, an aggressive secular lobby is seeking to impose its values upon us all. I myself have a particular concern both for practising Catholic families with children in state schools and for the larger question of proper support in our society and law for parental responsibility. This is a concern on which Catholics are united with others of good will, and it would be best for everyone to refrain from looking for disagreements among ourselves.

The best hope for now is that the Bill will fail for lack of parliamentary time before the election, but contest on the public square will continue. We have a right and duty to speak not only for ourselves but for the common good.



Yours faithfully,
Leo Chamberlain
St John’s Priory
Easingwold, York

God’s infinite power

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR – Regarding Henry von Blumenthal’s response (March 26) to my letter on Darwinism (March 12), he rejects the position that the Bible teaches a virtually instantaneous creation, saying that “the Bible makes itself clear that the creation account is not to be taken literally, since the division into night and day precedes the creation of the sun”.

However, it is clear from Genesis that the creation of light was one of God’s first acts of creation, and that the sun, as a celestial body, was only created on the fourth day. What is the problem with taking this literally, apart from a misguided reliance on imaginary evolutionary scenarios? God’s power is infinite – he can create in whatever order he chooses.

Regarding the days of creation, the Bible does actually indicate that they were consecutive in saying “the first day”, “the second day”, and so on. The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis – yom – in practically every instance in which it is used in the Bible, means an ordinary 24-hour day. Also, the fact that evening and morning are mentioned in connection with each day, indicates that we are dealing with normal days.

It may be “obvious” to Henry von Blumenthal that these days are “figurative expressions”, but it wasn’t so obvious to the Church Fathers, many canonised saints, or the vast majority of believers over the last 2,000 years.

To give just one example, this is what St Basil the Great had to say about the third day of creation: “At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up ... Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy, and the so-called garland plants ... All came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth.” St Basil – a Doctor of the Church – clearly believed that the Genesis days were real days and that creation was virtually instantaneous.

With the psalms, the expression, “a thousand years are like a day” in God’s sight, is meant to be figurative of the fact that God is outside of time – it doesn’t mean that we are to regard the Genesis days as being a thousand years long or any other arbitrary figure. And in fact passages from the Psalms indicate quite the opposite: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth.” (Psalm 33:6, 9). In other words, this passage teaches how everything came to be quickly – God speaks and it happens – and not as a result of a long evolutionary process.

Regarding Cain and Enoch, the Patriarchs lived very long lives, and had very many children, and so there is no reason why a city named after Enoch couldn’t have been built by Cain – it’s all down to how seriously we take the Bible.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Chilwell, Nottingham

Loss of credibility

IThe Holy Father should not have to face the abuse scandal alone. We should stand beside him

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR - The seemingly endless scandals relating to child abuse within the Church are both devastating and shameful (albeit that the guilty were/are a very small, sick minority of priests and religious). The question of the suppression of the exposure of these evil individuals being either protected or ignored by the hierarchy, to protect the reputation of the Catholic Church, is something that fills me with both bewilderment and anger.

The latest story of 200 deaf children in the United States being abused is utterly repulsive.

Not only have the lives of countless thousands of children been affected, the trust and love of the vast majority of our decent priests and religious is now virtually in tatters as the public hear the word "priest" and think of child abuse. How the Church will recover, none of us can truly say. What is for sure, it will be decades before this shameful period is in our past. Why should the Holy Father stand alone and apologise?

We as a Church people need to have a universal day of repentance, standing beside the Holy Father and asking those hurt and abused to forgive us. Pope Benedict should not bear this burden alone.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1

From Mr A Todd

SIR - Pope Benedict's pastoral letter to the Irish Church (Report, March 26) acknowledges "a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties..." The Holy Father urges bishops to "fully [implement] the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse".

Last year's Murphy report implies that canon law may be part of the problem as well as part of the solution. A lack of legal clarity is described in the report: "Even the best attempts of competent people to discover the norms which, according to canon law, should be applied to cases of sexual abuse were in vain."

This situation led "on occasion... [to] chaos and confusion within the [Dublin] archdiocese and between the archdiocese and Rome". Within this context concern is expressed, for example, about an interpretation which applied "fraternal rebuke and reform rather than legal process", and about an "obsessive concern with secrecy" in which "the provisions of canon law which deal with secrecy... [were] often spoken of as a reason for not informing the [state authorities] about known criminal offences".

The report also mentions the Irish bishops' inability to obtain for their 1996 Framework Document the Vatican recognition which was necessary to give this the force of canon law. Procedures specified in the document included mandatory reporting of suspected abuse to the civil authorities, which Rome considered incompatible with existing canonical norms.

Is it time for canon law to be reformed, or at least clarified, to provide the legal certainty and understanding necessary for protecting the human rights of children throughout the Church and, in particular, to enable local mandatory reporting procedures to be clearly enforceable?

Yours faithfully,
A Todd
Linslade, Beds
From Fr Bryan Storey

SIR - A friend has pointed out that the Catholic Church, in which a small fragment of tens of thousands of known sexual abuse occurs each year, is especially blessed to be the only one in which the media are really interested.

Yours faithfully,
Bryan Storey
St Paul the Apostle,
Tintagel, Cornwall

A change is coming

From Mr John Spencer-Silver

SIR - Oona Stannard misses the point (Letters, March 5). She informs us of what the Catholic Education Service (CESEW) will expect of Catholic schools, and of the expectations of all Catholic headteachers. But the point is: what changes will the Government expect to see in Catholic schools under the new law, assuming that the Bill is passed? Miss Stannard does not say.

Also, contrary to your report (March 5), her letter does not contradict Ed Balls's assertion that Catholic schools will have to explain how to "access an abortion".

Mr Balls's comment gives a clue to the Government's stance generally. Has Miss Stannard come to a conclusion as to how sex and relationship education will change under the new law? She avoids specifics by telling us that, at some stage in the future, the CESEW will employ someone to draw up guidance on how to implement the new law. Perhaps Miss Stannard does not know how things will change.

When all is clear, it will be too late.

Yours faithfully,
John Spencer-Silver
London SW11

Loss of credibility

Is the Catholic Church being singled out unfairly over child abuse?

From Mr Andrew Gray

SIR - The recent reports of widespread accusations of paedophilic attacks carried out by Catholic clergymen should be set in context. According to the figures from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome there are approximately 400,000 male priests and religious (men living in religious communities) in the Church. From this number, the Holy See in the last 10 years has received complaints of a sexual nature of approximately 3,000. Of this number, approximately 60 per cent were related to sexual abuse of minors. This covers multiple cases from individual priests/brothers and extends also to include past decades.

The existence of one case of sexual abuse is one too many and brings disgrace and shame on those who perpetrated such heinous attacks on the young and those in authority who did not implement the Church's own provisions in canon law that deal with pederasty. They will surely face a Judge from whom one cannot hide and prevaricate; the Church's Founder speaks eloquently of "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depths of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

To launch attacks upon the person of Pope Benedict XVI and the hierarchy of the Church in general is to betray the true "outrage" of the liberal media and the dissenters within the Church herself. The Church and her teachings are the real focus of the attacks of those who wish to see the liberalisation, ie the change, of the Catholic Church to accommodate the zeitgeist of the western world. Those who have welcomed the "sexualisation" and "liberalisation" of culture in the West since the 1960s have only one enemy left who is foolish enough or brave enough to take a counter-cultural stand: namely, the Catholic Church. The Church in her teachings has attempted, however imperfectly, to remain true to the Judeo-Christian ethic that sex and marriage are intrinsically linked and that human life is sacred from conception until natural death.

We do not hear the same concerted outrage where sexual abuse takes place in other institutions or religious communities.The fact remains that most cases of sexual abuse of young people take place within the family unit and not in the presbytery.



Yours faithfully,
Andrew Gray
Edinburgh


From Mr Tom van der Linden

SIR - You have no doubt received the letter addressed to the Irish people. May I suggest that the following may be equally effective if Catholics in this country try it:

"I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the Sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace."

Yours faithfully,
Tom van der Linden
West Ewell, Surrey

Dangerous words

From Fra Fredrik Crichton-Stuart

SIR_- Quentin de la Bédoyère's article on contraception (Comment, March 12) was extremely dangerous, not from any ill-will on the part of the author but because of trying to squeeze too large a topic into too small a space. Let me illustrate what I mean by making one point for each of his three questions:

1) In quoting statistics for the advantages of condom use, he quotes only those for users who "always" use them, ignoring the figures for those who are more careless. At the same time he also ignores the words of the very Edward C Green whom he quotes in support of question three. Dr Green said that there is a "security" element to condom use, whereby the fornicator, feeling safe behind his condom, multiplies his sexual acts and actually increases the risk of transmitting infection.

2) While it might be technically arguable that the Church's teaching on contraception relates only to marriage, this is only in so far as the Church teaches that the marriage act belongs exclusively inside marriage. In fact, a reading of Humanae Vitae makes it clear that Pope Paul VI is teaching about both inside and outside marriage. This is best illustrated by his awful prophecies of the evils of the contraceptive mentality: the breakdown of marriage, the rise of pornography, the use of women as mere sex objects and so on; just consider, too, how horribly true they are in our present times.

3) Mr de la Bédoyère gives the impression that because people are weak and are going to break the Church's teaching on chaste living, we have somehow to find a way of minimising their sin, by making condom use legal. What a contrast to the Holy Father's approach, which is entirely based on God's love for us and on our position as made in his image; people capable of the highest endeavour (think of the martyrs) and not simply rutting animals with appetites that cannot be controlled.

Yours faithfully,
Fredrik Crichton-Stuart
Edinburgh


From John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)

SIR - John Mulholland (Letters, March 19) defends the Catholic Education Service (CES)'s role, and praises Quentin de la Bédoyère (Comment, March 5), regarding the Government's sex education plans. Does Mr Mulholland know what the CES regards as Catholic teaching on sex education? If so, could he please tell me? I'm unaware of any CES statement which actually explains Catholic teaching regarding sex education. There isn't a single reference on the CES website to the Magisterium's key document on sex education, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (Pontifical Council for the Family). And Mr de la Bédoyère's writings are replete with assertions contrary to Catholic teaching in this area.

Amendment 70 - which in any case only applies to faith schools - says nothing not already in the Children, Schools and Families Bill. One suspects that's how the CES wants it, because the CES supports vocally the Government's sex education ideas. Oona Stannard of the CES helped draft - and welcomed as "a positive step forward" - the Government's draft sex education guidelines, which are a cornucopia of anti-life ideas. The CES has confirmed that Catholic schools will follow those guidelines. The CES has also stated that it will not support any Catholic school that maintains the right of parents to withdraw children aged 15-plus from sex education, if the Bill passes.

Succour is neither to be found in the answer given by Baroness Morgan, Ed Balls's junior minister (Report, March 19). She was clear that "schools will have to teach their pupils where and how to obtain health information". The Government interprets "health information" to include information on how to access abortion and contraception. What the Government appears to give with one hand, it takes away with the other.

Yours faithfully,
John Smeaton
By email

A sense of sin

From Mary Smith

SIR - Thank you for Fr Charles Dilke's insights into Holy Communion (Feature, March 19).

Nowadays it is not Jansenism we have to worry about, where people are obsessed with whether or not we are in a state of grace - in any case, how can we possibly know if we're in a state of grace? No, it's the opposite: everyone goes to Communion at Mass, believing they're not "joining in" otherwise. And hardly anyone bothers with Confession. We have lost a sense of personal sin.

Yours faithfully,
Mary Smith
London SW16

We need your name

From Mr Joe Lomax

SIR - I thank Alan Bancroft for his excellent letter (March 5) on the dangers to our Faith beliefs. May I make this extra point concerning the two petitions currently being presented concerning the forthcoming trip of the Holy Father to this country?

The Secular Society of Britain issued a statement: "We urge the prime minister to clarify that his government disagrees with the Pope's opposition to women's reproductive rights, equality of homosexuals in society, to stem-cell research and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV / Aids." They have the support of about 30,000 signatures in stating: "We, the undersigned, asked the Prime Minister to propose to the Catholic Church to pay the expenses of the papal visit and to release the taxpayer from the burden of $30 million that it will cost."

The counter-petition which has currently about 26,000 signatures states "We, the undersigned, welcome, with all our hearts and souls, the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom, for the liberty and well-being of the Church in our country and most especially for the spiritual benefits and pastoral care to be offered to all, whatever their beliefs."

May I ask that all who feel that they ought to will go on to the website www.petitiononline.com/PopeinUK/ petition.html and add their signature to the petition.

Yours faithfully,
Joe Lomax
Bolton, Lancashire

In the beginning

From Mr Henry von Blumenthal

SIR - Donal Anthony Foley is no doubt right to draw attention (March 12) to the evils of Darwinism, but I do not understand why he thinks that "the principle that God created everything virtually simultaneously is quite clearly taught in the Bible".

On the contrary, the Bible makes itself clear that the creation account is not to be taken literally, since the division into night and day precedes the creation of the sun. The text does not say that the days of creation were directly consecutive or that they were 24 hours long. They are obviously to be taken as figurative expressions of ages, just as elsewhere the Psalmist says "a thousand years in Thy sight are as yesterday". Even on a literal reading, the Bible cheerfully mentions that Cain left his parents, married and built a city, which he named after his son Henoch. Does Mr Foley seriously contend that the entire city of Henoch was populated with Cain's offspring? Or are we at this point to abandon the literal reading and take "city" to mean a hamlet?

Yours faithfully,
Henry von Blumenthal
Lameschmillen, Luxembourg

Slavery to sainthood

From Mr Gerard Kelly

SIR - The story of Augustine Tolton, the first black American priest, whose Cause is to be opened (Report, March 19), is an inspiring one. Perhaps some film-maker might consider Fr Tolton's story from slavery to sainthood as a suitable subject?

Yours faithfully,
Gerard Kelly
By email

Contrasting views of A K Chesterton

From Mrs Ann Farmer

SIR - A K Chesterton was in the 1930s the right-hand man and biographer of the Fascist leader, Oswald Mosley, and edited his magazine. In his biography of Chesterton, Ideology of Obsession, David Baker cites some "particularly nasty examples" of his British Union of Fascists writings of 1937, including "a gang of greasy gesticulating Jews ... this alien rabble"; "the Judaic-Bolshevik Soviet slave-state"; and "blood-cousins of the maggot and the leech".

In his The Apotheosis of the Jew, in the same year, AKC claimed: "[T]he entire tragedy of the Jew ... is due to his devastating sense of inferiority ... Because of this terrible knowledge there is aroused in him a compensatory itch to dominate the world ... he could not fail to conquer were it not for the inevitable arrogance that sooner or later attends upon his half success..."

In his biography of Mosley, AKC complained of his leader's refusal "to be drawn into adopting any racial line of attack on [the Jews], holding that an Empire composed of many different races, castes, colours, and creeds precludes any possibility of racial persecution, even if persecution were held to be otherwise desirable, which he denies". Much later, AKC claimed that no editor of the Blackshirt was ever dismissed or even rebuked for anti-Semitic attacks; in 1939, at a public meeting, the Jewish Chronicle reported that "[t]he wildest speech was made by A K Chesterton, who gave his delighted audience - mainly middle class - full value for their money by speaking ... of 'greasy little Jew-boy pornographers' ".

The old defence of "some of my best friends are Jewish" was actually true of AKC: Joseph Leftwich (Israel Zangwill's biographer), approached him after being impressed by some of the "non-anti-Semitic aspects of Chesterton's fascism"; after the war they published The Tragedy of Anti-Semitism, of which in 1950 the Jewish Chronicle said that AKC "quotes the same rubbish [as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion] in no less erudite terms. Mr Leftwich undoubtedly has all the answers; but Mr Chesterton does not accept them. One cannot penetrate into such minds."

Clearly the war and the Holocaust had done nothing to change AKC's views, and he went on to become a director of the National Front. This was in contrast to his second cousin, G K Chesterton, who was always at pains to praise Jewish superiority, while blaming their alleged shortcomings on lack of a national territory, something in which AKC was not interested. GKC also began to modify his view of "Jewish finance", and his early warnings against Nazism (in the early 1930s, around the same time as Winston Churchill's) were sparked by Nazi anti-Semitism. In fact, AKC later recalled with bitterness having approached his more popular cousin for an anti-Semitic alliance, only to be ignored.

Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer
Woodford Green, Essex


From Dr K R Bleach

SIR - For one whose prose was described by the Sunday Business Post as "dry, overly academic [and] likely to prove inaccessible to the general reader", I must say I found Dr Douglas's reply (March 5) to my letter (February 19) about A K Chesterton to be eloquently tendentious.

It is certainly true that Chesterton's League of Empire Loyalists (LEL) opposed immigration in the 1950s and 60s, although he refused to allow this to be a central plank in League campaigning. Members were told to steer clear of the street-level agitation that occurred in Notting Hill and elsewhere. Any quarrels should be with the politicians. When, on separate occasions, the publisher Anthony Blond, Canon John Collins and the Sheffield Star implied that AKC involved himself in the incitement of racial hatred - an allegation echoed by Dr Douglas - he successfully took legal action.

So, far from having done "everything he could ... to make the lives of non-white and Jewish Britons a misery", Chesterton denounced such attacks as "vileness ... appealing to the lowest of human instincts". A split occurred in the LEL when AKC refused to bow to some extreme elements that wanted membership restricted to whites only. His view prevailed that anybody should be eligible to join what was intended as an Empire-wide movement.

Your readers will now be tiring of our mutual harrumphs. Suffice to say I maintain my view that A K Chesterton was a staunch patriot, dedicated to preserving British independence in a world dominated by the twin imperialisms of the dollar and Communism. Yes, his journalism could be polemical - even inflammatory by today's PC standards - but we must remember he was the product of a more manly and robust era.

Writing from the rarefied atmosphere of his private liberal arts college in upstate New York, I wonder if Dr Douglas is so conditioned by the values of this present age that he is simply unable to understand A K Chesterton in the context of the times in which he fought so valiantly - as a soldier, journalist and political campaigner.

Yours faithfully,
K R Bleach
Brewood, Staffordshire

Tax is not a subjective issue for Catholics

From Mr Chris Bain, director of Cafod

SIR - Like Professor Philip Booth (Letters, March 12), I too believe that banks should be held financially responsible for their actions, but I also believe that taxation is a necessary tool to create a more equitable world. This is not just a "subjective political issue": Catholic teaching has long accepted that economic structures which deny the poor justice can be sinful, and therefore are immoral. Indeed, in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate Pope Benedict XVI says these structures must promote distributive justice and the common good.

The Robin Hood Tax is not designed to regulate banks. It is a small tax on financial transactions which could raise hundreds of billions of pounds to fight poverty, protect public services and tackle climate change. This is why Cafod supports it.

It's also impressive that Prof Booth has such a grasp on my political views which close friends and colleagues struggle to define! He cites my support for home ownership for the less well off. I know little about the US situation but it's true: I did support Margaret Thatcher's plan to sell council houses to tenants, though I did want her to build more homes with the proceeds. It's also true that I applaud the support for transaction taxes by the Conservative front bench, and indeed by the Government itself.

Yours faithfully,
Chris Bain
London SW9

Do not forget the people of Sudan as they vote on their future

From Adrian Hatch, CEO of the International Refugee Trust, and Dr Peter Doherty

SIR - On a recent visit to Nzara in south Sudan to assess the progress of various projects undertaken by the Comboni Missionary Sisters with the help of International Refugee Trust (IRT) we became aware of the deep anxiety and fear for the future held by many of those we met.

The problem between the north and south of Sudan is as old as Sudan itself. What has become known as the "southern problem" is a web of complex issues ranging from inequalities in development to inequalities in opportunities across the two regions. The south is socially, geographically, religiously, culturally and economically orientated to much of Africa south of Sudan. The forthcoming elections in April are extremely complicated and will be spread over a number of days. Very little sensitisation has taken place and we fear that many who have the right to vote will not know where or how to vote. Early next year a referendum will take place which will decide the future of this largely Christian country. But the people of the south are being manipulated by the north under the slogan "unity will bring peace". To emphasise this view it would appear that the north is engaged in destabilising the south. It does this through various tribal arrangements and encouraging the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) to attack communities in the Western Equatorial region of south Sudan. While we were there the LRA struck with its usual ferocity at a village less than 40 miles away. Until recently, politicians from the north and south disagreed what percentage of southerners voting for succession would be required in the referendum. The north was insisting on 75 per cent and the south on a clear 51 per cent majority. The north has now accepted 51 per cent but it requires at least 60 per cent of those registered to actually vote. Over the past few weeks there have been several cases of people being caught buying large amounts of voter registration cards.

We are, however, happy to report that the Comboni Sisters and their helpers are encouraging those who have taken refuge in their area from the LRA to look to the future with optimism and to that end and with our help they are encouraging them to actively farm this most fertile area of Africa.

Yours faithfully,
Adrian Hatch
Peter Doherty
By email

A vital amendment

From Mr John Mulholland, chairman of governors at Blessed Thomas Holford Catholic College

SIR - For all of us who have some responsibility for Catholic secondary education, Quentin de la Bédoyère's eminently reasonable article (Comment, March 5) was most welcome and timely. There are many challenges facing Catholic education in today's secular and materialistic world but none greater than in the field of sexual relationships and morality.

Mr de la Bédoyère may well be right to say that "the credibility among the young towards the Church's sexual teachings could scarcely be lower than it is today". He is certainly right to call for teaching which faces facts, unpalatable though some are, and which acknowledges other viewpoints, while not merely affirming Church teaching but explaining the positive reasons for it.

We have had a sex and relationships programme for several years and the related policy is reviewed annually by our governing body. The teaching addresses all the difficult issues but puts them clearly into the context of Catholic teaching. It is taught sensitively by mature, experienced staff, has parental support, and there is evidence of it achieving beneficial outcomes.

The Children, Schools and Families Bill, which has received its third reading, would, as originally drafted, have made it unlawful to teach these topics in a Catholic moral framework as we presently do. That grave prospect has been averted by the vitally important amendment, accepted by the Government and carried by an overwhelming majority of MPs in the recent vote.

It is clear that the amendment resulted from effective lobbying by Oona Stannard and the Catholic Education Service. For that extraordinary achievement they deserve not the intemperate and unfair criticisms which some have voiced but the heartfelt thanks of those of us grappling with these difficult issues.

Yours faithfully,
John Mulholland
Altrincham, Cheshire


From Mr Aaron Karl Taylor

SIR - Oona Stannard's letter (March 5) fails to address the concerns in the minds of many Catholics in our country regarding the apparent capitulation of the Catholic Education Service in the face of the Children, Schools and Families Bill. Schools Secretary Ed Balls has stated clearly on national radio that Catholic schools "must explain how to access an abortion". Miss Stannard avoids addressing the question of whether Catholic schools will, in fact, do this, and instead tells us that Catholic schools will not "promote" abortion.

Of course, Catholic schools should not promote abortion, but neither should they provide information on how to access it. It is as foolish as telling young men that prostitution is wrong and then providing them with contact details of a local brothel and information on how to access its services.

In effect, the school's insistence that it does not "promote" abortion becomes a red herring: a platitude designed to hold at arm's length those who seek to uphold the teachings of the Church on the sanctity of human life.

Yours faithfully,
Aaron Karl Taylor
Penzance, Cornwall


From Fr Stephen Boyle

SIR - Oona Stannard says "Catholic schools uphold the teachings of the Church in all that they do". Such a bold statement is now what is at issue.

The debate on the Children, Schools and Families Bill has led to concerns with regard to present sex and relationships education in Catholic schools. One example of concern is the scheme for primary school, Journey in Love. In Year 5 there is explicit language, and in Year 6 there is an explicit explanation of the sexual act, both with texts that could not be printed in this paper. Such a scheme undermines Church teaching on parents being the prime educators of their children in this area. Yet it is promoted in many Catholic schools.

Just this one example puts into question Miss Stannard's statement quoted above. The lack of recognition shown by the Catholic Education Service to legitimate concerns means one can have little confidence that it will provide answers to this moment of profound crisis due to the aforementioned Bill.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen Boyle
Good Shepherd church,
New Addington, Surrey

The TAC's membership is really rather small

From Mr Robert Ian Williams

SIR - I must correct certain mistakes in a recent report (March 12) about the mass conversion of Anglicans. The so-called Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) has never been part of the Anglican Communion in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This denomination results from the merger of two tiny groups which had left the Episcopal Church of the USA in the 1970s, and formed a church calling itself the Anglican Church in America (ACA).

None of its parishes have as yet voted to join the Catholic Church and the recent meeting in Florida was only the decision of its bishops. It is a known fact that most ACA parishes will not choose to convert when they are actually consulted - the reason being that many of the adherents are former Catholics.

Indeed, several of the clergy are former Catholic priests, including their present primate, who is also twice married and divorced. Under the conditions of the Ordinariate former Catholics do not qualify for membership or ordination. Furthermore, many ACA clergy have received no formal theological education and this will be a problem for Rome.

As for there being 400,000 worldwide members, this all greatly exaggerated. In reality there are probably less than 40,000 members. It is virtually impossible to find out any reliable information about its Indian branch. The Irish branch wants nothing to do with a movement to Rome and consists of less than a hundred individuals.

In Britain, there are less than 200 members, and there are certainly not 20 parishes as your report states. In Australia the group is equally small and to call the tiny groups who meet for worship "parishes" is a gross exaggeration.

As for the prospect of 200 Forward in Faith parishes converting in England, that too is unfounded. Indeed, the head of Forward in Faith, who is also a former Catholic, asserted the day Apostolic Constitution was released, "our bluff has been called".

Yours faithfully,
Robert Ian Williams
By email

Old-fashioned poetry

From Fr John McIntyre

SIR - I am sorry that I failed to make clear to Dr Newton my objection to "from the rising of the sun to its setting" (Letters, March 5). I agree with him that it means "from when the sun rises to when it sets", and sounds nice - quite the nicest thing amid the wreckage of the first paragraph of Eucharistic Prayer III. My objection is that it mistranslates the Latin. This, especially when referred to its original context in Malachi 1:11, has to mean "from where the sun rises to where it sets", or as the New Jerusalem Bible puts it, "from farthest east to farthest west".

This is not the worst instance of what happens when the new text translates words rather than meaning. The ear attuned to Latin and its uses of the genitive readily understands pax hominibus bonae voluntatis as meaning "peace to people who are the object of [God's] goodwill'. But the word for word English version in the new text will always convey to the listener the purely heretical (Pelagian) "peace to people who have goodwill".

Can nobody do anything about such things? I fear not: we shall all bow our heads and try to make the best sense we can of the new text for our people. The mistake was made years ago in accepting criteria for translation which sought to reflect Latin phrases, repetitions and rhetoric at the expense sometimes of meaning, as above, and always of the virtues of good English - concrete rather than abstract, short sentences, minimal connectives, smooth and speakable rhythm, and

so on. Dr Newton says the new translation "must be approached as poetry". But what sort of poetry? It is almost a century since English poetry left "poetic diction" definitively behind and and embraced the living language. Using that language with its rhythms and characteristic virtues was clearly a preoccupation of the authors of the current liturgy, whatever its faults, whereas the new text has other priorities. The apparently word for word "Through Him and with Him and in Him", for instance, ignores the fact that the repeated et is a much stronger and nuanced connective than the weak, all-purpose "and". Nothing can quite get the effect of the Latin, but our current liturgy's very English device of omitting the connective - "Through Him, with Him, in Him" - comes close.

In explaining away the new text to our people, the liturgists will not be much help. If people know that our own pioneer liturgist Adrian Fortescue said that Et cum spiritu tuo "means simply 'and with you' ", and that the great Jungmann said "We render its full meaning by saying simply 'And with you too' " , they may wonder why we are changing back from a clear and correct version to one that puzzles them.

Yours faithfully,
John McIntyre
Baillieston, Glasgow

A counter-campaign

From Professor Jack Scarisbrick, national chairman of Life

SIR - Felicity Smart (Letters, March 12) urges that there should be a pro-life response to the brazen abortion advertising on the London Underground. Indeed there should. We in Life are desperate to mount a counter-campaign to tell women about our unique pregnancy care service and thus to help them avoid the clutches of the abortion industry.

But how to pay for this? We have launched the Life Underground Poster Campaign. May I beg Catholic Herald readers to contribute wholeheartedly to it? Donations to Life, Leamington Spa, CV31 1ES, please.

Yours faithfully,
Jack Scarisbrick
By email

St Catherine offer From Mr Gianfranco Corsi

SIR - I read with particular interest the piece about St Catherine of Bologna (Saint of the Week, March 5), as I happen to be in possession of a history of her life written in 1619, which includes her work "Weapons Necessary for the Spiritual Battle", a letter and a handwritten imprimatur.

It is written, of course, in quite dated language (with a few bits of Latin) but comprehensible to anyone with a good knowledge of Italian.

It is not in perfect (but still quite good) condition, with handwritten notes on the first internal page about what seems to be a duplication of the miracle of Bolsena, this time in Ferrara on Easter Sunday in 1274.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe the endless miracles in her life, but it is certainly an interesting read.

I have no use for this book, which came to me from a great-great-uncle priest of mine, and would gladly post it to anyone who might find it of interest.

Yours faithfully,
Gianfranco Corsi
Sunderland

The breadth of sin

From Mr Mark Dowd

SIR - Dominic Scarborough's plea (Comment, March 12) for priests to stick to preaching about sin and leaving out subjects like climate change might have more going for it if it did not fly so clearly in the face of recent Church pronouncements.

The neat little divide between personal sin and the rest of existence does scant justice to a distinctly Catholic incarnational view of the world. Our collective shortcomings as falling short in our human vocation to act like creatures made in the image of God resulted in Vatican officials announcing in 2009 that several new social sins need to be added to the original seven deadly sins such as lust, greed and sloth. It was a classic case of what the Second Vatican Council called aggiornamento: so now we can rightly add drug abuse, pollution, social injustice and experiments that harm human embryos in distinct categories of sin. Priests should not avoid these subjects but they do need to avoid the trap of talking about them in purely secular language.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Dowd
By email

We can help fund an order to save our parish

From Kate Osborne

SIR - There are few places of Catholic worship in Britain as exquisite as Chilworth Friary church (Letters, March 12). It must be a very great wrench for the Franciscans to leave such a beautiful place. However, many parishioners feel that it is not just the buildings that matter here, but our parish community that deserves to survive.

We are a strong and vibrant community who have generously and faithfully supported the Franciscans at Chilworth. They, in return, have provided inspiring spiritual leadership and pastoral care. Now, they are leaving and there is a great sense of loss on both sides. As a parish, we have to face the truth that, unless another order or spiritual foundation comes forward which can supply a priest, we too will have to disperse.

Chilworth Friary has always inspired extraordinary commitment and devotion from the people who worship there. People like the retired headmaster, who voluntarily tends the extensive grounds, aided by "a poor man" who lives in a tent in nearby woods but comes daily to help. People like the lady whose husband died in the D-Day landings and who ran the tea tent at the annual fete until she was over 90, baking all the cakes herself. Then there are the parents and teachers of the children's liturgy whose work has turned the Friary into a centre of excellence for young people. Of course, talented and committed people will be very welcome at other parishes, but there are those among us who are ill, or bereaved, or very elderly and we want to be able to continue to support each other.

Surrey is often a place of spiritual rather than material poverty. As it stands our parish is in a position to contribute financially to an incumbent order. We hope and pray that we will be allowed to do so and that suitable candidates will approach Fr Michael Copps, Minister Provincial, OFM.

Meanwhile, we plan for our annual fete on June 13. This year, it will be an expression of thanksgiving for our spiritual journey with the Franciscans and an expression of hope for our future here. You are most welcome to come and see the energy, commitment and spirituality that make this place unique in our eyes and who would, like us, cherish it.

Yours faithfully,
Kate Osborne
By email

Advertising life

From Mrs Felicity Smart

SIR – I am dismayed by the number of posters on London Underground escalators advertising Marie Stopes’s abortion service. Poster advertising is expensive, but surely pro-life organisations, which genuinely offer balanced advice and practical support, could cooperate with each other in producing at least a few.

Yours faithfully,
Felicity Smart
Twickenham, Middlesex

Give the Tories credit

From BN Parker

SIR – Stuart Reid (March 5th) says that both the main parties are the same – secular liberals. This is not so. Cardinal Keith O’Brien accused Labour of an unrelenting attack on family values. In spite of David Cameron’s mixed message, a majority of Conservative Lords and MPs have consistently voted against the legislation condemned by the cardinal. Mr Reid’s opinion is more to do with his avowed anti-Conservative stance than reality.

Yours faithfully,
BN Parker
By email

Darwinism can be blamed for many of the ills of the 20th century

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR – In response to my letter on evolution (February 12), John Bunting claims that the killing of millions under Communism and Nazism was not due directly to Darwin’s theory of evolution, but resulted from a “gross distortion and abuse of the theory” (Letters, February 19).

But Communism was clearly very heavily influenced by Darwin’s idea: shortly after the publication of his book, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Friedrich Engels in which he said of Darwin’s Origin of the Species: “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”

Similarly, with regard to Darwin and Nazism, there is abundant evidence of a link between Darwin’s ideas and the racism inherent in Nazism. German anti-Semitism seems to date from the 1870s, when the idea of natural selection was used to demonise Jewish people.

So Communism was given a tremendous boost by Darwinism, and Nazism was directly influenced by it, so it is accurate to describe their excesses as a fruition of Darwin’s thought.

In response to Mr Bunting’s question as to whether traditional Church teaching has favoured creation rather than evolution, historically, this is self-evident. Thus, the principle that God created everything virtually simultaneously, and there has been no significant evolutionary change since then, is quite clearly taught in both the Bible and Tradition, and was accepted until relatively recently within the Church as a whole.

What has happened, though, is that this position has largely been ignored in the rush to embrace “modernity”, and is itself symptomatic of a lack of faith being expressed by many Catholics – that is, faith in the Bible as God’s revealed Word.

It would take too long to detail all the necessary points in favour of believing in creation rather than evolution, but briefly, apart from Genesis, the teaching on this point in the New Testament couldn’t be clearer. Jesus accepted Genesis as real history and expected his followers to do the same, and likewise St Paul regarded it as historical, with a particular focus on Adam and the fact that his sin was the cause of death: “Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin” (cf Roman 5:12-21). This statement itself puts paid to the notion that there was death of any sort before the sin of Adam, and thus the idea that there was a period of millions or billions of years before the first man (cf also 1 Tim 2:13; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 45-49). And this is to say nothing of the teachings of the Church Fathers, and the rulings of various Church Councils.

So I do mean what I said, and in doing this I am only pointing out that this has been the firm belief of the Church as a whole for the vast majority of the last 2,000 years.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Chilwell, Nottingham

A prophetic novelist

A prophetic novelist

From Mr Edmund P Adamus, director of the Department for Pastoral Affairs of the Diocese of Westminster

SIR – It was most encouraging to see the article by Joanna Bogle on Brian Gail and his increasingly popular novel Fatherless (Interview, February 26). I endorse everything that is said about the merits of this book for enabling us to see the far-reaching impact of the contraceptive mentality on the Church and society. It is the kind of “page-turner” which, when the reader is receptive to such a spiritual work, exhorts from within to want to do something about the problems illustrated. The urgent nature of men, in particular, to see the damaging effects of the “culture of death” upon all their womenfolk is intrinsic to the prophetic message of Malachi 4:6, where God instructs that Elijah will “turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers”.

I am paraphrasing, but John Paul II was right when he said that the vocation of every man is the dignity of every woman and the calling of every woman is the integrity of every man. In that vein I am delighted that the annual Theology of the Body lecture for the Westminster diocese organised by the Department of Pastoral Affairs will have Mr Gail as its keynote speaker on the evening of September 14 in Westminster Cathedral Hall, addressing the theme: “Men are Called to Greatness.” It is hoped that Mr Gail will also have an opportunity to address a gathering of clergy during the same day also.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
London SW1

The subtle Ed Balls

From Mr Alan Bancroft

SIR – When Oona Stannard (letter, March 5) says, doubtless rightly, that Catholic schools do not and would not promote abortion, I think she refers to promotion expressed in words. But Ed Balls is not requiring us to say: “Abortion and contraception are now all right, boys and girls.” His undermining of Catholic moral teaching is more subtle than that. He will permit us to say “we believe as a religion” that those practices are wrong. But listen to the rest of what he said on Radio 4.

What “Catholic faith schools” will not be allowed to do is “teach only one side of the argument”. They must “explain how to access an abortion”, “how to access contraception”, “how to use contraception”. These are his words. So, having taught that abortion and contraception are wrong, the schools are required to explain how to do wrong. Schoolchildren have minds. When condoms are brandished in the classroom, the pupil is almost bound to receive the subliminal message: “This cannot really be a no-no, else why are they showing me the way to do it?” No school gives detailed descriptions of how to burgle houses.

In such-like ways, not expressly but through oblique suggestion, the Church’s teaching, given by divine authority, is transmuted into a mere “view”; something which the Church teaches but which it’s up to you pupils to decide about. Thus what should be a no-no becomes a valid option in pupils’ minds. That is precisely Mr Balls’s idea; he doesn’t hide it. Cannot Miss Stannard see all this?

Incidentally, the CES hasn’t yet explained why the giving of sex information to young children in primary schools is being supported, when Rome says that at that age it is premature and “compromises the spiritual, moral and emotional development” of the child.

Yours faithfully,
Alan Bancroft
By email

From Fr John Cahill

SIR – Last week saw the advance of the Children, Schools and Families Bill through another parliamentary stage and with it the Church in our country has reached a moment of profound crisis. Statements from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Catholic Education Service suggest that the Church in our country is supporting this legislation.

We await a denial of these claims or some further clarification. This Bill opens the way for secondary legislation that will enforce the explicit naming of sexual organs in classes of five and six year olds; that will establish erroneous “safe sex” propaganda as a compulsory part of the secondary curriculum, that will promote an equivalence of marital and deviant forms of sexual intimacy; that will force secondary schools to “sign-post” abortion and family planning services where children are immorally advised without the knowledge or consent of their parents. In respect of this latter provision, it is apposite to note that material co-operation in the procurement of abortion is a mortal sin which falls under the canonical censure of automatic excommunication.

The logic in the suggestion that any of this can be done in a “Catholic way” escapes me. But it is not just an issue for Catholic schools. What about the Church’s duty to defend and promote the truth for the whole of society? Rather than being seen to support these moves the Church ought to be shouting its opposition from the rooftops.

Yours faithfully,
John Cahill
Holy Souls,
Scunthorpe


From Mr William Charlton

SIR – I hope Catholic schools do not need Ed Balls (Report, February 26) to tell them to teach their pupils that there are “different views” on such matters as the existence of God, abortion and marriage. If young people are to defend the Church’s teaching they must be fully acquainted with the arguments on the other side: that was clearly understood in the Catholic schools where I was taught. But perhaps our Education Secretary should be concerned that state schools which do not have a religious character may “ignore the issues or teach only one side of the argument”. Catholics have nothing to fear in an open debate either on their religious beliefs or on their ethical principles; but there is a real danger that the state system is raising a generation that is wholly ignorant on these matters.

Yours faithfully,
William Charlton
West Woodburn, Hexham

From Mrs Ann Farmer

SIR – Since, at the behest of Schools Secretary Ed Balls, children under the age of consent are now to be taught where to get an abortion (and, in the case of contraception, how to use it), one presumes they will also be directed to the nearest retail outlet for cigarettes and alcohol and shown how to smoke and drink “safely”.

Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer

How to really save our Catholic state schools

From Mrs Daphne McLeod, chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice

SIR – SIR – I am pleased to see Fr Aidan Nichols OP’s article (Comment, February 26) on Catholic education because the failure of the 40-year experiment with “modern catechetics” must be one of the most serious problems facing the Church in this country today. Unless it is solved soon we will be left with no priests and few laity. Like all serious problems, the first step towards a solution is to admit there is a problem and Fr Nichols did this, so clearly we must be grateful to him.

But I am not sure his “radical proposal” to concentrate on a few good schools while trying to organise weekly parochial classes for most youngsters in the evenings or at week-ends is the most practical or would be the most effective. I would suggest we look at dioceses in America and Australia where bishops have addressed this problem so successfully they now have full seminaries and churches packed with young people in stable marriages living good Catholic lives.

What these bishops did was remove the totally inadequate religious textbooks and the advisers/inspectors who wrote and promoted them and provide the teachers with sound Catholic textbooks which were not only faithful to the Catechism of the Catholic Church but which also which taught the Faith clearly, comprehensively and without any ambiguity.

I, also, found this worked well when I was made a headteacher in 1979. I had a young staff who, through no fault of their own, had not been well taught themselves so working with the approved texts was disastrous. But they were good teachers and practising Catholics so when I replaced the approved textbooks with good books from America they soon began to teach the Faith extremely well. Teachers work from textbooks so a great deal depends on the books they are provided with.

Fortunately, although we have no sound English religious textbooks, there are good ones in Australia and America, the best probably being the Faith and Life Series for youngsters from five to 14 which is available from the CTS. It not only covers everything, including devotions, but it also provides the teacher with lesson plans and worthwhile work sheets which consolidate the teaching. Moreover, schools find children and teachers enjoy working with this.

So, before we dispense with any of the schools which cost our forefathers such great sacrifice, I suggest we try providing our children and teachers with sound Catholic textbooks.

Yours faithfully,
Daphne McLeod
Great Bookham, Surrey

The Robin Hood tax is not an item of faith

From Professor Philip Booth, editorial and programme director of the Institute of Economic Affairs

SIR – By describing opposition to a transactions tax on banks as “morally bankrupt”, Chris Bain of Cafod (Report, February 26) makes the mistake of raising issues that are clearly reserved for prudential judgment to a moral status they do not deserve. I do not regard myself as morally bankrupt because, in good faith, I am suspicious of such a tax.

Without being morally bankrupt, it is possible to genuinely believe that a transactions tax on banks will lead to further complexity in the banking system – as banks try to avoid the tax – and will ultimately be a tax on bank customers and not on their profits.

Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that the securitisation markets and transactions that have brought such trouble arose in the first place because people of Chris Bain’s political views created the large mortgage giants in the US in order to promote home ownership among the poor. Intervention has unintended consequences.

As well as this pragmatic view, it is also possible, without being morally bankrupt, to hold the view that banks should be held financially responsible for their mistakes by ensuring that there is a better mechanism for winding banks up and that this is the key reform of the banking system that is needed. Banks will then no longer be a risk to the taxpayer. If this is done, banks will take fewer risks and the rationale for a so-called “Robin Hood tax” will disappear.

The laity continue to be ill-served by Catholic agencies in the western world that cannot distinguish between subjective political issues reserved for prudential judgment and objective moral issues. There seem to be too many mis-classifications in both directions.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Booth
London SW1

Please help us to keep our parish alive From Emma Duveen Conway

SIR – At a recent meeting at Chilworth Friary, Surrey, parishioners were told by Fr Michael Copps (Minister Provincial OFM) that the the Franciscans were withdrawing from their mother house and from the parish (Report, February 19). It put an end to months of anxious speculation but there were few dry eyes in the church. Three years ago my family returned from living abroad. We had faced many challenges and needed a spiritual home.

At the friary the feeling of welcome, warmth and spirituality was wonderful. Our eldest immediately volunteered to serve on the altar. Why is going to Mass at Chilworth so very special? It is architecturally beautiful, with a wonderful choir and exquisite flowers, but it is the vibrant community which fosters a truly spiritual experience. It radiates simple spirituality and a sense of the Divine. Mass at Chilworth is a time and place where you glimpse God and his message – an experience often lacking in this fast and, frequently, superficial world. Chilworth is a shining example of Catholicism at its best: young and old together. At Sunday Mass I recently counted 38 children leaving the church to take part in the superb children’s liturgy. At the children’s Christmas Mass there were more than 120 children present.

With few vocations in Britain, we must look to the future through our children and parishes like Chilworth, where they feel happy, supported and valued, part of a loving home. The thought that this positive work may end when the friars withdraw is terrible. This fear is bringing the parish together in prayer and hope, that a religious order able to support the parish will come forward and keep alive this beacon of positive spirituality and hope for the future of the Catholic Church. We will give them all our support. Please pray with us.

Yours faithfully,
Emma Duveen Conway
Compton, Surrey

Rejecting the Council

From Mr Alan Pavelin

SIR – It would be extremely interesting to know just why your correspondent Graham Moorhouse (Letters, February 26) is so anxious to persuade us that Vatican II had no legitimacy. Does he really want to return to the days of “error has no rights” and the “Anti-Modernist oath”?

Does he seriously think that, if Vatican II were suddenly declared invalid and all its reforms abandoned, the world’s billion or more Catholics, most of whom were born after that Council took place, would happily remain in the Catholic Church? Just what, precisely, does he object to?

Yours faithfully,
Alan Pavelin
Chislehurst, Kent

Come, Your Holiness

From Mr Arthur Read

SIR – The National Secular Society has an online poll against the Pope’s visit which has already attracted over 20,000 signatures. A poll supporting the visit only had, at the time of writing, 1,200. Will readers with access to the internet please sign this petition, get others to do so and ask your PPs to mention it in their parish newsletters with the address www.petitiononline.com/ PopeinUK/petition?

Yours faithfully,
Arthur Read
By email

Advertising life

From Mrs Felicity Smart

SIR – I am dismayed by the number of posters on London Underground escalators advertising Marie Stopes’s abortion service. Poster advertising is expensive, but surely pro-life organisations, which genuinely offer balanced advice and practical support, could cooperate with each other in producing at least a few.

Yours faithfully,
Felicity Smart
Twickenham, Middlesex

Give the Tories credit

From BN Parker

SIR – Stuart Reid (March 5th) says that both the main parties are the same – secular liberals. This is not so. Cardinal Keith O’Brien accused Labour of an unrelenting attack on family values. In spite of David Cameron’s mixed message, a majority of Conservative Lords and MPs have consistently voted against the legislation condemned by the cardinal. Mr Reid’s opinion is more to do with his avowed anti-Conservative stance than reality.

Yours faithfully,
BN Parker
By email

The Children, Schools and Families Bill does not require our schools to promote abortion

From Miss Oona Stannard
chief executive and director of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CESEW)

SIR – CESEW expects all Catholic schools to continue to impart authentic Catholic teaching under the Children, Schools and Families Bill (Report, February 26).

Catholic schools uphold the teachings of the Church in all that they do. This applies, in particular, to all work about sex and relationships education (SRE). They robustly teach, for example, about the sanctity of life and do not and would not promote abortion.

We do not expect the situation to change in the light of the Children, Schools and Families Bill which, after all, enshrines principles of “equality”, “the importance of both rights and responsibilities” and “acceptance of diversity”; all principles which should uphold our rights in imparting authentic Catholic teaching. We will not seek to withhold facts in SRE and, indeed, discussion on the many sensitive matters in SRE is likely, in age appropriate ways, so that young people will understand that there are different perspectives but know what the Church teaches and expects of us.

Those other professionals or volunteers who the school invites to contribute to the curriculum are expected to work within the parameters of the school’s distinctive ethos and its values. Our headteachers take their responsibilities to ensure this very seriously and, in turn, require that their expectations are respected.

CESEW will be commissioning work to offer guidance to schools on implementing the statutory requirements of SRE.

Yours faithfully,
Oona Stannard
London SW1

From Mr Robert Pellegrinetti

SIR – As chair of governors of a Catholic voluntary-aided (VA) primary school, I am writing to point out that Fr Aidan Nichols (Comment, February 26) has got it wrong when he says: “Despite the obligations of governors to the bishop, the actual employer of staff in the state sector is the local authority...” In voluntary-aided schools (Catholic, Church of England, or whatever), the actual employer of staff is the governing body. In every Catholic VA school, a majority of the governing body (the foundation governors) is appointed by and accountable to the bishop. Catholic governors control staff appointments, and Catholic bishops have authority over Catholic governors.

If Fr Nichols feels we do not have a sufficient number of believing and practising Catholic teachers for our schools, independent and state, would it not be rather more radical to reverse his idea and reduce the number of our schools in the independent sector? Our resources could then be concentrated on our state schools, avoiding the need for the fees and bursaries which his proposal envisages.

Perhaps Fr Nichols could research the number of our schools and teachers in each sector, and give us figures for what he regards as “vocationally committed Catholic teachers”, before he takes further his proposal to start shutting down our schools.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Pellegrinetti
London NW5

From Mr Alan Bancroft

SIR – Remarkable incomprehension is behind the state’s insistence that faith schools will not be permitted to suggest that “their views” on matters such as abortion are the only valid ones. Seemingly, the Government finds it incomprehensible that Catholics believe that Our Lord is God incarnate and that His Church’s teachings therefore are of divine authority whatever Parliament says.

Mr Balls appears to think a dismissive wave of the hand is an appropriate response to what we deeply believe. Why do he and his colleagues assume the right to make us substitute their relativistic beliefs for our religious beliefs by an Act of Parliament?

Our bishops (not the CES) must protect our young people from the state’s abusive devaluing of the Church’s teaching on abortion and contraception. If the House of Lords fails to repulse the attack on religious freedom, then in fidelity to Christ and in defence of our youngsters, the bishops will surely declare that they are unable to comply, that our schools will not comply, with the direly unjust elements of the new legislation.

As men like John Fisher would tell us, when something is quite unacceptable you do not accept it. A perverting of Catholic moral teaching is no small matter. How to access abortion has no place in any Catholic school.

I respectfully advance the following remark, made and repeated on the Catholic blogosphere: it much impressed me. “It will take one bishop to say that he is not going to have this kind of corruption in the schools of his diocese.” I’m sure all our bishops will take that admirably firm line, and I greatly doubt that the state will arrange executions on Tower Hill in consequence.

Yours faithfully,
Alan Bancroft
By email

From Fr John Cahill

SIR – Last week saw the advance of the Children, Schools and Families Bill through another parliamentary stage and with it the Church in our country has reached a moment of profound crisis. Statements from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Catholic Education Service suggest that the Church in our country is supporting this legislation.

We await a denial of these claims or some further clarification. This Bill opens the way for secondary legislation that will enforce the explicit naming of sexual organs in classes of five and six year olds; that will establish erroneous “safe sex” propaganda as a compulsory part of the secondary curriculum, that will promote an equivalence of marital and deviant forms of sexual intimacy; that will force secondary schools to “sign-post” abortion and family planning services where children are immorally advised without the knowledge or consent of their parents. In respect of this latter provision, it is apposite to note that material co-operation in the procurement of abortion is a mortal sin which falls under the canonical censure of automatic excommunication.

The logic in the suggestion that any of this can be done in a “Catholic way” escapes me. But it is not just an issue for Catholic schools. What about the Church’s duty to defend and promote the truth for the whole of society? Rather than being seen to support these moves the Church ought to be shouting its opposition from the rooftops.

Yours faithfully,
John Cahill
Holy Souls,
Scunthorpe

Lift Haiti’s burden

From Brother Denis Claivaz

SIR – It may have escaped the attention of many that the IMF’s €81 million (£73 million) “highly concessional” and “interest-free” emergency assistance for Haiti is actually a loan. Full repayment will be due after a five and a half-year “grace period”. Interest will accrue from 2011.

Surely history has taught us that Haiti does not need more loans. Haiti needs unconditional grant aid. Given the role of the international community in that country’s miserable history, there is a moral obligation to ensure that Haiti’s debts are immediately and unconditionally forgiven.

Christine Lagarde, the French minister of finance, was among the first to encourage world leaders and money institutions to cancel Haiti’s debt. Significantly, this is from a minister whose country had illicitly and immorally collected a huge amount of money from Haiti for the privilege of her simply being recognised as a sovereign state.

The international community is faced not merely with the challenge of helping Haiti to recover from an earthquake. It is faced with the duty of embracing the opportunity to empower the people of Haiti to build their country anew.

Yours faithfully,
Denis Claivaz
Edmund Rice International,
Geneva, Switzerland

A Florentine rebel

From Mr Alan Frost

SIR – I expect Mary Kenny’s article praising “rebel saints” (Comment, February 26) triggered agreement among many readers. Sometimes these saints and saintly figures set far better example than those in high ecclesiastical office.

One such is a personal hero, the great Dominican Girolamo Savonarola. Certainly he was controversial but look at the papal court in his time. He stuck to the truth and fearlessly proclaimed it from the Florentine pulpits, even when this was far from popular or even fashionable in style of delivery.

If he was with us today he would not be popular with many in authority, though he might be with the people at large. He would not rein back from addressing the very grave sins of our time such as abortion, euthanasia and sodomy, irrespective of the insidious euphemisms and neologisms promoted in the media and the immoral legislation of governments.

Ultimately, judgment is in the highest court of all.

Yours faithfully,
Alan Frost
By email

The verses that show the Bard’s Catholicism

From Mr Edmund Matyjaszek

SIR – The helpful correspondence following Milo Yiannopoulos’s selective article (Comment, January 15) on Shakespeare’s Catholic allegiances still does not address the central issue of language, the core of Shakespeare’s craft and achievement.

I’ll give my jewels for a set of beads,
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
My gay apparel for an almsman’s gown,
My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
My sceptre for a palmer’s walking staff,
My subjects for a pair of carved saints

Shakespeare has the deposed Richard II make this lament in his play, published in 1597.

The 1992 authoritative study of the period by Professor Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, in exacting detail shows how all these devotional objects were banned and made illegal from 1560 by a relentless government.

By the time Shakespeare was born in 1564 to be familiar with “beads, hermitage, palmer’s (pilgrim’s) staff, carved saints” was to be familiar with forbidden objects, possession of which could lead to severe penalties. Where did Shakespeare get this natural familiarity that allowed their incorporation in his plays 30 years after the event?

In Hamlet, published in 1603, the Ghost speaks of being:
confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg’d away


Yet the 39 Articles of the Church of England, drawn up in 1571 when William was just seven years old, make it quite clear: “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory ... is repugnant to the Word of God.”

Then there is his familiarity with friars, with the practice of priests, with saints’ statues, with holy virgins and nunneries and monks (all suppressed before he was born).

As Eamon Duffy states: “By the end of the 1570s, a generation was growing up which did not look back to the Catholic past as their own, but another country, another world” – exactly the opposite of everything conveyed by Shakespeare’s language, so at ease with outlawed devotional and religious practices.

The question is not just a literary one. Shakespeare’s Henry V epitomises English patriotism. The modern critic Tom Paulin has spoken of this issue leading to “the concealed heart of … English identity”. The offer of the Anglican Ordinariate brings a contemporary urgency to the question of what constitutes “the English Church”. We are undergoing a wholesale revision of our understanding of “England”. No exploration is more timely than of the part played by our national poet and his “Catholic” language.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Matyjaszek
Ryde, Isle of Wight

Why all the fuss?

From Sarah Rowe

SIR – Judging from the examples I have seen, I look forward to the introduction of the new approved English translation of the Mass and am surprised at the fuss surrounding it (Feature, February 12). One hopes it will not be too long before we can at last buy new hymn books that contain not just hymns ancient and modern, but uplifting Mass settings for congregations to sing, using the latest English translation together with traditional Latin plainchant favourites.

My experience as an ordinary Mass-going Catholic is that the current translation does not do justice to the Mass. It seems to me to be imprecise and lacking in richness. To name a few examples, “peace to his people on earth” omits the description “of good will”, the response “and also with you” does not mention the word “spirit” and “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you” leaves out the words “under my roof”, which recall the well-known biblical passage showing the faith of the Roman centurion whose servant needed healing.

Also, I would have thought that the occasion of Pope Benedict’s visit to our country would be an ideal opportunity for composers to rise to the challenge of writing a beautiful new approved English Mass setting suitable for ordinary congregations.

George Palmer’s recent composition for the World Youth Day, Sydney, Mass (Parish Setting) uses the new translation and contains many attractive melodies for the congregation, enabling everyone to participate.

Yours faithfully,
Sarah Rowe
Hasfield, Gloucestershire
From Dr John Newton

SIR – I am rather surprised to find that one of the phrases that Fr John McIntyre (Letters, February 19) singles out as “objectionable” in the new translation of the Mass is “from the rising of the sun to its setting”. Not only is this phrase perfectly understandable, but it is already in use in the liturgy, in the Grail translation of Psalm 112 (113).

The phrase’s alliteration and assonance are quite beautiful, and I would labour the point that the new translations must be approached as poetry. When they are, texts such as the new doxology of the Eucharist Prayer, with its repeated “and”s, can become alive with meaning.

The phrase “from the rising of the sun to its setting” is also more precise than Fr McIntyre’s alternative, “from dusk to dawn”. There is a difference between the half light of dawn and the precise moment the sun comes up – as anyone will know who has risen in the early hours to see the sunrise.

Yours faithfully,
John Newton
Cheam, Surrey

A K Chesterton was an apostle of racism

From R M Douglas, Associate Professor of History, Colgate University

SIR – Dr K R Bleach’s loyalty to the memory of his dead friend A K Chesterton (Letters, February 19) is commendable; his perversion of history so as to whitewash the reputation of one of Britain’s leading apostles of racism much less so.

As Dr Bleach says, Chesterton may have “shed his Mosleyite affiliation in 1938”; that did not prevent him the following year from describing the struggle against Nazi Germany as “the War of the Jews’ Revenge”.

As head of the League of Empire Loyalists, he would proclaim “Racial Discrimination” to be “a clean and wholesome thing”. As president of the National Front (NF) during its first four years of existence he did everything he could within the law to make the lives of non-white and Jewish Britons a misery to them, and lent his name and talents to the promotion of a body of thugs who pursued the same objective outside the law.

As for Dr Bleach’s unintentionally comical attempt to assimilate A K Chesterton’s “political, social and economic outlook” to G K Chesterton’s “support for Catholic social teaching”, one can only wonder how he squares this with the former’s recruitment as a National Front parliamentary candidate of the Rev Brian Greene, a Paisleyite divine who declared the NF’s policy to be “against world government and the world church, which is what the Catholic Church claims to be”.

If “public courage” consists of the lifelong parading of vicious, un-Christian and sinful ideologies of the kind explicitly condemned by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as “incompatible with God’s design” (§1935), A K Chesterton undoubtedly possessed it in spades. But the “nobility” Dr Bleach attributes to him is of a kind to be found beneath the heading for that term in no known dictionary.

Yours faithfully,
R M Douglas
Hamilton, New York

26 February 2010

Grave divisions are undermining the Pontifical Academy for Life

From Christine de Marcellus Vollmer, member of the Pontifical Council for the Family

SIR – I am writing to ask you to correct the erroneous impression given in your report by Carol Glatz (Report, February 19). This is vital as the matter concerns the Magisterium and my position as an academician.

Ms Glatz’s report on the recent assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life represents Archbishop Fisichella as claiming that “the academy is moving forward and working to speak as a unified body” and that the mood of the assembly itself was “serene and calm”. Though Ms Glatz records that she interviewed me on February 9, that is, two days before the assembly began, what she quotes from me will be taken by many readers as evidence that I agree with the picture of sweetness and light which Archbishop Fisichella seeks to convey. Regrettably, that picture is false. What I said on February 9 was that I considered that the “clarification” of the Church’s teaching on the wrongness in all circumstances of direct abortion, which was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 11, had settled the doubts about the Church’s teaching created by Archbishop Fisichella’s article of March 15 in L’Osservatore Romano. That article had been greeted by those seeking liberalisation of abortion laws as clearly implying that there were difficult cases in which it was reasonable to leave it to the discretion of the doctor whether to perform an abortion. On February 9, when I was interviewed, I believed that everyone in the academy would have accepted that the “clarification” made Church teaching abundantly clear and that the confusion for the Catholic public had been cleared up. When, however, the academicians who assembled on February 11 sat down to hear Archbishop Fisichella address them, they found themselves listening to him claim that Academicians who had sought public retraction of the erroneous view conveyed by his article had been acting from “spite” and engaged in a personal attack on him. He went on to further claim that the “clarification” vindicated his article of March 15, thus sticking to his original position in favour of “therapeutic” abortion. I did not meet any academician who thought our president’s response that of a person who was seeking to restore genuine unity to the academy. His address merely re-ignited the crisis which has overshadowed the life of the academy for the past year. The hopeful view that I gave Ms Glatz on February 9 was decisively undermined on February 11.

Several of us, in answer to a query by LifeSiteNews.com, wrote a statement to correct the false impression that was given by our president. In the interest of time we did not seek to collect more signatures, but are sure that an important number of academicians feel as we do.

Yours faithfully,
Christine de Marcellus Vollmer

By email

Confounded by evil

From Fr Bernard Boylan

SIR – On the subject of “assisted dying” (Report, February 19), it is commonplace for the promoter of the cause to castigate “believers” who “so presumptuously claim to have a monopoly on morality”. They point out, correctly of course, that moral philosophy started with the ancient Greeks, who debated their “ethical dilemmas” in a totally pagan ethos. Moreover, “holy religion”, they state, has some very strange applications as one hears of fanatically religious suicide bombers for instance, killing religious pilgrims – men, women and children too – in the pursuit of their “holy cause”.

Atheism as such is not the root of the problem. (In fact there is nothing so patently absurd and pseudonymous as some scientist lecturing at us on God’s non-existence – like the proverbial Bank of England selling us fish and chips.) But it is the all-prevailing money culture of the day, materialism and the ambient secular dialectic that suffocate the sense of the sacred and isolate the spirit of faith.

The specific element, however, in the human experience that the current secular mentality cannot address is, as ever, the abiding problem of evil: its real presence in this world and its part of ourselves, undermining, polluting and corrupting. The integrity of human life itself is now at issue and its sacredness has become a total irrelevance to the modern mind.

We lose the sense of our lives as “gift” at our peril, our life which we hold on trust until the time comes for us to surrender it to the One who is the author of all life. And we measure ourselves always against that fisherman’s humble prayer by the Lake of Gennesaret in the presence of him who confronted the evil of our world in his own person: “Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man.”

Yours faithfully,
Bernard Boylan

Hampton, Middlesex

From Mr Graham Moorhouse

SIR – Frank Bowe (Letters, February 12) claims that Vatican II was a General Council just like all the other General Council. This oft-repeated claim does not become any truer merely because it is oft-repeated.

Whatever Vatican II was, it was absolutely nothing like any other General Council. All other General Councils of the Church have been clear exercises of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Vatican II was not. Indeed, it never even aspired to be – a fact repeatedly confirmed by all the post-conciliar popes. It would perhaps be less misleading if this Council was called the first world Synod of Bishops.

As for criticising General Councils, not all General Councils have been useful. Some have been a complete waste of time. The Second Council of Constantine caused more problems then it solved. It took a pope of the stature of St Gregory the Great to quietly bury it. The jury is still out on Vatican II but I have no doubt that some future pope will do a similar job on Vatican II.

In the meantime, the Church is somewhat like an alcoholic. There can be no cure until she admits that she has a problem, and the problem is Vatican II. Yours faithfully,
Graham Moorhouse

Dartford, Kent

From Michael Questier, Professor of History at Queen Mary, University of London

SIR – Leafing through recent copies of the Herald, as one does, I noticed a kerfuffle about William Shakespeare’s supposed Catholicism.

In particular, I read an article (Comment, January 15) and subsequent letters which referred to a claim that a signature (“Gulielmus Clerkue Stratfordiensis”) in the Venerable English College’s guest book for 1589 might have been that of the Bard during his “lost years”. Would someone be able to confirm for me that this “Gulielmus Clerkue” is definitely a different person from the William Clark of Walsall, Staffordshire (not Stratford), who entered the English College’s guest house in 1589 and was executed in 1603 for his part in the so-called Bye Plot?

I personally have a theory that during Shakespeare’s “other lost years”, ie after 1616 when he (allegedly) died, he went to Rome and worked as a double for Camillo Borghese, Pope Paul V. But I would probably want to be able to document this archivally before finally going into print about it.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Questier

London E1

Abusing Darwin

From Mr John Bunting

SIR – I refer to the letter from Mr Donal Anthony Foley (February 12). If a scientific theory is applied to matters for which it was never intended, it is hardly surprising if the results are bad. Darwinism only becomes a “pseudo-religion” if it is held to explain everything, and is made the basis of social policy. If it contributed anything to the killing of millions under Communism and Nazism, it was as a gross distortion and abuse of the theory, not the “fruition” of Darwin’s thought.

To be sure that I understand Mr Foley correctly, may I ask him to expand on his statement that “the whole tradition of Church teaching, until recent times, has been in favour of the creation of mankind and the universe, rather than any kind of evolution”? This seems to imply that God created everything virtually instantaneously, and that no significant evolutionary change has occurred since then. Is that the meaning Mr Foley intended?

Yours faithfully,
John Bunting

Milford, Surrey

From Mr John Owen

SIR – The Holy Father has clearly identified the “increasing tide of secularism” now sweeping Britain as one of the most important challenges facing the Church and the people of this country (Report, February 12).

He has urged us all, and especially the bishops, to respond to this challenge and to “continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society”. He also emphasises that “it is the truth revealed through Scripture and tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium which sets us free”.

It is important that we should listen to the words of the Holy Father and engage in the national debate without fear, humbly and in faithful support of the Church’s teachings.

It is crucial, too, this is done in an articulate and informed way. The arguments used by the secularists are often banal and based upon unproven and dubious assumptions about the nature of reality. We should not let their arguments go unanswered because the effects of doing nothing will result in a worsening of the already dire moral and social situation prevailing in this country.

Yours faithfully,
John Owen

Sittingbourne, Kent

From Mr Tim Field

SIR – Quentin de la Bédoyère (Features, February 12) asks rhetorically of Catholic schools: “Why should the taxpayer be funding religious organisations with which they may not agree?” The answer is obvious: Catholics are taxpayers too, as are the parents of non-Catholic pupils attending Catholic schools, and the education of children is a universal benefit. In funding Catholic schools, government is merely returning to us the money we have already subscribed for that purpose in the taxes we have paid.

Let us have no more of the absurd idea that Catholic schools are somehow financially favoured by a beneficent government. Yours faithfully,
Tim Field

Solihull, West Midlands

It's sentimental to want to see pets in heaven

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR – Angelo Stagnaro (Feature, February 12) makes an emotional case for our beloved pets joining us in heaven. It is true that often animals bring great companionship into the lives of people and that often we can be more affected by the death of a pet than a person. Like Mr Stagnaro, I have been blessed by many pets. But I do not think that I will be reunited with them when (God willing) I eventually reach heaven.

The second Creation story in Genesis clearly demonstrates the uniqueness of man. We read that, after forming us from the dust, God breathed into Adam his soul. Further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church envisages the possibility of animal experimentation (2417). If humanity and animals were of the same “soul” experimenting on animals would amount to a crime against humanity.

As the beatific vision of heaven places humanity in the company of the Creator Father, surely we will all be focused on our communion with the Father to notice if anyone else (human), let alone a pet, is also with us.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe

West Harrow, Middlesex

From Beth Phillips

SIR – I must vehemently disagree with Angelo Stagnaro on his insights regarding all dogs making heaven a better place. I would like to believe all of God’s creatures go to heaven, thus making it a better place. My much-loved 17-year-old cat passed over the rainbow bridge last autumn, and I have since felt less fearful of what awaits me in the afterlife because she will be there.

Mr Stagnaro’s shortsightedness leads me to believe that he has never had the grace of a feline in his life, thus needing the fawning neediness of a dog to make him complete.

Yours faithfully,
Beth Phillips

Brookfield, Wisconsin, United States

From Miss Catherine Donner

SIR – Angelo Stagnaro’s article (Feature, February 12) on whether dogs go to heaven struck a chord with me. Surely if there is a new heaven and a new earth, there will be new animals too.

I sincerely hope to find my Westie (who, by the way, thinks she is extremely large) in heaven, for she plays an important spiritual role as a teacher of patience; she chews the post regularly and is defiantly stubborn when she doesn’t wish to comply, also regularly.

Yours faithfully,
Catherine Donner

London SW7

Burying Vatican II

From Mr Graham Moorhouse

SIR – Frank Bowe (Letters, February 12) claims that Vatican II was a General Council just like all the other General Council. This oft-repeated claim does not become any truer merely because it is oft-repeated.

Whatever Vatican II was, it was absolutely nothing like any other General Council. All other General Councils of the Church have been clear exercises of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Vatican II was not. Indeed, it never even aspired to be – a fact repeatedly confirmed by all the post-conciliar popes. It would perhaps be less misleading if this Council was called the first world Synod of Bishops.

As for criticising General Councils, not all General Councils have been useful. Some have been a complete waste of time. The Second Council of Constantine caused more problems then it solved. It took a pope of the stature of St Gregory the Great to quietly bury it. The jury is still out on Vatican II but I have no doubt that some future pope will do a similar job on Vatican II.

In the meantime, the Church is somewhat like an alcoholic. There can be no cure until she admits that she has a problem, and the problem is Vatican II.

Yours faithfully,
Graham Moorhouse
Dartford, Kent

Creed of relativism

From Mr John Owen

SIR – The Holy Father has clearly identified the “increasing tide of secularism” now sweeping Britain as one of the most important challenges facing the Church and the people of this country (Report, February 12).

He has urged us all, and especially the bishops, to respond to this challenge and to “continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society”. He also emphasises that “it is the truth revealed through Scripture and tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium which sets us free”.

It is important that we should listen to the words of the Holy Father and engage in the national debate without fear, humbly and in faithful support of the Church’s teachings.

It is crucial, too, this is done in an articulate and informed way. The arguments used by the secularists are often banal and based upon unproven and dubious assumptions about the nature of reality. We should not let their arguments go unanswered because the effects of doing nothing will result in a worsening of the already dire moral and social situation prevailing in this country.

Yours faithfully,
John Owen
Sittingbourne, Kent

The true challenge of reforming the liturgy

From Mr John Medlin, general manager of The Latin Mass Society

SIR – In his article “A New English Translation?” (Features, February 12), John Newton discussed the forthcoming introduction of the improved English version of the Latin editio typica of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. This new translation has been necessary, among other reasons, to underpin sacrality, reverence and belief in the Real Presence in the ordinary form so that we may “lift our hearts and minds to God”.

But of course, apart from words, the liturgical appurtenances of the altar are also important to guarantee sacrality and “lifted hearts”.

Therefore, it was most unfortunate in the picture you chose to illustrate the article that the wine awaiting transubstantiation into the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord was contained in three ordinary wine glasses – a practice specifically reprobated (forbidden) in the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004), which states (no 117): “It is strictly required [that sacred vessels be made of materials that are] truly noble in the common estimation... so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of the Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, or clay or other materials...” It sometimes seems that in the long haul to resacralise the Ordinary Form we really do have to start from scratch.

Yours faithfully,
John Medlin
London WC2

The wrong William

From Michael Questier, Professor of History at Queen Mary, University of London

SIR – Leafing through recent copies of the Herald, as one does, I noticed a kerfuffle about William Shakespeare’s supposed Catholicism. In particular, I read an article (Comment, January 15) and subsequent letters which referred to a claim that a signature (“Gulielmus Clerkue Stratfordiensis”) in the Venerable English College’s guest book for 1589 might have been that of the Bard during his “lost years”. Would someone be able to confirm for me that this “Gulielmus Clerkue” is definitely a different person from the William Clark of Walsall, Staffordshire (not Stratford), who entered the English College’s guest house in 1589 and was executed in 1603 for his part in the so-called Bye Plot? I personally have a theory that during Shakespeare’s “other lost years”, ie after 1616 when he (allegedly) died, he went to Rome and worked as a double for Camillo Borghese, Pope Paul V. But I would probably want to be able to document this archivally before finally going into print about it. Yours faithfully,
Michael Questier
London E1

Supporting an attack on home education

From Mrs Michelle Scott

SIR – Like Eric Hester and Alan Bancroft, I too was surprised at Oona Stannard’s letter (February 5) that strongly implied that the Schools and Family Bill, currently being pushed so hard through Parliament, is nothing to worry about.

Apart from the forced sex education sections, which surely demand a robust response from the bishops, there is Schedule 1 Clause 26, which is a direct attack on the rights of families who choose to home educate. We will be obliged to apply for a licence from the Local Authority or be assumed guilty of not providing a safe or suitable education. This is all based on the shockingly inaccurate report by Graham Badman, backed by Ed Balls before there was any scrutiny of the facts.

The Catholic Education Service wrote a document that, while showing no understanding of what elective home education is, colluded with the Government proposals to remove parental and family rights. The CES has no business telling parents what they may and may not do with their children, and my children will not accept that they are chattels of the state.

The home education community has been smeared with allegations that we are abusers who are keeping our children from suitable education, with no evidence to back this up. Graham Badman’s statistics have been shown to be wrong and that, in fact, abuse is much less than average among home educating families. The misuse of the tragic murder of Kyra Ishaq to whip the home education community should surely have raised alarm bells with Miss Stannard and our bishops.

It behoves Miss Stannard and her staff to actually talk with Catholic home educators and other parents before making statements that could so seriously damage our chosen way of educating our children and damage the welfare and safety of our children.

Yours faithfully,
Michelle Scott
Birmingham, West Midlands

Our money’s worth

From Mr Tim Field

SIR – Quentin de la Bédoyère (Features, February 12) asks rhetorically of Catholic schools: “Why should the taxpayer be funding religious organisations with which they may not agree?” The answer is obvious: Catholics are taxpayers too, as are the parents of non-Catholic pupils attending Catholic schools, and the education of children is a universal benefit. In funding Catholic schools, government is merely returning to us the money we have already subscribed for that purpose in the taxes we have paid. Let us have no more of the absurd idea that Catholic schools are somehow financially favoured by a beneficent government.

Yours faithfully,
Tim Field
Solihull, West Midlands

The Government has stated clearly that schools will be in charge of teaching sex education

From Miss Oona Stannard, chief executive and director of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales

SIR_- Misleading reports have recently appeared in The Catholic Herald regarding Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education, including Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) in Catholic schools (Eric Hester, "How we lost control of sex education", January 29). Such ill-informed comments undermine the good work being done in our schools and cause unnecessary anxiety to parents and the Catholic community at large.

The Catholic Education Service for England and Wales is fully committed to the promotion of the sanctity of life, in accordance with the teachings of the Church, and we expect that all our schools promote this message to their pupils. We have every confidence that Catholic schools do this and promote the protection of life from conception through, for example:

• determining what external parties operating on school premises can and cannot do, so that any information given is placed within the context of the Church's teaching;
• ensuring that SRE is taught in a manner appropriate to the Catholic ethos of the school;
• promoting behaviour that is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

During our extensive negotiations with Government over the plans to make PSHE part of the national curriculum, we have been clear that the right of schools with a religious character to teach SRE in accordance with the ethos of their school must be retained and we have been assured that this will be the case. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, gave this assurance in the House of Commons on January 11 2010:

"The decision to make sex and relationship education statutory is, I think, supported by all political parties, but it is essential that it is taught in line with the ethos, including the faith, of the school. That is clear in the legislation: it is clear that parents as well as school governors will have a say in how the subject is taught, while there is also a parental opt-out, which will apply to pupils until they are 15. I can thus give the hon Gentleman the complete assurance that the school will be in charge of how to teach SRE, but the fact of teaching it will be in law and guaranteed to all children."

We have every confidence that, if the Children, Schools and Families Bill is passed, making PSHE part of the national curriculum, Catholic schools will be entitled to continue to teach this subject in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and that the teaching of SRE in Catholic schools will always uphold the importance of the sanctity of life.

In a recent press briefing with The Catholic Herald all these points were clarified and explained. Yours faithfully,
Oona Stannard
London SW1

From Daphne McLeod, chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice

SIR_-_It was good to read Eric Hester's article. This is the information every Catholic parent needs if they are to protect their children from the damaging classroom lessons about sex, given even at a very young age, that the Government is committed to.

Sadly, as he points out, we cannot rely on the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CESEW), which should be protecting them, nor the bishops who have delegated their responsibility to the CESEW. This means parents must act themselves and exercise their right to withdraw their children from these lessons. They can explain that as Catholics they cannot in conscience agree to lessons which contravene the guidelines from the Vatican so seriously.

Furthermore, as Bishop Malcolm McMahon OP, who is in overall charge of Catholic education, has stated publicly that he sees no reason why teachers in Catholic schools should be living good Catholic lives in obedience to Church teaching (Report, January 22) these lessons could well be given by teachers who are not faithful to Catholic teaching, even teachers who are known to be living in same-sex civil partnerships, who will be unable to impart proper Catholic standards with any credibility.

One hopes that some Catholic schools will take advantage of the sex education programme recently compiled by Lancaster diocese called This Is My Body. This, by contrast, is fully in line with Vatican guidelines as it helps parents teach their child at home using material provided by the school. It is used throughout Lancaster diocese and also by other primary schools and can be obtained from Philos Educational Publishing, tel 020 8485 0543, or through enquiries@thisismybody.co.uk. Yours faithfully,
Daphne McLeod
Great Bookham, Surrey

Visible evidence

From Audrey and Paul Edwards

SIR - Fortunately the Equality Bill has been passed by the House of Lords in the amended manner supported by Archbishop Peter Smith (Report, January 25). This decision will not be welcomed by the Government and it is certain that there will be members of the next Parliament who will wish to reverse it.

It is no less certain that secularist attacks on Christian principles and institutions will continue, so surely it would be wise to prepare for them now rather than wait to react. What better time to start preparing than in the lead-up to a general election when candidates will be much readier to give assurances of support to which they can be held when future secularist challenges arise. We hope, therefore, that Archbishop Smith, as head of the bishops' department for Christian responsibility and citizenship, will issue advice to all parishes on the threat from secularism, which includes suggestions on the assurances which parishes as local communities and parishioners as individuals should seek from candidates.

If there had been such visible evidence of a strong Christian interest on the occasion of the last election would the Government have been so keen to support secularist initiatives in the present Parliament?

Yours faithfully,
Audrey and Paul Edwards
Cambridge

Ends and means

From Mr Allen Murphy

SIR - Regarding the issue of assisted suicide, I believe it is important to remain focused on the objective moral act itself. There seems to a blurring of the act or confusion of the act, depending on the motivation of the person who assisted in the suicide.

If the person has nefarious motives, there is societal condemnation. If the person has kindly thoughts then the person is more likely to be met with approval. Clearly the moral guilt of the person may increase or diminish depending on motivation, psychological freedom etc but the objective moral act must be looked at. To take the life of another, to directly act to end a person's life, is never morally acceptable, regardless of the motivation of the individual. The end cannot be justified by immoral means. Of course palliative care, including the lessening of pain and suffering, is allowed.

Yours faithfully,
Allen Murphy
Westminster, Colorado, United States

Equality for all?

From Mr Anthony David Jones

I could take the Government's claim that the Equality Bill is a measure of its belief in equality if I saw as much effort put into repealing the anti-Catholic Act of Settlement as I see being spent on said Bill.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony David Jones
Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire

Atheists struggle with the problem of evil

From Mr John Beaumont

SIR_-_I read with interest Mark Dowd's article, "Where was God when the earthquake flattened Haiti?" (Comment January 22), and the responses to it.

The "creation defence" that he put forward (that this suffering is due primarily to the ordinary working of natural causes, and that positives and negatives in a material world are impossible to separate) is a very powerful one. Inevitably, Mr Dowd was unable to go into detail in a short article. Readers can get a fuller analysis by watching, at the very least, the last 20 minutes of his 2004 Channel 4 documentary (the whole programme is available on the internet) in which the Castel Gandolfo conference is featured. In addition, the published work of Dr Nancey Murphy, one of the participants at the Vatican conference, is very important.

Just as important, however, is for religious believers to do more than merely defend their position. They need to get on to the front foot against the militant atheists. In this context, it is very helpful to examine two articles by the philosopher, Dr James Franklin (International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2002, and Think, autumn 2003) in which he brings out the illogicality of the atheist case. He summarises this as follows:

"The problem of evil has a kick in its tail for the atheist... Consider, for example, the materialist world-picture which most atheists believe in. Is there really evil in the materialist world? Of course, there are animals in pain and distress, but one who takes an absolute perspective can well ask, why does that matter? Ordinarily one thinks that the suffering of a human is a tragedy but the explosion of a dead galaxy is just a firework. Materialism, though, denies the distinction between the two, since it takes humans to be the same kind of things as galaxies, namely, moderately complicated heaps of matter. If the fate of a galaxy cannot give rise to a problem of evil, because its fate cannot in any absolute sense matter, then neither can the fate of a brain. In posing the problem of evil, the materialist who does not really believe in positive worth is cynically trading on our sense of the importance of those who suffer, knowing he will undermine it later." What this means, then, is that standard materialism fails to make sense of the problem of evil, by implying that evil does not matter, absolutely speaking. Franklin goes on to draw the necessary conclusion:

"The very existence of evil as a matter of absolute seriousness is a substantial reason to believe that the materialist world picture is false. Since the leading alternative theory involves a good and powerful God, that is a reason to believe there must be some solution to the problem of evil."

Yours faithfully,
John Beaumont
Apperely Bridge, West Yorkshire,

From Mr Mark Dowd

SIR - Francis Reilly (Letters, January 29)_claims to solve the problem of belief in God and the suffering in Haiti in one fell swoop by invoking the Fall: it is all down to "the sin of Adam". It is an attractive option but one which fails to convince.

Any cursory scrutiny of the evolution of our species on this planet makes it perfectly clear that the processes of death and suffering were integral parts of the evolution story long before the advent of homo sapiens. Were it not indeed for these processes embedded in the very cycle of creation and destruction, modern humanity would not even have emerged.

Mr Reilly's attempt at explanation, of course, only becomes a problem as long as one adheres to the evolutionary model of the natural world. He may be a Creationist and think we got here in six days, but I prefer the narrative laid out by Darwin - a narrative which both Pope John Paul II and his successor have reminded us is totally compatible with a mature and informed Catholic faith. I do not deny the doctrine of Original Sin; I simply assert that its insights and power may lie in other spheres rather than a neat riposte to the theodicy conundrum.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Dowd
By email

Two evils that spread in the 1950s Church From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR_- Fr Aidan Nichols (Feature, January 29) might help Moira Doorly more by explaining how the Church teachings she quotes differ from the Modernist errors - right and wrong answers to the same questions. Their common context? The Church's conceptual language had communicated precisely with well-instructed clergy in 16th-century Christendom. To equip her with means to address and evangelise pluralised societies, godless yet highly educated, was a new problem. The first to identify a problem, Newman reminds us, will often get the solution wrong.

Dangerously, Fr Aidan's convergence theory of pre-Conciliar optimism conflates two distinct evils that burgeoned in the 1950s Church. Triumphalism uncritically idealised anything "Catholic". Some lay intellectuals, secularly learned, thought Latin, birettas and such were of doctrine; proof that Church teaching was out of date and must yield to progress. From these two the Devil later forged two weapons: neo-conservatism, to fight the Church's changes; neo-modernism, to interpret aggiornamento - ie arming the Church's servants to bring the Gospel to today's world - as blanket endorsement of that world's values.

Does Fr Aidan not make the same mistake? He accuses the Church of "cultural modernism"; giving no quotations in support, he treats her documents as schizophrenic, unconscious modernism with lucid moments. But in fact they prudently qualify each reference to shared values. More helpful, one would think, to urge Moyra to read Church documents with an open mind.

Doesn't "naïve optimism" better match Fr Aidan's hopes for useful dialogue with Lefebvrism? As Trent found, schisms still "in denial" cannot question their premises: ecumenism's gestation is 400 years. Lefebvrism can only read concessions and constant courtship as growing acknowledgement that Lefebvrism is right.

Yours faithfully,
Tom McIntyre
Frome, Somerset

Consistent teaching

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR - Regarding Philip Butler's response (January 29) to my letter (January 8) on the value of Confession, he criticises my "questionable way of reading Scripture and the intentions of Christ," following my quotation of Christ's post-Resurrection words: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (John 20:19-23).

But this passage clearly indicates that auricular confession is sacramentally required for the forgiveness of sin, and thus there is nothing questionable about my interpretation of what Christ said. The meaning of the text is plain, as is the intention of Christ in instituting the sacrament, that is, it is the normal way sins are to be forgiven in the Church.

Regardless of how long it took for auricular confession to become widespread, the fact is that the sacrament, as we have it today, was instituted right after the Resurrection.

General absolution is only to be used when there is a situation of grave necessity, such as during wartime, and even then, there is an obligation to go to individual confession as soon as this is practicable. Without this intention there is no absolution of sins in general absolution.

That is the consistent teaching of the Church, as found most recently in the Catechism and it is totally unrealistic to expect that it is going to change.

If Catholics don't frequent the sacrament as they ought to, then that is a failure of catechesis and preaching which needs to be put right - and it is also a consequence of the upheaval following Vatican II, when so many praiseworthy traditions and practices were abandoned. The answer to the current crisis in the use of the sacrament is to teach Catholics about its importance rather than look for illusory alternatives.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Chilwell, Nottingham

Defending traditions

From Mr Kenn Winter

SIR_-_Mary O'Regan's party political attack on " distorted human rights laws" in the European Union (Comment, January 29) was somewhat ill made, and blurred the distinction between the EU's European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, serving 27 member states, and the non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, serving all 50 European countries.

Another Catholic paper, The Universe, reported on the same day the latter's recent ruling that Romania's Orthodox Church must return 5,000 churches and schools to the local Greek Catholic Church outlawed after World War II - and which has lost nearly one million members in the meantime.

Miss O' Regan's recalling the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone's counsel that the EU threatened her native Ireland's identity and traditions is in sharp contrast to the wider European Court of Human Rights' defence of Catholic identity and traditions in Romania.

Yours faithfully,
Kenn Winter
Huddersfield

29 January 2010

Anglo-Catholicism:a 19th-century invention or the full flowering of the Catholic spirit?

From the Rev Anthony Reader-Moore SSC

SIR- I am sorry that Robert Ian Williams has responded to my recent article, "Anglo-Catholics do have a real patrimony" (December 11), in such a negative and indeed unhelpful way (Feature, January 15).

It is clear that he feels the Anglo-Catholics are an illegitimate development within the historical life of the Church of England and their self-understanding is founded on a myth. Apart from the fact that this designation can be understood in more ways than seeing something as false and that myths often contain much that is true, my purpose was not to suggest that Anglo-Catholicism is the only genuine tradition within Anglicanism, which is patently not so, but that it represented a full flowering of that Catholic spirit which even the thoroughness of the Protestant Reformation could not entirely extinguish.

Like a thread, perhaps very fragile and slender at times, it has always been present within the Church of England, even at the lowest points of her history. If that were not so, why did Rome offer Archbishop William Laud a cardinal's hat on the very day of his appointment to Canterbury in 1633? Also, as Fr Michael Rear has recently pointed out, at the Restoration of the Monarchy 27 years later, a further approach was made by the Holy See proposing the setting up of what amounted to a uniate church.

Does this not suggest at the very least an implicit recognition of a certain residual Catholicism within the life and structure of the national church? It is tragic that this got no further and divisions became even more entrenched, but does it not also suggest a greater flexibility on Rome's part at the time in her understanding of the exact nature of the Church of England than was true later on, say in the 19th century?

It is interesting that Mr Williams mentions neither of these episodes in his rather slanted account of Anglican history since the reign of Henry VIII. He has every right, of course, to present his own version of things and even to suggest, as he does, that mine is entirely wrong, but he should not imply that things are so "black and white" as he clearly does. History is rarely like that, as every truly open-minded student knows, and the need is that we should learn from it so that we can build a better future rather than be tied to a narrow and restricted interpretation of the past which does little or nothing to dispel ancient prejudices.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Reader-Moore
Northampton

From Mr Robert Ian Williams

SIR - I must take exception to Dr Richard Lawes's comments (Letter, January 22), claiming that I am "lambasting the Pope's initiative" as regards the proposed Anglican ordinariate. I have never expressed such an opinion, but simply pointed out that Anglo-Catholicism is not the mainstream of the Anglican patrimony, and is largely an invention of the 19th century, with much of its liturgical ornaments actually appropriated from Catholicism.

If Dr Lawes read my pamphlet on the subject of the Anglican Use liturgy, he would also see that I do not question the orthodoxy of the Anglican Use Mass, as its integrity is preserved by its use of the Roman Canon instead of Cranmer's eucharistic prayers. But I do raise legitimate questions about other Cranmerian phrases and prayers which are retained within the Use. For instance, the use of the phrase "In sure and certain hope of the Resurrection unto everlasting life" is totally inappropriate in the context of a Requiem. Likewise, I point out how the Use uses Cranmer's further Protestantised version of the prayer of humble access and not his 1549 original.

I have been informed that the Holy See is working on a revision of the Anglican Use's Book of Divine Worship and it is quite legitimate for Catholics to critique it. The Anglican Use attracted less than a 10th of one per cent of American Anglicans, and is today mainly attended by cradle Catholics.

Although I may be wrong, I think that the response from Anglicans here will be equally restrained. How any well-informed Catholic can be so enamoured of prayers written by a man who died despising the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Pope and the Catholic Faith is a mystery to me.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Ian Williams
Bangor is y Coed, Wrexham

Why Haiti suffers

From Mr John Lovett

SIR - The ever-recurring problem of suffering comes into focus when tragic events like the Haiti earthquake and tsunamis occur; this time receiving some new and interesting answers from Mark Dowd (Comment, January 22).

One possibility that was not mentioned or explored and may help our understanding is the activity of Satan. We do not usually think of him as actually doing anything on a physical level or see him as causing any material problems or damage in the natural order.

Instead, he has been relegated to the role of tempter and is little more than a malign spiritual influence, while the biblical view of Satan is massively different to this.

In the book of Job he is revealed as destroying Job's sons and daughters and cattle with different disasters: fire and wind are seen as being at his control. And on the sea of Galilee Jesus needed to rebuke the natural forces of wind and waves and order them to "be muzzled" (the literal translation) which some see as being linked to what was about to happen in Gadara in the form of the exorcism of Legion. In that case, Satan knew his kingdom was about to be assaulted and attempted to drown Jesus in the sea.

Some may see this answer of Satanic activity as too simplistic and naïve a response to the problem of natural disasters - and, in any case, why does God allow Satan to wreak havoc on the world as he has?

Even Job didn't get these questions answered. There are some questions that will only become clear in the light of eternity: suffering is one of them.

Yours faithfully,
John Lovett
Bedale, North Yorkshire

From Mr Francis Reilly

SIR - Having read Mark Dowd's article, "Where was God when the earthquake flattened Haiti?", and afterwards watched The Big Questions on BBC television on Sunday where the same subject had a 20-minute airing, I am astonished that no one has mentioned the Christian explanation for the fact of sin and suffering entering the world, ie the sin of Adam, our progenitor.

When such an important element in the Christian story is left out of discussion on this subject confusion and illogicality come in to fill the vacuum. This same omission also makes nonsense of some Catholic beliefs surrounding the Virgin Mary and the Redemption.

Yours faithfully,
FRANCIS REILLY
Orpington, Kent
Cleaning Newman

From Mr Edward Evans

SIR - The Fathers of the London Oratory's intention to dedicate a chapel to Cardinal Newman (Report, January 22) is interesting and welcome, but every time I go there, I look at his statue by the entrance and hope that before September it will be given a clean.

Yours faithfully,
Edward Evans
Oxford

Cameron's reforms: just more of the same

From Mr Matthew Huntbach

SIR - Nick Thomas (Comment, January 22) seems unaware that the state school system we have now is not as he describes, but the result of reforms initiated by Sir Keith Joseph as Secretary of State for Education in Margaret Thatcher's government to try and correct those problems.

The National Curriculum was imposed to tell teachers what to teach and how to teach it, with an emphasis on "back to basics". Their progress would be measured by Statutory Assessment Tests for primary and early secondary school pupils. The results of these and the public examinations for older pupils would be published in "league tables", which would create a competitive atmosphere and "drive up quality".

When the Labour Party came into government, in the hope of showing it was not the bad old Labour Party Nick Thomas still thinks it is, and because it rather liked this sort of state-centred approach to problems, it enthusiastically adopted Sir Keith's ideas and made them its own.

As ever, such an over-prescriptive approach resulted in an emphasis on meeting the letter of the law while missing the spirit. Boring teaching emphasising memorisation and other tricks to get through the tests replaced imagination and enthusiasm for real knowledge and skills. As ever, league tables resulted not in driving up real quality but in doing whatever would artificially score more points, such as pushing pupils into "easy" public examination subjects.

David Cameron's proposed reforms are just more state prescription; anyone who had real experience with school teaching would know such rigid requirements would not measure real teaching skills. I am sure Nick Thomas himself would have said the same had these been proposed by the Labour Party.

Yours faithfully,
Matthew Huntbach
London SE9

Taking a little wine

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - So Bob Gillies, the Anglican Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney, has criticised the Benedictine Monks at Buckfast Abbey for producing a fortified wine which the bishop thinks St Benedict would not approved of (Report, January 22). Did St Paul not say that one should take a little wine for the stomach?

The abuse of the wine is not the fault of the abbey. If it were not available, I am sure other products would be abused. The fault lies more with fractured societal values, where society has let the family unit down. It is significant that in Italy and France children are introduced to wine at a relatively early age in the family.

I understand that under-age drinking as well as incidents of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies are significantly lower in these countries then in the United Kingdom.

Perhaps we should restore the value of family before we ban Buckfast wine.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex

Changing Confession From Mr Philip J Butler

SIR - Donal Anthony Foley's response (January 8) to my letter on the practice of Confession (December 11) quite fails to address the issues I raised. Apart from his questionable way of reading Scripture and the intentions of Christ, he seems to assume, as people usually do, that the way we are used to doing things must be the right way and the only way and that it can never be changed. This completely ignores historical development and the fact that auricular confession is a latecomer on the scene.

If the Church has the authority to pronounce God's forgiveness of our sins it could decide to exercise that authority in any number of ways, eg through general absolution. Since most Catholics will no longer practise Confession in the way popes want them to, would it not be sensible to offer them another way that will really answer their needs? The sabbath is made for man, after all, not man for the sabbath - so too the sacraments.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Butler
London N10

Small is beautiful

From Mr Maurice Billingsley
SIR - There is much to be said in favour of setting up small Catholic schools, but they must not be founded haphazardly (Report, January 15). Francis Davis suggests that movements within the Church might "find legs" by educating children in their own way. Bishops must ensure that any such "free" schools do not tend to divide the parish or diocese, but contribute to their local communities in all humility.

Having worked for some 10 years as a teacher in a very small school - six pupils at the most - I was disappointed that Bishop McMahon did not mention the mission such schools could have to some of our nation's most deprived and disturbed young people: children who could not cope in a mainstream school, who have suffered neglect, abuse or mental illness.

The Church has done excellent work in this field, but schools such as Port Regis in Broadstairs appear to have closed without our providing new places for the children who benefited from them. Small Catholic schools could play a part. The work is difficult and challenging for adults and pupils, but can be very fruitful. Such schools work closely with parents, social workers, psychiatrists and other experts. Such schools are much important than cosy comfort zones for parents who shun the state system.

Yours faithfully,
Maurice Billingsley
Canterbury, Kent

St Peter's precedent

From Mr Arthur van der Straeten

SIR - In her excellent commentary on Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Rome's Great Synagogue (Feature, January 22), Anna Arco says: "Such a papal visit would have been inconceivable in the pre-conciliar Church."

Are we to assume then that St Peter was never in the company of the other Apostles when they entered the synagogues after Our Lord's Ascension?

Perhaps the main difference between the current Holy Father's visit and those pre-Vatican II visits of 2,000 years ago is that the Apostles caused consternation in the synagogues by openly proclaiming Christ Crucified and Risen.

Yours faithfully,
Arthur van der Straeten
Rochecorbon, France

We want St GKC

From G Richards

SIR - I was most interested to read the interview with Aidan Mackey (January 8) as I was lucky enough to meet him once myself. His view of the world is most refreshing. I would, however, have liked Jack Carrigan to have asked him when he thinks G K Chesterton's beatification will be.

I do think that the case for his holiness was clearly established at the meeting held at the Oxford University Catholic Chaplaincy last summer. We no doubt need to move on now to a miracle or two. To that end please see www.catholicgkchestertonsociety.co.uk for printable prayer cards and other information.

Yours faithfully,
G Richards
By email

22 January 2010

Bishop Malcolm McMahon's support for 'free schools': a promising or a worrying sign?

From the Very Rev Fr Leo Chamberlain OSB

SIR - I look back on deep if narrow experience in Catholic independent education, but also with appreciation of the Catholic voluntary-aided schools and some experience of their administration and government.

Bishop Malcolm McMahon (Report, January 15) is interested in the Conservative espousal of the Swedish free school system, which allows parents a school and style of education of their choice in what they judge the best interest of their children. Schools may expand or contract (or close) according to need. New schools may be set up outside the municipal system to meet parental demand. Contrast this with our arthritic centrally planned system, with its ballots for entry to popular schools and, for Catholics in the south east, an acute shortage of places.

His refreshing and evidently deliberate remarks could be the most hopeful initiative in Catholic education for a long time. He sees an opportunity to strengthen the vital triangle of home, school and parish. So do I. Oona Stannard's reported cool reaction (The Universe, January 17) brings to mind Sir Humphrey's horror when, in the lovely series Yes, Prime Minister, Jim Hacker and his adviser Dorothy presented the revolutionary idea that the Department of Education would be abolished and the money from the Treasury would go directly to parents who should actually be allowed to choose schools for their children. In other words, ordinary folk should be able to do for their children what the better-off can do.

Catholic education depends entirely on the parents' right to choose, and any extension of it must be welcome. The national and local government bureaucracies that operate the present centralised system are instinctively opposed to any such development. As a number of initiatives of the present Government suggest, they are not the friends of the Church. The Catholic Education Service (CES) nationally and in some dioceses has been rather too close to the culture of local authority administration. I do hope it will now be open to the possibilities the bishop envisages and that diocesan authorities will give him support.

An immediate prospect for positive development is the Academies Programme initiated under Labour. Academies with a fully Catholic ethos could flourish, especially if shorn of the centralising controls imposed under the present Prime Minister.

The essential point is that money should follow students. It may be that there are here the seeds of a bipartisan approach to education which would be of national benefit at the same time as respecting the religious concerns and rights of Catholics who pay their taxes like anyone else.

Yours faithfully,
Leo Chamberlain
St John's Priory,
Easingwold, York


From Mr Edmund Adamus, director of the Department for Pastoral Affairs of the Diocese of Westminster

SIR - With respect, Mary Kenny (January 15) ought not be so quick to advocate uncritical support for Michael Gove MP as (potentially) the next Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

In an interview with Ed West in the Herald on November 21 2008 he commented on the Sexual Orientation Regulations: "I think it is prejudiced to say you won't place children with people in effect because of their sexual orientation. The Church is wrong on questions of sexual orientation... I know there are some people who say it's against natural law, but that's my judgment."

As that is his "judgment" - a belief that what one says is objectively true - then I do not imagine that, if he does become the next Secretary of State responsible for education, he will differ greatly from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) report on Sexual Orientation Regulations about schools which stated in February 2007: "In our view there is an important difference between this factual information [about sexual morality] being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination."

I find it very hard to believe that Mr Gove will simply not challenge the mandate of Pope John Paul II to the English and Welsh bishops at their ad limina on October 23 2003: "Of particular concern is the need to uphold the uniqueness of marriage as a life-long union between a man and a woman in which as husband and wife they share in God's loving work of creation. Equating marriage with other forms of cohabitation obscures the sacredness of marriage and violates its precious value in God's plan for humanity."

Immediately after this, the Venerable John Paul II commended the bishops for the work of Catholic schools, presumably because he hoped they would continue to adhere to his preceding statement.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
London SW1

A living patrimony

From Dr Richard Lawes, Lecturer in English, Regent's Park College, Oxford

SIR - Robert Ian Williams's article (January 15), which sets out to lambast the Holy Father's initiative in establishing a home for the Anglican patrimony within the Catholic Church, contains much which is historically accurate about the convolutions of Anglican history, yet curiously misses what seems most important.

Anyone who has been privileged to attend an Anglican Use liturgy in one of the American parishes of the Anglican Use, as I have, will have a deep impression of its sheer beauty and magnificence. They will be left in no doubt that there is, indeed, a living Anglican patrimony already within the Catholic Church, and that the Holy Father is right to think it precious and worth preserving.

They will also realise how vibrant these communities are, how firm in their faith. Their Book of Divine Worship, authentically Anglican yet also wholly Catholic, is a wonderful achievement. The theological failings of Cranmer and Coverdale cannot obliterate the beauty of their language, embodied in the Book of Common Prayer, the language of worship for most of the population of this country for several centuries.

The Anglo-Catholic tradition within Anglicanism produced not only beautiful liturgy but many other fruits, for instance the often heroic service by saintly priests in some of the worst slum areas of our cities.

I am informed of at least one group in America of Anglican evangelicals who are planning to form a congregation of the Anglican Use. So it is likely that the Ordinariates, when established, will reflect all that is spiritually most fruitful in the Anglican heritage, and will not be confined to any narrow version of Anglo-Catholicism.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Lawes
Oxford

Propagating folklore

From Fr Gordon Beattie OSB

SIR - Your leading article on "Time for crucial reform" (January 15) was incomprehensible.

A crucifix in the centre of the altar if the Priest is facing west makes it symbolic that he is facing east? Considering that many priests are only at the altar from the Offertory until Communion that means that a piece of wood or metal is more worthy to be viewed than the sacred Body and Blood of Jesus which is in front of him on the altar for the majority of that time.

As for the "direction from which Christ will return" - where are the words of Jesus himself, in the Gospels, confirming any direction? Prophecies about the East and Revelation 7:2 are not the words of Jesus. What about Psalm 75:6?

Your leading article is propagating religious folklore which will lead us in to the "facing Mecca" syndrome.

Yours faithfully,
Gordon Beattie
The Priory,
Parbold, Lancashire

Why William Shakespeare was one of us

From Mr Antony Charles Ryan, editor of Kent Recusant History

SIR - Milo Yiannopoulos's article (Comment, January 15) requires a response. The evidence that Shakespeare was Catholic has been building up since the editor of The Rambler wrote on the matter in 1858. Even the Bibliographical Dictionary of English Catholics lists Shakespeare in 1885. He conformed to the classic profile of a Church papist, of whom there were many. There is evidence that both his parents, several of his patrons, and some of his masters at Stratford grammar school were Catholic and his daughter, Susannah, was cited as a Catholic recusant.

In 1757 his father's will was discovered in the family house rafters when the house was occupied by a descendant of Shakespeare's Catholic sister, Joan Hart. This document ended up with Shakespeare's biographer Malone, who published it as genuine in 1790. Some thought it a forgery, but this was no longer considered when an almost identical document was discovered in 1923 in the British Museum.

Archdeacon Davies, who wrote that Shakespeare "dyed a Papist", was chaplain of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. The statement is held in the college library among the Fulman manuscripts.

As for Clare Asquith's book Shadowplay, Mr Yiannopoulos's description of the authoress as an "amateur" scholar is extraordinary.

He omits to mention Piers Paul Read's review of her book as "dramatic and important" and "painstaking scholarship" with which I absolutely concur.

One piece of evidence in The Winter's Tale pointed out by Hugh Ross Williamson should be noted. After the death of his mother in 1608, Shakespeare published the play in 1610. In the play Hermione's court defence opens with the exact words used by St Edmund Campion in his defence before his martyrdom.

The recent evidence from Rome neatly covers the missing years between 1585, when he left Stratford, and 1592, when he began his career as a playwright in London. I set out much of the available evidence in a published article in 2002, but more evidence has become available since then. I propose to add to it. The considerable evidence must be considered as a whole. Finally, I should say that I am writing as a recusant/Church papist historian and retired lawyer.

Yours faithfully,
Antony Charles Ryan
Canterbury, Kent


From Mr Alan Frost

SIR - I write in response to Milo Yiannopoulos's attempt to deny the compelling evidence of Shakespeare's Catholicism and am rather surprised this piece got a prime space. But it does keep this critical issue in the spotlight and, not the author's intent I'm sure, does in effect serve as a Devil's advocate argument for our greatest writer being a Catholic.

In point of fact, the news that signatures on Tudor parchment on display at the Venerable English College in Rome may be those of William Shakespeare during his "missing years" adds further to the recent revelations about the Bard's Catholicism. Very notable are the contributions from Peter Milward SJ, in several texts, Joseph Pearce in Quest for Shakespeare, and Claire Asquith's Shadowplay, showing us the codes he used in his plays and sonnets to fight for the recovery of the traditional Catholic faith. Let us hope that teachers, lecturers and theatre directors are taking this on board (and on boards?).

Pearce's important Quest for Shakespeare is not even mentioned in the article (though a writer from the Guardian is quoted). Nor are the supportive conclusions of other leading writers and historians, Anthony Wood for example. On a personal note, I readily admit that ever since my days as a mediocre 16-year-old A-level student of English Literature over 40 years ago, I've felt in my bones that Hamlet was written by a man with a Catholic mind and soul.

Finally, this view is now being justified, none the least by the recent words of the eminent German Prof Hammerschmidt-Hummel: "I have come to the conclusion that Shakespeare was a Catholic and that his religion is the key to understanding his life and work."

Yours faithfully,
Alan Frost
Sandbach, Ches

Selection difficulties

From Dr Peter Doherty

SIR - As a former chairman of a flourishing Catholic primary school, with an increasingly high number of applicants, I am aware of the difficulties of selection (Report, January 8, Letters, January 15).

The overriding aim is preserve the Catholic ethos of the school. Practising Catholics are defined by the archdiocese by their Mass attendance on Sundays and Holy Days but unfortunately only the parish priest is able to substantiate it. The Vaughan is so heavily oversubscribed that only one in five children will be given a place.

It would seem therefore in such a dire situation, which is increasing as more parents want their children to be educated at Catholic schools for many reasons, stricter admission procedures are necessary. Only then will the devout conforming parents be protected.

A points system as operated seems to be an excellent solution. Perhaps the "regular unpaid commitments" to participate in parish activities for parents and children could be an aspiration rather than a priority.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Doherty
London SW13

Laws laid down

From Mr J T van der Linden

SIR - The school should not lay down requirements higher than that of the Church itself (Report, January 8). Priests should be obedient to their bishop.

Of course. Church law lays down that people should go to Confession at least once per year. One does not hear that mentioned in sermons these days. Nor is one told that Vatican II referred to the teaching of Casti Connubii. That teaching has been stated and re-stated many times over the centuries. It is not always easy. For that reason the Church has always recommended frequent Confession. For that reason also there is the practice of First Saturdays.

Many people do not realise this, and may well go to Communion without Confession, ignoring Church teaching about contraception.

I am afraid that, after death, some may well find themselves where they do not want to be.

Yours faithfully,
Tom van der Linden
West Ewell, Surrey

Bad management

From Mr David Leigh

SIR - I was so pleased to read Quentin de la Bédoyère's article (Science and Faith,_January 15) where he mentions that believers have no right or duty to give advice to the hierarchy. As a convert, I have never been able to understand how comments about a priest's absenteeism, financial mismanagement and neglect of the fabric of a church were ignored. This lack of good management has caused so much harm to the Church that surely a rethink is necessary.

Yours faithfully,
David Leigh
Birmingham

The Jewish Chronicle backed Pope Pius XII

From Mrs Ann Farmer

SIR - One hopes the beatification process of Pope Pius XII (Report, December 25, Letters, January 15) will explore whether he could have done more to save Jews from the Holocaust, but in fact this was not the Jewish emphasis during the War and for many years afterwards.

The Jewish Chronicle, in reporting his death in 1958, was more interested in his failure to recognise the State of Israel - especially in view of his role as chief counsellor and intermediary" in obtaining a meeting between Nahum Sokolow and Pope Benedict XV in negotiations preparing the way for the Balfour Declaration - but recognised as a a redeeming factor that under "the Nazi occupation of Rome large numbers of Jews found refuge within the Vatican City".

On Pius XII's election as pope in 1939 he was seen by the Chronicle as following in the footsteps of Pius XI as regards anti-Nazism; at the same time the Nazis reacted with dismay.

For many years after the War the emphasis was on Jewish escape from total annihilation, and during the War the Chronicle reported that the Vichy government in 1942 intensified its round-up of Jews in spite of the Pope's protest.

In 1942 the Chronicle also referred to "the Pope's unequivocal pronouncements upon the curse which is anti-Semitism"; in 1943 he was reported as condemning the "vile and godless doctrine of race and blood and race".

Such pronouncements were seen by both Jews and anti-Semites as they were intended to be seen, as condemnations of Nazism - even before his election as pope, Cardinal Pacelli had been caricatured as a "Jew" in Nazi publications for his stance on race.

Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer
Woodford Green, Essex

15 January 2010

The ruling against Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School is troubling

From Dr Mary Howard, chair of governors of St Philomena's Catholic High School

SIR - If the Cardinal Vaughan School (Report, January 8) is guilty of discrimination, it is only in the sense of favouring those who have recourse to the sacraments due to their love of the Faith over those who take up the practice of the Faith in order to secure a place at an academically successful school.

If heavily oversubscribed schools are forced to apply only minimal requirements of faith practice, distance may become the deciding factor in offering places.

This would reduce the ethnic and social diversity of the intake and reduce parental choice for those who cannot afford to live in the vicinity of the school.

The adjudication against the Cardinal Vaughan School and the Supreme Court decision against the Jewish Free School are examples of how far secular authority is usurping the determination of religious criteria for admissions to faith schools.

Yours faithfully,
Mary Howard
Carshalton, Surrey



From Mr Jerry Hawthorne

SIR - The Cardinal Vaughan School is one of the best Catholic comprehensive schools in London so the anxiety of the bishops to ensure that as many poorer families as possible benefit and that the school's excellence does not predominately benefit white middle classes is understandable.

But if the diocese believes that its school's head and governors are not paying sufficient heed to "the option for the poor" it should surely have used Catholic mediators or even Catholic lawyers to try to resolve the issues internally rather than go off to the secular authorities. After all, if the Church internal mediation attempts failed, the bishops could then have not re-appointed the recalcitrant governors and instead appointed as governors men and women whose viewpoints were more in line with its own - governors' appointments are generally for fixed terms of three years. The head could then, if he was really acting against the interests of the Church, have been subjected to disciplinary procedures by such governors and either brought into the bishops' line or disciplined, depending on the circumstances.

This action of the Catholic Church reporting a Catholic school to the state authorities, if accurately reported, risks undermining the previous very creditable actions of the Church in seeking to dissuade the secular state from interfering in matters religious as the state's Equality Bill threatens to do, and I feel is a sad and retrograde step. The laudable ends do not justify such unhappy means.

Yours faithfully,
Jerry Hawthorne
London SW1

Striking a balance

From Mr Michael Foster MP, Minister for Equality

SIR - I was disappointed to read your article on the Equality Bill (Report, December 18) following my meeting with Simon Caldwell and other journalists from religious publications.

At no stage did I predict a "torrent of hostile legal actions against the Church" when discussing the Equality Bill. My comment on potential legal action reflected that legislation, of course, can be challenged and if the Government could find a way to avoid such challenges - outside of being an authoritarian state - we certainly would.

We believe the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting people's right to hold and manifest religious belief and the rights of others not to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation.

I would also like to clarify a situation raised in your article regarding non-Christian workers who attempt to sue a church for harassment because they take offence to crucifixes on its walls. Let me be very clear about this: a worker should expect to see a crucifix in a church-run institution and any suggestion of this constituting harassment is incorrect. The Equality Bill would absolutely not require a church to remove a crucifix from a wall.

People feel very strongly about the Equality Bill and that is something I wouldn't want to change. I would, however, like to see greater understanding of the Bill, which will help our society become a fairer and more equal place to live and which I genuinely believe is the place where most Christians would want to be.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Foster
By email

A bitter complaint

From Mr Bernard Ellis

SIR - It is very interesting to read that Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar laments the visit of Cardinal Schönborn to Medjugorje and complains bitterly that his permission for the visit was not requested (Report, January 8).

When Pope John Paul II asked for Medjugorje to be included in the places he would like to visit on his state visit to Croatia the bishop did not give an invitation and Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, the papal preacher, was also refused permission by the Bishop of Mostar to give a retreat in Medjugorje attended by 600 priests.

If Cardinal Schönborn had asked Bishop Peric for permission to visit Medjugorje it would hardly have been given so Bishop Peric has little to complain about.

Yours faithfully,
Bernard Ellis
Bletchingley, Surrey

Help with a PET

From Mr John Cook

SIR - Our Parish Advisory Council is eager to harness the energy released by the news of Pope Benedict's visit to Britain to undertake some new initiatives and hope your readers may be of help.

We wish to set up a Parish Evangelical Team and know that there has been some discussion of them in your correspondence, and seek feedback or advice from parishes that have experience of the establishing of PETs, their running and the response to them. Practical and spiritual help are both welcome.

Having the bit between our teeth, we are thinking also about the possibility of a parish/school mission and wonder if anyone could recommend a mission team to us.

Yours faithfully,
John Cook
cook.john9@googlemail.com

Marce? Who cares?

From Mr Alan Franks

SIR_- I feel that I must, as a student and teacher of English for many years, comment on the correspondence about the use of "Marce" and "Mass" (Letters, January 8).

I became a convert to the Catholic faith as a university student almost 50 years ago, and the lovely priest who instructed and received me came from an old English Catholic family and always referred to the "Holy Marce". Everyone else said "Mass", but does it really matter?

In the north of England we say "grass" but Southerners say "grarce" - it just depends on the milieu in which we are raised. Why make a problem of it?

Yours faithfully,
Alan Franks
By email

Pius XII and politics

From Mr David Lindsay

SIR - Further to Will Heaven (Notebook, January 8), who are these "Jewish leaders" and "Jewish groups" who always seem to appear whenever Pius XII is mentioned? For whom do they speak? And since they know perfectly well that the plain facts of history are against them, what is their real agenda?

Pius the Righteous Gentile, praised by Moshe Sharett, had far warmer relations with Israel than have of necessity prevailed between that state and the Vatican since, several years after his death, the invasion and occupation of the West Bank, as well as regular attacks on Lebanon. I feel that we are starting to see the point, aren't we? None of this is really about Pius at all. It cannot be - just look at the facts. Rather, it is about the West Bank, Lebanon, Israel's actions towards them, and the Holy See's pastorally inescapable attitude to those actions.

The beatification and canonisation of Pius XII would send exactly the right signal in that particular direction (by no means the only one or the most important): if you care about Israel, and if you therefore want her to have warmer relations with the Vatican, then consider that she did have them in the reign of this great pope, and ask yourselves why. If you want good relations with the papacy, then imposing military law on the West Bank and bombarding Lebanon are not the best ways of going about it.

There are those who say that "Jordan is Palestine". Quite so: Jordan as created at the end of the British Mandate - which is to say, including the West Bank. There has never been a state with its border at the Jordan, and the populations on either Bank are one people. The answer to the question of why anyone ever designed a country so short of water as Jordan is, is that no one ever did. The creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank would be the end of the Hashemite Kingdom: the pressure for incorporation into that state would be irresistible. That, rather than the destruction of Israel, would be the great national aspiration. And then, following its rapid and its largely (if not entirely) bloodless achievement, that would be the great national triumph.

Yours faithfully,
David Lindsay
Lanchester, Co Durham

For equity's sake

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - Philip Butler (Letters, January 8) rightly praises your coverage of the Murphy Report. Given that the report's full title is Report by Commission of Investigation into the handling by Church and State authorities of allegations and suspicions of child abuse against clerics of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, it strikes me that, while it is right and proper for the Church to reflect and take action to address previous abuse and to prevent it in the future, the report also highlighted failings by the civil authorities, the health boards and the Garda. I trust that the same ire will be heaped on the failings of the Garda and health boards to protect innocent victims.

Will the Garda and health boards provide compensation for their failures? Will senior Garda officers and health board officials be required to stand down? For the sake of equity those who failed victims in the Church should stand down and those likewise in the civil authorities should also.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex

The case for Shakespeare's Catholicism

From Mr Russell Sparkes

SIR - Your report (January 8) about Shakespeare possibly visiting Rome is intriguing although uncertain.

But the evidence is overwhelming that he not only grew up in a devoutly Catholic family but remained so all his life. This has been demonstrated in a number of books by the distinguished Shakesperian scholar Peter Milward SJ, most recently in Shakespeare the Papist.

Shakespeare was writing at a time when it was extremely dangerous to proclaim Catholic sympathies publicly. Clare Asquith lived for a number of years in the Communist Bloc where it was equally dangerous to criticise the regime, and she used insights gained from this experience in her book Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare, which came to similar conclusions to Milward.

Bearing in mind this background, Shakespeare's Catholic beliefs are obviously, though subtly, scattered through his works, as I noted in my poetry anthology Sound of Heaven. Take, for example, Shakespeare's positive depiction of the friars in Romeo and Juliet or in Measure for Measure at a time when friars were generally portrayed as sexually licentious rogues. The doctrine of Purgatory and prayers for the dead were traditional Catholic practices most fiercely attacked by the Protestant Reformers, and yet the Ghost in Hamlet proclaims a staunchly Catholic view. The Ghost's tortured account of his death ends: "unhousled, unannealed" (no Last Rites, no Blessed Sacrament) "O horror! O horror! O horror!"

It is striking how the politically correct media and academe ignores this fact; were evidence uncovered showing Shakespeare was gay or of "ethnic" extraction, one suspects that it would be front-page news.

Yours faithfully,
Russell Sparkes
London SW14

A door slightly ajar

From Fr Brian Storey

SIR - Your report (January 8) about Shakespeare possibly visiting Rome is intriguing although uncertain.

SIR - Brendan Kennedy's reflections on religion and neuroscience (Comment, January 8), can be helped by a philosophical description of spirituality; the description has of course to be negative, namely the "absence of the material". Sensations are frequently wrongly described as spiritual. While such can be the result of spiritual pursuit, they are often false and illusory.

There is much help in the thought that we know more of what God is not than we know of what He is. Moreover, it is in the very search for God in an increasingly lost situation, that we find Him. Less than that is still focusing much into the personal psyche.

While science is especially stimulating, its findings necessarily always remain in the realm of what is material. That's why I believe Richard Dawkins wisely leaves the door slightly ajar. God, spirituality and grace are permanently supernatural, invisible and intangible.

Yours faithfully,
Bryan Storey
St Paul the Apostle,
Tintagel, Cornwall

A lonely journey

From G M Gibbens

SIR - For most past converts to the Catholic Church, their conversion has been an individual process entailing a slow journey impelled by grace, leading the soul, perhaps unwillingly, to forsake old certainties and to embark upon a lonely journey to the Catholic truth.

As Newman wrote on May 3 1876 to an unknown correspondent: "I_don't see that you are at liberty to join the Catholic Church merely because you cannot subscribe to the Anglican formularies. In order to be at liberty to do so, you must believe the Catholic Church to be the oracle of God in matters of faith and morals, the Ark of Salvation and the Bride of Christ. But if, after careful thought and earnest prayer and patient waiting for God's grace, you do so believe, only one path is open to you, yet God can make up to you all suffering a hundred fold and give you abundant strength."

The sudden and mass conversion of parties of present Anglicans should surely be contemplated with caution.

Yours faithfully,
G M gibbens
London SW20

The new translation is worse than the old

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - If Fr Leo Chamberlain (Letter, January 9) re-reads what I wrote he will see that I do not disagree with his points, but simply - as a "real Latinist" - make distinctions.

"Better translations should help us all." True. But the proposed replacement is worse, not better.

"Few have Latin at their command; all the more do they need a translation which comes closer to the authoritative Latin text." True. But to use actual Latin syntax, idiom and rhetoric distances both text and faithful from the sense of the Latin.

"To include some conjunctions and subordinate phrases is necessary." True. But Mgr Bruce Harbert, former executive secretary for the International Commission on the English Liturgy (ICEL), includes them all.

"Extremes of paraphrase and omission in ... the Collects." True. First ICEL pruned three things in Collects: complex theological arguments (for more immediate understanding); confusing wordplay; and alien elements of fourth-century inculturation. The bishops came to think the first cuts wrong. Bishop Maurice Taylor's ICEL carefully repaired them. But the Curia wanted to keep the painful concomitants of early Latinisation as well - the servile pagan-style entreaties, the very polylogia that Our Lord condemned. It jettisoned 13 years' delicate work.

Fr Leo hopes that Mgr Harbert will explain the changes. But he stated his whole case at length in journals like the American neo-conservative Adoremus. Indeed, in your own columns, Sir, he urged the superiority of Latin syntax. Elsewhere he condemned our Canons for addressing God with imperatives, constantly addressing him as Father and making no allusion to our servile status: all the flaws that our Canons share with the Our Father.

Would Fr Leo not agree with me that in the Canon at least, where in Christ we realise fully our status as God's adopted children, we should employ the affectionate directness of Our Lord's own prayer?

Yours faithfully,
TOM McINTYRE
Frome, Somerset

8 January 2010

We should rejoice at the progress in the Causes of these great popes

From Mr Paul Kokoski

SIR - I commend the Vatican for moving Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII a step closer to canonisation (Report, December 25).

Pope John Paul II, a man of deep faith, will one day be canonised a saint by the Catholic Church. The Holy Father was an inspiration and a model witness to the life of Christ, a Shepherd of Truth immersed in profound humility and immense love for both God and man.

His many writings and tireless, worldwide pilgrimages of faith were a source of strength, encouragement, confidence, optimism and enlightenment not only to Catholics but to all men of good will.

A champion of the poor and ardent exponent of Christian unity, the Polish Pontiff was in many and such capacities as teaching, governing and sanctifying both a beacon of light and salt of the earth.

Alongside his historic role in the fall of Communism, John Paul II was the world's most influential and uncompromising defender of the dignity of human life. His tenacious pleas for the development of a "culture of life" and parallel denunciations of the "culture of death" have been instrumental in rallying opposition to war, terrorism, abortion, euthanasia, contraception and embryonic tissue research.

I pray for his well-deserved heavenly reward that is promised by the Giver of every gift to his good and faithful servants.

Pope Pius XII also possessed "heroic virtue". Despite efforts to cast a dark shadow over Pope Pius XII's good character it is an irrefutable fact that Pius II and the Catholic Church saved more Jews in Europe during the Second World War than any other party, with the only exception being the Allied liberating armies themselves.

He often acted secretly and silently because, in the light of the practical situations of that complex period of history, he foresaw that only in this way could he avoid the worst and save the greatest possible number of Jews.

In 1946 Isaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, wrote a letter to Pius XII thanking him for helping Jews during the Holocaust and for "sheltering thousands of children, who were hidden in Catholic institutions".

It is estimated by Gary Krupp, of the Pave the Way Foundation, that Pius XII and the Catholic Church saved the lives of 850,000 Jews and other Nazi persecutees during the Second World War.

Pope Pius XII promoted intense charitable work on behalf of the persecuted, without distinction of religion, race, nationality or political affiliation. Relatives and other witnesses have attested to the fact that he voluntarily deprived himself of food, heating, clothes and comforts in order to share the condition of the people, so harshly tried by the bombing and the consequences of war.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Parishes, rise up!

From Mr Ray Knight

SIR - We are in the middle of celebrating the Year for Priests called for by our Pope Benedict XVI. In fact our priests are doing all that their bishops ask of them, but is that enough in view of the continuing decline?

Since evangelisation is the main purpose for which Jesus Christ founded the Church, reflecting the main purpose of his ministry on earth, parish leadership should surely be dominated by the "making of disciples and healing their sick"?

While never mentioning "healing their sick", popes and bishops tell us laity to do the evangelising. If seminaries and bishops do not see this leadership as the main task of the parish priest, they should train lay men and women as parish leaders in this work.

We still address our bishops as Lords and our popes as Holiness. There was a period in Church history when the pattern of authority in the spiritual became too linked with authority in temporal affairs. Now there is a natural reluctance in our higher echelons to see the laity with power not specifically under the bishop's authority.

Yet Jesus insisted: "Anyone who believes in me will do the works that I do, and even greater." The miracles that we read about in the Gospels and in Acts were supporting witnesses to the authority of the evangelising, by Jesus, his first disciples and the early Church. Rise up, parishes! Divide into prayer groups with a common, dynamic purpose of your prayer, study and discussion to become centres of "making disciples and healing their sick".

From your ranks will eventually come leaders working alongside parish priests everywhere.

Bishops will be surprised and delighted see their parishes transforming the pattern of tragic decline into thousands coming to Christ, reminiscent of the early Church working to do the will of God. Furthermore, sooner or later, those bishops will recognise that such initiative on the part of the laity is encouraged and urged by the Church's Canon Law (216, 204, 211, 225).

Yours faithfully,
Ray Knight
Baldock, Herts

A new text will help

From the Very Rev Fr Leo Chamberlain OSB
SIR - Tom McIntyre (Letters, December 18) and I may only be able to agree that translation is difficult. We remain in disagreement about most of the points he has now raised. In doing so, I rely on the views of real Latinists and not on my own deficient command of Latin. But at least we both know more than the first woman Governor of Texas, the famous Ma Ferguson, who was said to have remarked in 1924 that if the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ, it was good enough for her.

I do not think Ronald Knox would want to justify the extremes of paraphrase and omission in the present translation of the Mass, including that of the Collects. Few have Latin at their command; all the more do they need a translation which comes closer to the authoritative Latin text. Some heightening of language is desirable in a liturgical text.

To include some conjunctions and subordinate phrases is necessary. My fundamental contention in this correspondence is not one of Latinising sentiment for the past. It has been that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has much more to offer the Church than its critics allow, and that better translations should help us all.

Yours faithfully,
Leo Chamberlain
St John's Priory,
Easingwold, York

It's Mass, not Marce

From Rosemary Walters

SIR - In response to your article (Charterhouse, December 18) on the pronunciation of Mass as "Marce", I thought I would tell you of my experience.

I was at convent boarding school in the 1950s. My educated parents both said "Mass", while the Irish nuns said "Marce" in a very drooling and pious way which we did not like.

The normal way to say it was "Mass" then, except by mushy people and the Irish who also used to gabble the rosary in a way which did not allow for devotion. I wonder if anyone else has told you of their experience of this.

Yours faithfully,
Rosemary Walters
By email

A long tradition of Anglicans using 'Father'

From Mr James Maurice

SIR - I hesitate to prolong the debate on forms of clerical address (ie "Father") but I must challenge the letter (December 18) from the chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice as, with respect, I think she has misunderstood my letter of November 30.

I was not suggesting that Roman Catholic priests did not historically originate the style of address but simply that, given the unfortunate residual anti-Catholic hostility still prevailing in the mid 19th century, while not official policy it was deemed inadvisable for everyday use in public in certain areas, though an influx of Irish immigrants who brought their customs with them made it difficult to effect.

On the other hand, a number of Anglican priests, although inciting some controversy, chose to use it and in a few cases were prosecuted.

Concerning the chairman's anecdotal comments, my late mother, a lifelong devout Roman Catholic who was educated prior to 1914 at a convent in East London, once told me with some amusement that the Sisters instructed their pupils that when addressing a priest in public they were not to use the style Father and when priests came to the convent to celebrate Mass they usually arrived dressed in mufti devoid even of a clerical collar.

Similarly, the recorded Anglican usage of the title Father can be verified by a perusal of the transcripts of proceedings of cases brought under the Public Worship Act of 1874 where a number of Anglican priests were prosecuted and imprisoned for alleged "Roman" practices, including, inter alia, styling themselves as Father. Many references to contemporary reports on the proceedings can be found on the internet.

My purpose was to dispute Mr Williams's suggestions that usage of this style was eclectic and did not have a widespread or lengthy tradition.

Finally, I do not think the content of my letter claimed that Anglo-Catholics were the mainstream of the Church of England but they do, of course, represent a very significant grouping within it and many of those who cross the Tiber come from that faction. As to the current proportion, I suggest that the chairman consults the Forward in Faith movement.

Yours faithfully,
James Maurice
By email

We need to confess

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR - Regarding Philip Butler's criticism (Letters, December 11) of Fr Edwin Gordon's positive letter (November 27)_about the value of frequent Confession, while acknowledging his point that clearly many Catholics are not taking advantage of the opportunity to go to Confession for a number of reasons, that doesn't mean there has to be any change in its essential nature.

Quite apart from what recent popes have said about confession, it is a fact that the very first thing that Christ did on seeing the disciples together as a group after his Resurrection - that very evening - was to give them the power to forgive sins. He told them that he was sending them and breathed on them, saying: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:19-23).

The only way they could know other people's sins in order to forgive them is if they were told them - this means auricular confession. And it is a settled Catholic belief that this power to forgive sins was passed on to the successors of the Apostles and thus to today's priests and bishops, and will continue on into the future.

Mr Butler's friend may feel that her sins have been forgiven, but she can never have the certainty that they have been forgiven which comes with sacramental absolution. If Christ instituted the sacrament of Confession it was for a good reason, namely that we are all sinners who need it, whether our sins are mortal or venial, and thus it is foolish to reject or downplay this wonderful sacrament of God's love and forgiveness.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Chilwell, Notts

From Mr Philip Butler

Sir-I agree so much with your leading article of December 4 that the Murphy report shows the need for deep spiritual renewal of the Catholic Church, but how is this to come about?

The usual suspects are now blaming Vatican II for paedophiliac abuse in the Church or downplaying the scandal by saying that there are always rotten apples in any barrel. Most of our priests are, of course, good, kind, hard-working dedicated -_that hardly needs sayings - but what surely must be addressed is why in a body whose whole purpose is to show God's love for mankind there could be any priests who betray their vocation in such appalling ways.

Issuing apologies, paying compensation and working out safeguards for the future are all important and necessary but the scale and nature of the scandal (by no means confined to Ireland) demand something more. The title of Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's book expresses what is needed: Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus.

We should make a fundamental re-appraisal of the nature of authority in the Church and how power is exercised in its institutional structures at every level "abandoning the cultural history of treating authority as a hierarchy of power", as you suggest, and recovering an authentically Christlike "hierarchy of loving service".

Yours faithfully,
Philip Butler
London NW10

Classroom sex education is a terrible failure

From Dr Helen Davies

SIR - In your report on the Catholic Education Service (CES) and its attitude to the Government's latest drive on school sex education (Report, December 25) we need to remember that the policy of classroom sex education has been a disastrous failure.

Why would it not be when it fails to form children in chastity by breaking down natural barriers and exposing children, in a captive classroom setting, to details which by their very nature should be private and intimate? These same children will then be able to talk freely after class about what they have just been told. They have effectively been desensitised and sexualised. Where is the encouragement to modesty or privacy?

The Church has always emphasised that children should be educated at home about "the truth and meaning of human sexuality".

This should be done when parents judge the time is right, not by an outside agency. If they are manifestly unable to do this then they may delegate their responsibility to a suitable guardian or teacher, but the information would need to be imparted on an individual basis, not in a classroom setting.

How many parents know this? Does the CES not realise that parents badly need support to keep their children chaste not misguided interference from Government agencies?

Yours faithfully
Helen Davies
By email

25 December 2009

We cannot compromise as Parliament abrogates our human rights

From Mr Philip Audley-Charles

SIR - Most Catholics will understand that the proposed Equality Bill (Report, December 11) will merely be another of the many Acts passed by Parliament in the last 12 years in an ideological conflict with the beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding sexual ethics and the nature of marriage. Some Acts are also opposed to other Catholic teaching and abrogate our human rights.

In 1997 it was hoped that a new Government would show more concern for the "common good" but the last 12 years have turned out to be for the "common bad" of the Catholic Church in Britain. Recent data issued by the Office of National Statistics reveals that an unfortunate additional misfortune, or "common bad", in this period has fallen on the poor in Britain, because it seems, even during the years of plenty, their number increased.

Maybe we Catholics need to keep in mind that we do not seek to force anything on anyone; however, these Acts of Parliament are intended to coerce everyone to conform to their alien philosophy.

All we would ask is to be permitted our human right to practise our religion; it threatens no one and participation is voluntary.

Unfortunately, the history of the Church makes it all too clear that mealy-mouthed compromise in the face of such outright opposition to God's truth always results in worse to follow. Although the threat is not (yet?) so severe, perhaps we should recall that St John Fisher was the only bishop who had the courage to defend the Church and the Gospel against King Henry VIII, while his fellow bishops and archbishops compromised their beliefs. We all know that what followed was 300 years of misery and martyrdom for England's Catholics.

Will we sing forever of your love, O Lord, and
Through all ages will our mouth proclaim your truth?

Yours faithfully,
Philip Audley-Charles
London N7

A sick minority

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR - My late mother was a day pupil in a convent school in Co Monaghan in the 1920s. Only years later did she finally realise why the girls boarding in the school were so sullen - the strict regime for boarders was terrifying. The real scandal in the sad and shameful report of the treatment of young people in Ireland over decades by a small, sick minority of priests and religious is that so many of the hierarchy put the Church's reputation above Christian values (Report, December 4).

The words and condemnation of Pope Benedict are not only welcome they are, through no fault of his, long overdue. Now is the time for a cleansing of Ireland's hierarchy of any bishops or above, who knew and either did not act or did act but only in the interests of the Church's reputation, to be dismissed. The many innocent young people abused will have paid much.

We can only offer our prayers and compensation - we cannot restore their innocence. The other great "crime" of a corrupt Irish hierarchy is that the majority of decent Irish priests and religious will be smeared with the shame of a minority.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1

Ecumenical effects

From Mr Michael Hodges

SIR - I was rather annoyed by Fr Paul Browne OSB's letter (December 11) in which he stated the translation of the response et cum spiritu tuo as "and with your spirit" "isn't English". This would certainly have come as news to Cramner and indeed to most of his current Anglican descendants who, as far as I recall, still use "and with your spirit".

One could in fact argue that this change will have a beneficial ecumenical effect.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Hodges
London SW7

Death of conscience

From Dr Christopher Shell

SIR - Christian registrar Lilian Ladele, unwilling to conduct civil unions, lost her appeal this week, trumped by "modern liberal democracy". The Court of Appeal makes a plain logical error here. For if "modern" is good (rather than neutral), despoiled rainforests, bombings of civilians, and fiddled expenses are good; and additionally, from now on, the death of conscience is good.

In fact, a conscientious employee is a good employee. This is discrimination, in the name of anti-discrimination, against (of all people) those with high moral standards. How can we stand by?

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Shell
Hounslow, Middlesex

The Pope's green passion warms the heart

From Mr Kenn Winter

SIR - Pope Benedict's call for "concrete action" to combat global warming, from his study window in the Vatican to thousands of pilgrims gathered in St Peter's Square on December 6, warmed my heart. It contrasted starkly with your lukewarm leading article on December 11, alongside the letter from a "climate-change denier" from Surrey.

The Holy See has participated in the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with a delegation led by its UN representative Archbishop Migliore, alongside Caritas Internationalis, representing 150 Catholic charities, including bishops from 25 countries, who support scientists' demands for a 40 per cent cut in global CO2 emissions in the next decade.

The Archbishop of Westminster could respond to the Pope's call and get the English bishops and dioceses to switch to CO2-free "green electricity" for their 5,000-plus Catholic churches, schools, clergy property (other ethical organisations like Oxford University, and even RBS bank, have done so) and "offset" all Catholic flights and pilgrimages' CO2 with payments for environmental initiatives, especially in Third World countries. These are easily arranged by responsible travel agents such as the Co-op Group.

It is hypocrisy for English bishops to tell people to "live simply" while they pollute God's Creation with fossil fuel emissions from Catholic property and flights to Rome.

It would also be a simple matter for all Catholic households to switch to a "green tariff" for their domestic electricity, at no extra cost, via their existing energy suppliers - in response to the Pope's heart-felt plea for "concrete action" to combat global warming. If Mary and Joseph were alive today I like to think they would be on a "green tariff".

Yours faithfully,
Kenn Winter
Huddersfield, Yorkshire

A happy medium

From Mr David Lindsay

SIR - I attended St Chad's College Durham's Advent procession by kind invitation of the College Officers and Fellows.

The old place is on very good form. But the word on the Anglo-Catholic street is that the Ordinariate proposal is ridiculous. Just as the worst liturgical abuses on our own side of the Tiber are mostly in London or its orbit and are dying out even there, so the most exotic aspects of Forward in Faith are mostly in London or its orbit and are dying out even there. There is a more than a happy medium to be struck by clergy who come over having used the modern Roman Rite tastefully, reverently and sensibly for decades, in many cases all their lives.

Parishes the length and breadth of the land are crying out for such priests. Should the men who could meet that need revert to, or adopt for the first time, the full English Missal flora and fauna of 1950s Anglo-papalism? That is as absurd to them as it is to me. The provision for the Latin Rite ordination of married convert clergy goes all the way back to Pius XII.

As for being aimed at the Traditional Anglican Communion, again the views of the Anglo-Catholic mainstream are in line with those of many of the rest of us. If that body really is active in 66 countries, then in which 66 countries, exactly? If it really does have hundreds of thousands of faithful, then who are they, and where are they? This whole thing may be playing well in London, at Oxford and on the south coast. But in all parts North (and, no doubt, west), it is being dismissed as an irrelevance and an absurdity.

All in all, that evening was heartening stuff. "If I were going to become a Roman Catholic, then I would just get on and do it", and, even better: "If you are going to do it, then you should do it properly, and become part of a normal Roman diocese and parish." Quite.

Yours faithfully,
David Lindsay
Lanchester, Co Durham

Priests should heed the Papal Preacher

From Mr Edmund P Adamus, director of the department for pastoral affairs of the Diocese of Westminster

SIR - In view of the threat posed by the Equality Bill (Report, December 11) on the employment status of the priesthood to the effect that at least 51 per cent of a priest's ministry must be devoted to preaching doctrine and or to public worship; perhaps the advice from Fr Cantalamessa, Preacher to the Papal Household might be timely:

"A threat that... affects the clergy of the whole Church [is] called frenetic activism. Priests, more than anyone else, are exposed to the danger of sacrificing what is important for the urgent. Prayer, the preparation of the homily or for Mass, study and formation, are all important things, but not always considered urgent; if they are postponed, apparently, the world does not collapse, while there are so many little things - a meeting, a phone call, a material task - which are [imagined as] urgent. Thus one ends up by postponing systematically the important things to a 'later' that never arrives."

There is the equally sage and timely advice from Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev, President of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations who in the introduction to the 2009 book Europe, Spiritual Homeland (presented to the Pope on December 2) states: "The Christian is called to profess his faith boldly, out of love of God and of his truth, and for the salvation of his soul, for eternal life. He must denounce by legal means the clear violation committed by society or by the state against the laws and commandments of God. And if this action should prove impossible or ineffective, then he must move on to civil disobedience."

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
London SW1

18 December 2009

Darwin should not be blamed for deep-rooted racism in America

From Mr Richard Heron

SIR - Your shock-horror headline "Darwin's idea has cost lives" is followed by the even more emotive "the naturalist is a secular saint yet he has left a legacy of mass sterilisation and murder" (Features, December 4).

Dennis Sewell gives two clearly historically flawed instances of Darwin's pernicious influence before he goes for the jugular with your readers on eugenics and the Abortion Act. To blame Darwin's theories for chronic American racism and the racial outrages of Nazi Germany is palpable nonsense. America's founding fathers did not need to be overtaken by Darwinian science to deny the self-evident truth that all men are created equal - their own hypocritical acceptance of slavery from the beginning was the basis for deep-rooted racism.

Nor did this just apply to black people - from 1898 until 1902 the US fought a vicious war in the Philippines shot through with racism from start to end. In the 1904 St Louis Exposition the most popular pavilion in the Philippine sector was that of half-dressed hill tribes, armed with bow and arrows. Ordinary Filipinos, as civilised as the citizens of Kansas, found this as offensive as anyone found Sewell's pygmy in the Bronx Zoo monkey-house.

Sadly, such racism was not new. Spanish friales - Augustinians, Franciscans and others - who had oppressed the Filipinos for centuries regarded their flock as "relatives of monkeys" and expressed amazement when the likes of José Rizal became an author of international repute. The good Fathers' opinions seem unlikely to have been inspired by Darwin.

For the Holocaust, Sewell graciously allows that "the part played by Christian anti-Semitism should certainly not be ignored". The Protocols of Zion was hardly a Darwinian forgery and his claim that Darwin's racial theory was a necessary condition seems to have overlooked the works of Nietzsche and other Germans of his ilk.

When it comes to the question of the murky world of eugenics he seems not to know, or prefers to ignore, that in the US one of the most prominent families supporting the movement was the Herberts, Walkers and Bushes - today so very "pro-life".

On the other hand, there has never been any evidence that David Steel's motivation in sponsoring the 1967 Abortion Act had any basis in the eugenics movement. It is this smear that seems to spark Sewell's fear of being labelled a conspiracy theorist. A brief visit to Google shows that Sewell is getting heavy cover for his controversialism - judging by this article his true talent is that of the spin doctor. Abortion is dreadful but distortion does no cause any good.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Heron
By email

Our good priests

From Kathleen Hamilton

SIR - Responding to the persistent media coverage of the ongoing investigation into the horrifying history of scandalous child abuse by sick-minded clergy over the years, and the ensuing cover-up by those in authority - bishops and archbishops - I would like to recommend that we look at the "other side of the coin" and consider the untiring, self-sacrificing, generous, compassionate, caring dedication of the vast majority of priests in sacred ministry.

Now in my old age, I can only speak most highly of the priests I have encountered along the way - especially in recent years. They have inspired me by word and example to come to know more about the love and merciful forgiveness of the God I used to fear because of my sinfulness. They have helped me understand the unconditional love of God for each one of us - as we are, not as we would wish to be. They have helped me to see that we do not have to earn God's love. He has redeemed us by his Precious Blood, dying on the Cross to save us, and preparing a place in heaven for us.

Therefore, these priests have helped me in turn to try and reach out to others, especially those with whom I myself need to reconciled and to share this wonderful Good News by my words and actions. The priests I know have helped me to prepare to meet my God without fear in my twilight years, as I near the closing of my days.

I thank God for the influence they have had on my life.

I also pray that those who are now influenced adversely by the bad publicity because of the heinous crimes of offenders will get the grace to think straight, see things in perspective and value our good priests who are suffering so much because they are indiscriminately tarred with the same brush; although they are as shocked as the rest of us at the terrible revelations. Let us pray for our priests.

Since bad news usually makes the headlines, this counterbalance may not be deemed worthy of note but it's worth a try and it comes from my heart.

Yours faithfully,
Kathleen Hamilton
Liverpool

The rights of capital

From Professor Philip Booth, editorial and programme director of the Institute of Economic Affairs

SIR - Bishop Kenney (Features, December 4) invites us to think about what it means to say that "capital has no rights". It would, indeed, be interesting to know what Bishop Kenney does mean.

It would be absurd to suggest that capital itself has no rights. Capital is inanimate and could not have rights.

Did he mean that the owners of capital have no rights? This, in turn, would mean that we would have no property rights as owners of our homes or as owners of the savings that we hold to provide income in retirement or when hit by unemployment and sickness.

The Church has always strongly defended such rights - albeit sometimes in a qualified way and sometimes in a way that makes such rights subservient to the rights of labour. She did so at the time of Rerum Novarum, which was influenced by Cardinal Manning; she still does so today, including in the particular context of the abject poverty, in many countries around the world, where the rights to hold property and other capital are often non-existent or not enforceable.

Pope Leo XIII thought about this deeply. He concluded from natural law that man had a right to hold property, though a duty to give from his excess to the poor. This duty was not to be enforced by human law, he continued, except in extreme cases. The right to property was very clear indeed; and, as Pope Leo would have predicted, those whose do not have that right live in the poorest communities in the world and suffer greatly as a result.

I believe that Cardinal Manning actually said: "Capital has no rights, but the capitalist has." This is clear, even if the first half of the sentence hardly needs saying. But what exactly did Bishop Kenney mean?

Yours faithfully,
Philip Booth
London SW1

Jump on the bus

From Mr Patrick Reyntiens

SIR - We are encouraged to jump on the coetibus and drive down the via media to Rome.

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Reyntiens
Ilminster, Somerset

Ronald Knox's clear-headed conversion

From Mr John Jolliffe SIR - Jonathan Wright's review (December 11) of Ronald Knox and English Catholicism by Fr Terry Tastard made some strangely misleading comments, including the following: "Conversion is often a muddled business." It is hard to think of a more clear-headed conversion than that of Knox.

Knox "embraced reception into the Church with ease". On the contrary, it was a huge rift. (See Evelyn Waugh's biography, Ronald Knox: "His view of the Church of England was that she was a true branch of the Latin Church of the West, which through an accident of history had been partly severed from the trunk. She was feloniously held in bondage by the State ... It was her manifest destiny in God's good time to return rejoicing to her proper obedience." Is not the Pope's recent invitation just for this?) Secondly, Knox's father, the Anglican Bishop of Manchester, was appalled by his son's step, which he called not a conversion but a perversion, and even cut him out of his will. Unlike the impression given by your reviewer, it was emphatically a momentous decision, which gave great pain to a father whom he loved deeply.

"He served as an 'estimable chaplain' at Oxford." What is this supposed to mean? The Oxford to which Knox returned in 1926 was totally different from the one he had loved before 1914. In her fascinating book The Knox Brothers his niece Penelope Fitzgerald, stated that "the main interests of undergraduates in the 1930s were sex, travel, and European politics", rather than dropping in at the Old Palace between the stated hours of 4 and 6 pm.

Knox "needed to be needed", and he felt he wasn't, not least because he refused to have a telephone in the house. "Estimable"? At any rate, he regarded himself as the shepherd of his quite small flock. He had no interest in making converts, and advised those concerned to go and talk to the Jesuits in Farm Street.

One could say more, but this letter is long enough.

Yours faithfully,
John Jolliffe
By email

Canonising Latin

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - Fr Leo Chamberlain (Letters, December 4) thinks he was "mistaken" to value our plain English Mass. Hardly. Plainness in prayer is a divine command. The current issue is actually between plain and plain - the Mass in pure English for our time, against a medieval sermo simplex literally translated. Grammar affects both. Plain Latin, for instance, needs many conjunctions. Good English, Ronald Knox pointed out, uses few.

Fr Leo pleads old age. That gives him some feel and attachment for this revived Latinising Missal language. The feel and attachment of the millions, though, is for the Mass that they know and can follow. And unlike Fr Leo, they have no Latin to tell them what the literal version means.

"One can hardly dispute St Jerome's fundamental principle, to translate the sense." Mgr Harbert does. He argues that there is no underlying sense, justifying literalism by the Marxists' long-discarded mort de l'auteur theory. Fr Leo, too, in condemning paraphrase, disputes St Jerome's principle. If translation is not literal, Ronald Knox again reminds us, it is paraphrase.

Fr Leo's irritation at "from east to west" is strange. On its own a solis ortu, etc, might be temporal ("from the rising even to the setting of the sun" ie, all day long). But the Mass reference is to Malachi 1:11. The New Jerusalem Bible translates "from farthest east to farthest west", ie universally. Trent held that this prophesied the universal sacrifice of the messianic age.

Far too few Fathers, Doctors of the Church or popes are available in plain modern English. Canonising Latin idiom makes things worse.

Yours faithfully,
Tom McIntyre
Frome, Somerset

Staying in bed

From Mr Nicolas J Bellord

SIR - Regarding Hugh David's discussion (School Board, November 20) of allowing school children to get up later perhaps we should remember René Descartes ("I think therefore I am").

When at the College de La Fleche his Jesuit teachers allowed him to stay in bed as long as liked and it is there that he formed the habit of staying in bed to have a good think. This was about the same time as the Church's hitch over Galileo but surely the enlightened Jesuits amply compensated for that.

As for myself, I just remember the Benedictines beating me for day-dreaming. What might I have been!

Yours faithfully,
Nicolas Bellord
Horsted Keynes, West Sussex

A totalitarian state

From Mr M J Smith

SIR - I wonder whether those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of their country in the two world wars, which we commemorate each November, would have been so willing to make that sacrifice had they known what a totalitarian state this country is fast becoming, thanks to Harriet Harman and the present Government (Report, December 11).

Yours faithfully,
Michael Smith
By email

Facts and fiction

From Dr Christopher Shell

SIR - Ed Balls says that an emphasis on marriage is "old-fashioned". Logically, there are three possibilities. Either he is more concerned to be "with-it" than to do what's best for children; or he believes that the definition of "fashionable" is the same as the definition of "beneficial"; or he thinks that those things that are fashionable are in fact always beneficial. I expect that a good proportion of the children for whom he's responsible could alert him to the obvious falsity of all three positions.

Less fundamentalism and more attention to real-world facts and statistics on the intrinsic average durabilities of marriage and cohabitation, please.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Shell
Hounslow, Middx

Cherie's guidance

From Dr Helen Davies

SIR - Cherie Blair is entitled to her own views on what she calls "the natural form of contraception" (Report, December 11).

What she is not entitled to do is to use her position and access to the media to take every opportunity to spread misinformation on something so important to women of all ages as natural fertility awareness.

The Church supports natural planning because it works when couples take the trouble to learn it well, and it follows God's plan for our sexuality. I, for one, would prefer my daughters to follow the Church's guidance rather than Cherie Blair's.

Yours faithfully,
Helen Davies
By email

Common language

From Mr Tony Foley

SIR - I was puzzled by Fr Paul Browne's statement (Letters, December 11) that "With your Spirit" is not English as quite recently I was in St Paul's for Evensong (which is something special) and what did I hear after: "The Lord be with you" but "And with thy Spirit". Further, the closing words of St Paul's letter (NRSV translation) to the Galatians is "may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit".

If what he is saying is that no one in ordinary English culture would ever say to another: "With your spirit." Well, so what? I have never said "And also with you" outside of church. All the pity that the beauty of the Word has not penetrated into the common language of the people.

In the native language (Gaelic) of my country, the hello greeting is Dia dhuit ("God be with you") and the response is Dia is Mhuire Dhuit ("God and Mary be with you").

No doubt Fr Browne's translation would be "How are you?" followed by "I am fine. How are you?", on the basis that God has never entered into the greetings of the people of this land. But that would not be a translation but a manifestation of a cultural imperialism.

Yours faithfully,
Tony Foley
Billericay, Essex

The first Fathers

From the chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice

SIR - I am surprised to see James Maurice's claim (Letters, December 11) that Catholics copied Anglicans in calling their clergy "Father" when it was so clearly the other way around. Catholic priests from religious orders have always been addressed as Father though secular priests were addressed as Sir at the time of the Reformation.

Catholic priests in this country have been called "Father" from the time the Hierarchy was restored in 1850 to keep in line with Catholic priests the world over, though at that time no Anglican ministers were known as Father.

I well remember my grandmother talking about priests she knew as a child (the 1860s and 1870s) as Father. Now all Catholic priests are Father, Padre, etc. but only some Anglicans use that title and low-church Anglicans dislike it.

Is Mr Maurice just as mistaken when he claims that Anglo-Catholicism represents the mainstream of the Anglican tradition? He certainly fails to present any evidence for that position and Robert Williams (Letters, November 27) makes a good case for the opposite view.

Yours faithfully,
Daphne McLeod
Great Bookham, Surrey

Catholics are confused about how they should fight the drift towards euthanasia

From Mr A J H Miller

SIR – I found myself very much in agreement with the sentiments expressed in John Randall’s letter (November 27).

I do not consider that the lack of response referred to is because people are not concerned by the issues raised, but rather that they simply do not know how they can fight this enemy within of a secular Government and health service which appear to value human life purely in monetary terms and nothing more.

Most of us do not have the expertise to credibly question the actions taken by the medical profession in “caring” for our elderly relatives, even if we have suspicions as to the true motivation of certain actions or inactions, and the chance of finding a qualified person to give a contrary opinion to that of the primary doctor is remote, particularly as starvation and dehydration in the form of the Liverpool Care Pathway appears to be a perfectly legal form of back-door euthanasia.

Even if the considerable obstacle of a second opinion can be overcome then there are the emotional barriers of “it won’t bring him / her back” as well as considering the sensitivities of other relatives who may wish to avoid the pain, trauma and distress of autopsies, coroners, courts etc. One also tries to put oneself in the shoes of the deceased and ask whether they would have wanted to live a life incapacitated, dependent and inevitably lacking dignity at times when they had been fully fit and independent previously.

One is essentially put in the position with these emotional dilemmas of asking whether one is acting for the benefit of the deceased, other relatives or oneself. All that can be done is to pray and then act in good faith considering the best interests of both the deceased and bereaved relatives.

In my opinion, there are evil people in Government and the health service who cynically play on these factors knowing that in reality there is little that can or will be done by most ordinary people.

I do not know how we can overcome this. I hope and pray that somebody out there does.

Yours faithfully,
A J H Miller
By email


From Professor Robin Whatley

SIR – John Randall is right to be astonished at the lack of response to Tim Fawcett’s important earlier letter (November 6). I cannot be alone in agreeing with everything they write.

Earlier this year I spent eight months in an NHS hospital where I first learned of the Liverpool Care Pathway. This was presented as something elderly patients (I am 73) should be grateful for, although some of the more “hands on” nurses disliked it intensely.

The “petty brutes and braggarts” are not confined to government quangos and local authorities; they are well represented in Parliament, especially the Lower House, and throughout the civil service at all levels. Corruption is indeed “rife in high places” but by no means confined there. County councils are awash with it and rank incompetence has become its stable fellow.

We should not be concerned solely with the legalised murder of the unborn and the aged but also with the evident intent of the state to morally corrupt our children. To render sex education for 15-year-olds obligatory is pure fascism, and that is what my father and others of my family fought against in World War Two.

Yours faithfully,
Robin Whatley
Aberystwyth, Cardiganshire

Enough is enough

From Dr Joseph Seferta

SIR – Why all the fuss about the ban on building minarets in Switzerland (Report, December 4)? Muslims are still allowed to build mosques and worship in them, as indeed they are throughout the West. It is the Christians (in both East and West) who should be outraged at the shameful treatment of Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries, where it is impossible to build new churches and where persecution is a daily fact of life, with no one coming to their help.

There is not a single church in Saudi Arabia to serve the spiritual needs of two million Christians working there, and this follows the pleas by popes Paul VI and John Paul II. Meanwhile, Muslims in Europe are allowed to build hundreds of mosques and enjoy full human and democratic rights. No reciprocity and no fairness!

Christianity is waning fast in Europe, with Muslim radicals clearly sensing that. They are using all means to spread Islam so that eventually Europe will become Islamised, meaning that Christians here would have the same bleak future that Christians already have in Islamic countries under the sharia. I think the Swiss were the first nation to sense that and had the courage to state publicly: “Enough is enough.”

Yours faithfully,
Joseph Seferta
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Invisible to our eyes

From Mr Philip Goddard

SIR – Whether the celebrant at Mass faces versus orientem or versus populum, the congregation cannot, pace your correspondent Elizabeth Price (Letters, November 27), “see the point at which Christ is present”, since this is an event invisible to mortal eyes.

Whatever the supposed merits of the versus populum position, this is assuredly not one of them.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Goddard
London SE19

This isn’t English

From Fr Paul Browne OSB

SIR – In your report on the new English Missal (November 27) you claim that the response “And with your spirit” is “closer to the Latin et cum spiritu tuo”. “Closer to”? – it’s a literal, word-for-word translation. But it isn’t English. Unlike “And also with you”, which we’ve been saying now for nearly 40 years.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Browne
Leyland, Lancashire

A source of regret

From Fr David Bingham MHM

SIR – I now very much regret my letter (December 4) expressing my personal feelings about the Tridentine Mass. Whatever one’s personal feelings, it is not the business of a priest to hurt the feelings of good and devout Catholics who feel passionately and are devoted to the Tridentine Mass.

Yours faithfully,
David Bingham
Durham

A saint for the plinth

From Mr Raymond Benedict De Souza

SIR – There has been a great deal of publicity recently regardng the use of the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square.

I cannot believe that no one has suggested that it is the right place for a statue of Sir Thomas More, perhaps our greatest Lord Chancellor.

As is well known, Thomas More was not only a brilliant lawyer but also an honest politician. He is recognised worldwide, not only by us Catholics but also by Anglicans, and people of other faiths, and no faith, for his remarkable qualities. He has, in my opinion, the best claim to be commemorated by a statue on the vacant plinth.

A Londoner, he was educated at St Anthony’s School, Threadneedle Street, Canterbury Hall at Oxford and at New Inn, London. This Londoner is buried, headless, in the Chapel of St Peter-ad-Vincula, Tower of London, in an unknown location.

In 2000 Pope John Paul II declared More as “the heavenly patron of statesmen and politics”.

Yours faithfully,
Raymond Benedict De Souza
London N8

A trait of sympathy

From Mr John Kearney

SIR – I found the article by Dennis Sewell (Feature, December 4) compelling reading but I would like to point out that Darwin himself was a very caring man. His family was very much anti-slavery. If he had known how his writings would be used he would have been horrified.

Yet take the following quotation from The Descent of Man. He compared how savages kill off the sick and weak yet we build asylums for them:

“No one who has attended to the propagation of domestic animals will doubt that this will be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

Darwin did say, however, that the human race had developed a “trait of sympathy”. Darwin may have believed this but many of his disciples certainly did not. As Mr Sewell has shown his writings led to disaster for blacks and Jews.

Yours faithfully,
John Kearney
Basingstoke, Hampshire

Why Anglo-Catholic clergy are called Father

From Mr James Maurice

SIR – With great respect, I must take issue with Robert Ian Williams (Letters, November 27), who displays a rather parochial and, I suspect, possibly partisan view of liturgical practices in the Church of England (and the Church in Wales).

While reading his letter I could immediately recollect by patronal name at least 30 Anglican churches where most of the “Roman” rituals to which he clearly objects are regularly and openly practised, including in some cases the (Latin) Tridentine Mass and veneration of the reserved or exposed sacrament.

While my precise knowledge is restricted to Greater London, the English south coast towns, Cornwall and South Wales, as well as the Walsingham shrine (initially restored by the local vicar Fr Hope Patten), many have purpose-built private confessionals, and in my working / holiday travels throughout Britain a passing glance at church notice boards reveals that the availability of the penitential sacrament is not unusual. In any event, the Book of Common Prayer 1662 expressly provides for private confession and absolution.

Also, on a point of detail the now widespread custom of addressing the local vicar or rector as “Father” pre-dates Roman Catholic public usage in Britain and began with Fr Lowder at St Peter’s, Limehouse, in 1860 while he ministered to Portuguese and other foreign seamen during a cholera outbreak and the practice spread throughout the East End of London and was soon adopted by more fashionable churches elsewhere. Prior to the Great War Roman Catholic priests were for reasons of discretion addressed in public as “Mr”.

There are many other liturgical ceremonies alleged to be exclusively “Roman” but overtly celebrated in the Church of England and the Church in Wales which are too numerous to list here.

Yours faithfully,
James Maurice
Aberaeron, Ceredigion

Tea and St Benedict

From Brother John Barry OCSD

SIR – In his Notebook (November 20) Charlie Hegarty gives us an insight into The Book of Tea written by Kakuzo Okakura, first published in 1906. It gives us an account of Japanese culture, especially that of the tea ceremony, “Teaism”, which flows from Zen Buddhism. The tea vessels would be treated with great reverence because “they are almost part of a cult of saints with relics”.

St Benedict, in his Rule for monks around 540 AD, with reference to the cellarer says: “He will regard all utensils and goods of the monastery as sacred vessels of the altar.”

Interesting to note the link that exists betweens the world’s great religions, religious movements and cultures.

Having said all this, I intend to “hold on in there” within the Catholic fold. Besides, I am a coffee man myself, thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,
John Barry
Abbaye Notre Dame de Scourmont,
Forges, Belgium

It is wrong to equate the Ordinary Form of the Mass with Cranmer's compositions

From the Very Rev Fr Leo Chamberlain OSB

SIR - I have read with interest the comments (November 20) on my previous letter (November 6).

There is good justification for the modifications made to the Mass in producing what is now the Ordinary Form but it is not possible to take up all Fr Gary Dickson's points regarding the old form of the Roman Rite in comparison with the Ordinary Form. Still, it really won't do to line up the ordinary form with Cranmer's compositions.

Fr Gary seems rightly to refer to article 46 of the Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, which itself recalls St Thomas Aquinas's moving summary of the meaning of the Mass. Sacrifice and meal, or better, banquet, are bound together.

At Mass, taking the bread and wine, we carry out the Lord's command in his memory, and the priest acts in the person of Christ to consecrate; thus we are made present to the one sacrifice which priest and laity offer together. Communion completes the sacrifice. There is no distinction here between the old and the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Cranmer's intention was the opposite, to exclude the language of sacrifice altogether, on the grounds that the Mass was a blasphemous attempt to repeat the unique sacrifice of Christ. He did so most completely in the Book of Common Prayer of 1552. The famous Black Rubric denied the Real Presence; the prayer of offering in the Eucharistic Prayer was omitted. The Council of Trent took pains to combat the error.

As many Anglicans celebrate the Eucharist today, they use a much more Catholic text, produced by their own liturgical scholars. Even if they do not, the ecumenical truth which matters to us all is that they are trying to fulfil Christ's command to remember him.

I have much sympathy with Mr McIntyre over the question of language. I remember old Professor Harrison, a member of the original team of translators, passionate for plainness. At the time, I agreed. Now I think we were all mistaken. I hope Mgr Harbert and other expert translators may themselves write further at some point about the issue. One can hardly dispute St Jerome's fundamental principle, to translate the sense. Actually, classicists tell me that he certainly did not always get it right.

The trouble with the present translations is that they are paraphrases and do not sufficiently reflect the sermo simplex of the Latin. The criticism is that they lose too much of the meaning of the Latin - which is, after all, the authoritative text. The Gloria simply omits phrases. Perhaps the Collects are the worst, but repeatedly the translation loses the echo of meaning in the Latin often by its flat attempt to abandon metaphor -not what Newman had in mind. An example which always irritates me is that a sole ortu ad occasum, that is, "from the rising even to the setting of the sun", in the Third Eucharistic Prayer is translated "from east to west".

The flow of language does matter. So do feminist linguistic sensitivities today. But that is a whole vast further subject. Perhaps I should be more patient, but I am getting old. Still, I hope we may all move together quite soon.

I am aware of how much damage has been done by priests and others ignoring another paragraph from the Constitution, para 22.3. Not even a priest may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Yours faithfully,

Leo Chamberlain
St John's Priory,
Easingwold, York

The next battle

From Paul and Audrey Edwards

SIR - We may rejoice over success with the free speech clause in the Criminal Justice Act (Report, November 20). But we cannot relax as the next battle has already begun with the introduction of the Equality Bill.

Under the proposed Schedule 9 of this Bill church organisations would not be able to turn someone down for a job on the basis of their sexual lifestyle unless the job was wholly or mainly concerned with leading liturgy or explaining doctrine.

Few positions within Church organisations would meet this restrictive criterion but surely it is reasonable for Christian organisations to be able to recruit only people who subscribe to the teaching and cultural ethos of that organisation. It is only in this way that an integrated approach based on a unity of belief can pervade all its work.

We are sure Christians would readily accept that gay rights organisations should be entitled to recruit only people who subscribe to their value systems and thus exclude Christians who do not.

Pushing through this legislation will increase division and conflict within society for many Christians - and Muslims? - would feel alienated from a society which would be perceived as imposing on them rules which are alien to their fundamental beliefs.

We hope the Catholic bishops will make clear to Government their strong opposition to this proposal.

Yours faithfully,
Paul and Audrey Edwards
Cambridge

American splits

From Fr Anthony Symondson SJ

SIR - May I clarify a quotation attributed to me in Simon Caldwell's report (November 27) on the episcopal commission set up by the Bishops' Conference to make plans for implementing the recent Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.

He quotes me as saying:_"A lot of divorced and remarried Catholics go to [Anglo-Catholic] churches because they are effectively excommunicated from the Catholic Church and the last thing they want is to be under the jurisdiction of Rome again because it will put them back in the situation they have tried to escape." This statement is not necessarily true because divorced Catholics may continue to receive Holy Communion if they remain unmarried and it arose as a quotation from another source.

During my conversation with him I referred to a statement on these lines made by a bishop from one of the American splits from ECUSA at the last conference of Forward in Faith in October. The bishop also went further by saying that he came from a long Anglican line, and wanted to die an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic. The speech can be downloaded online from the Forward in Faith website. I raise this distinction because I do not want to imply that what prevails in the United States prevails as fully in the United Kingdom.

There is, indeed, a relaxation in some British Anglo-Catholic parishes of matrimonial discipline and some Anglican clergymen are themselves divorced but I do not believe that the problem is as characteristic of this country as it is in the United States, nor do I want to suggest that it is otherwise.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Symondson
London W1

As a priest, I feel the Pope's liturgical initiative is very questionable

From Fr David Bingham mhm

SIR - May I make a cri de coeur? On the Feast of Christ the King, I had my first experience of the Tridentine Latin Mass - except it was not a celebration of Christ the King. Apparently the Tridentines celebrate that in October.

I had not expected the total feeling of dismay that I experienced. A small scattering of elderly people - total silence - there was no sense of connection with the activity of the distant priest, no sense that anything religious was going on.

I have felt a sense of similar dismay sometimes at the too "creative" handling by trendy priests of the present post-Vatican Council rites, but this, if I may say, seemingly antiquarian rival of the Tridentine Mass seemed, equally disturbing. Nothing of the present is allowed; no concelebration, no altar girls, no lay Eucharistic ministers.

This recreation of the past seems totally artificial.

A prominent member of the Latin Mass Society said to me: "Well, we are on a different bus - but going along in the same direction." I have heard non-Catholics - and even non-Christians - say that sort of thing to me, but it is the first time I have heard a fellow Catholic say that. We do not even share the same liturgical year!

I, though no Latinist, am all for Masses in Latin, when appropriate, using the present rites. Singing the Latin Credo feels rather like singing "Land of Hope and Glory" for a patriotic Briton of the old school. I was brought up on the Tridentine Mass, and I, by the grace of God, have always found the Mass to be a mainstay in my life, and one reason for becoming a priest.

I have attended cosmopolitan courses in which we were enriched by Indonesian, Japanese, Chinese and Burmese cultural Masses, but always there was the strong sense of the basic unity in belief and practice which is one of the marks of the Catholic Church. But on the Feast of Christ the King I had a dismaying sense of disunity. I was the outsider. I know that the Tridentine Latin Mass movement is promoted by the highest authority in the Church, whom I greatly respect.

I feel totally secure in the divine guarantee regarding the teaching of faith and morals, but I feel that this liturgical initiative - at least on a major scale - is very questionable. Maybe in the Brompton Oratory, with a large congregation, the old-time Solemn High Mass is a moving spiritual experience; but let it be restricted to a few centres, for the Tridentine aficionados.

I am certain this letter, if published, will elicit a flurry of responses; and I apologise in advance for certainly hurting some people's feelings. I merely bear my own feelings, which may or may not have a sound intellectual basis. I do know that they are shared by a good number of Catholic clergy and laity.

Yours faithfully,
David Bingham
Durham

We should take the advice of this truly inspirational priest

From Mr Alan Frost

SIR - It was a delightful surprise to read a letter (November 28) from Fr Edwin Gordon whom I recently met for the first time in Fatima.

I hope he will not mind my saying so, but he is a truly inspirational priest and his advice to Catholics to receive the sacrament of Confession regularly is more than mere pastoral guidance.

I know from talking to him at length that it comes from the heart, especially since he spends many hours a week in the confessional at Fatima with pilgrims. Of course, as Fr Gordon would surely endorse, one is more disposed and encouraged to seek sacramental penance on a pilgrimage than when surrounded by the menacingly secular distractions and timetables of everyday life back home.

He also celebrates Mass daily when in Fatima, despite the handicap of going blind early in his years as parish priest in the Cotswolds village of Nympsfield. His love of the Faith and his devotion to the rosary are captured in his book Upon This Rock (Gracewing 2005) which includes a helpful reflection on the Luminous Mysteries, interestingly linked with Pope Benedict in another letter in the same issue.

Yours faithfully,
Alan Frost
By email

Why the Church needs Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist


From Sue Lee

SIR - Does Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, November 20) not realise that in this country there is a shortage of priests and many priests are now looking after more than one parish on their own?

This often means the priest has to celebrate four Masses at a weekend in different areas. Without the help of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist they would not be able to spend a few minutes after Mass with their parishioners before they have to rush off to celebrate another Mass several miles away.

I wonder if Stuart Reid was housebound, sick or in hospital, would he still refuse to receive Holy Communion from an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist because "their hands are not anointed"?

Perhaps instead of criticising the Church he should encourage readers to pray for our priests and for more vocations to the priesthood.

Yours faithfully,
Sue Lee
By email

The Church must make a concerted effort to explain the Anglican provisions to the laity

From Mr Paul Parfitt

SIR - I recently overheard a conversation between members of my parish about the Holy Father's welcome to Anglicans. The worrying thing about the conversation was the total lack of information that the parishioners had on the subject. One man said: "Why are these people allowed to just become Catholic and keep their own beliefs?" while a lady said: "Does that mean York Minster will be a Catholic church again?"

What many Roman Catholics don't understand is that these "Catholic Anglicans", if they accept the invitation, will have to accept the authority of the Pope and follow the Church's teachings - the only way they will differ is in their liturgy. In certain ways much like the Ukrainians, the Anglicans will be able to celebrate the Holy Mass in an Anglican way. If more Roman Catholic people were told exactly what was going on instead of hearing half a story on the news then I'm sure Catholics on both sides would be more open to the prospect.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Parfitt
By email


From Mr Robert Ian Williams

SIR - The Anglican patrimony, which Rome states it is allowing, is in fact a heavily edited and reconstructed version.

The liturgical texts which are permitted in the Anglican Use are stripped of Cranmer's Protestantism. So his eucharistic prayers (even his 1549) are swept away and replaced by the Roman Canon of the Mass. Furthermore, everything which Cranmer threw out, such as general absolution, prayers for the dead and to the saints, are restored, along with the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei. This is the English Reformation in reverse.

Indeed, there is nothing authentically Anglican about the ritual. Vestments and liturgical practices of the Anglican Use are in fact Roman Catholic and result from the 19th century appropriation by the ritualists of our practices.

All these were illegallly reintroduced into the Church of England by the ritualists and the Church Association (since 1950, Church Society) fought them every inch of the way, even prosecuting ritualists and having them jailed.

Indeed, many of the ritualists, who eventually called themselves Anglo-Catholics, eventually rejected the Prayer Book in favour of the Roman Missal or an edited English version. So the Anglicanism that is on offer from Rome in no way represents the mainstream of the Anglican tradition, which never took on board most of the Anglo-Catholic practices. The average communicant member of the Church of England never prays to Mary or for the dead, has no sense of the communion service as being the sacrifice of the Mass and would not call the vicar Father, let alone go to him for confession.

Therefore I just cannot accept that Anglicanism shorn of the Protestantism of Cranmer is the authentic patrimony of Anglicanism. It is missing its soul in much the way that Methodism excised of the theology of the Wesley brothers would be.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Ian Williams
Bangor is y Coed, Wrexham

Let's get organised to win public debates

From Elizabeth C Sweeney

SIR - Quentin de la Bédoyère (Science and Faith, November 13), asserts that he would not have attended the debate, "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world", even had he known that it was taking place. This is regrettable and especially since he then goes on to admit that one can "leave even a prejudiced audience with some splinters of doubt in their minds" if certain rhetorical skills are employed.

By his own admission, therefore, defending the Church in debate (no matter how loud or prejudiced the audience and speakers), is not an impossible task, and consequently, not a waste of time. We need to understand our audience and their reactions, to pre-empt the accusations that will be fired our way so as to disable these attacks before our opponents have a chance even to utter them; we need to discern which tactic to use and when, and, yes, we must be thoroughly prepared and above all pray.

The strategies mentioned above are already possessed by some Catholics if only they cared to make use of them. As for those of us who are less able to present a good argument and defend it vigorously, there is no reason why we cannot be seated in the audience supporting our speakers by asking pertinent questions when invited to do so, and/or by applauding boldly. Since there is strength in numbers, perhaps we might consider organising ourselves into groups.

Quentin de la Bédoyère mentions the training in this area offered by the Catholic Evidence Guild in the late 1950s; this is precisely what is needed today (and in particular in our schools). This type of training has not, in my opinion, passed its "sell-by date". Now is neither the time to be defeatest nor to feel jaded.

Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth Sweeney
Hillingdon, Middlesex


Time for Confession

From Fr Edwin Gordon SIR - In view of the fact that Advent is approaching, and this is a time when people should be encouraged to go to Confession, I would just like to quote from what some recent popes have said on the importance of Confession generally, and frequent Confession in particular.

Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi said: "Let those among the younger clergy who make light of or lessen esteem for frequent Confession realise that what they are doing is alien to the Spirit of Christ and disastrous for the mystical body of our Saviour."

Pope John XXIII said that ever since the age of 11 he had gone to weekly Confession and that even at the age of 80, and as pope, he continued that practice. In Sacerdoti Nostri Primordia, he stated: "We condemn the theory that frequent Confession of venial sins is not a practice greatly to be valued. On the contrary, for a rapid advancement in virtue, we highly recommend the pious practice of frequent Confession, introduced into the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

Pope Paul VI agreed with this, saying: "Frequent and reverent recourse to this sacrament, even when only venial sins are in question, is of great value," while John Paul II, in an address to the Canadian bishops, spoke of the "great supernatural effectiveness of a persevering ministry exercised through auricular confession, let us assure our people of the great benefits derived from frequent Confession."

On March 7 2006 Pope Benedict XVI, in an address to participants in a course on matters of conscience, said: "If, moreover, even when one is motivated by the desire to follow Jesus one does not go regularly to Confession, one risks gradually slowing his or her spiritual pace to the point of increasingly weakening and ultimately perhaps even exhausting it."

And if the popes could speak thus of frequent Confession, this obviously applies even more so to those who receive the sacrament only infrequently.

Yours faithfully,
Edwin Gordon
Fatima, Portugal


Ending a privilege

From Mrs Elizabeth Price

SIR - Further to my letter of November 13 and in answer to Fr Gary Dickson (Letters, November 20), I spent almost every day of my convent childhood years gazing at the back of the priest at Mass wondering what he was doing, and what days of my adult life that I can get to Mass, rejoicing that I could now see that point where Christ is present. So I am appalled that there is a move, even in the Novus Ordo, to remove that privilege once again.

Fr Dickson quotes the fact "that the reform desired by the Vatican directs the priest to face the altar from the offertory onwards". That is precisely what he is doing - but without blocking the congregation's view of it. Earlier on in his letter he talks about "facing a deity to whom one is offering sacrifice". Instead, when facing them (to use Fr Dickson's own words) "he is hosting the sacrifice for everyone" rather than keeping it to himself alone with the congregation screened away from it.

I beg the ad orientem pressure group to think again about what they would be taking away from the congregation if they win the day. The stilted, obscure and grammatically questionable English I understand we shall soon have to endure in the name of adding "dignity" to the vernacular is bad enough without this as well. The words "penitential rite" spring to mind. I suppose I must accept that this is at the heart of sacrifice.

Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth Price
Linton, Kent

A tragic outcome

From Mr Anthony Bond

SIR - You rightly decry that "The CES [Catholic Education Service] has let us down" (Leading article, November 13) by accepting Government plans for obligatory sex education for 15-year-olds, including information on contraception and other practices contrary to Catholic teaching - but you pull your punches: the CES acts for the bishops' conference, which is where responsibility lies.

This tragic outcome was foreseen in an open letter in January from the National Association of Catholic Families to the CES warning against the direction in which it was moving in obeisance to Government wishes on Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) in Catholic schools, schools already compromised by involvement with Government provision of abortion and contraception information. But Archbishop Vincent Nichols, as chairman of the CES for England and Wales, expressed his "full support" for it in a February 27 letter to The Catholic Herald.

The CES seems about to repeat its SRE misjudgment by again making ingratiating noises towards Government proposals to curb parents' homeschooling rights: will Archbishop Nichols therefore reconsider his earlier support for this agency and replace it with one which will earn the confidence of Catholic parents by insisting on Catholic teaching in Catholic schools and on parents' rights as primary educators of their children? If not, why are such schools - from which more than 90 per cent of leavers, understandably, emerge having lost the Faith - still considered Catholic and are being financially supported by Catholics when that money might be better spent in the private school sector, which is less affected by Government interference?

The spiritual formation of Catholic children, the hoped-for future evangelisers of the nation, is too important a matter to be left in the hands of an agency which appears to have allowed itself to be perceived as a pushover by the present anti-Catholic Government.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Bond
Kesgrave, Suffolk


Hidden author

From Mr Robert Tickle

SIR - Having read Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth, I am confirmed in my opinion that he, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was the author of the Mysteries of Light addition to the rosary. He certainly advised Pope John Paul on liturgical matters.

The book begins with the Baptism, which is the first of the Luminous Mysteries. There is much on the Kingdom and the Transfiguration is examined in detail, emphasising that the Messiah has come.

Pope John Paul promulgated the Mysteries of Light. But I think we have Pope Benedict to thank for this addition to the rosary which reflects his theology of the centrality of Christ.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Tickle
Harrold, Beds


The English Rite

From Mr R J Urquhart

SIR - Is this the time to restore the Sarum Use to English Catholics as an Extraordinary Form of the English Rite?

Yours faithfully,
R J Urquhart
Oakham, Rutland


We have betrayed the ideals we fought for

From Mr John Randall

SIR - On September 18 your paper carried a well-written article by Felicity Smart describing how hospitals throughout this country are terminating the lives of sick elderly people through what is known as the Liverpool Care Pathway - a polite term for death by deliberate starvation and dehydration. I had expected subsequent editions of the paper to carry a stream of angry letters from concerned readers, but until today (November 6) nothing of any significance has appeared. Now T M H Fawcett again draws our attention to the widespread infliction of euthanasia on what he calls "another defenceless sector of the population". I find myself wondering why Catholics, together with other branches of the Christian community, seem to care so little about this vital issue.

I was in junior school when the Second World War was raging and almost every week we were made to stand up and sing a rousing song, the words of which were written by A P Herbert and the music by Sir Edward Elgar:

All men must be free,
March for Liberty with me,
Brutes and braggarts may have their little day,
We shall never bow the knee...

We were told that our fathers were fighting against an evil regime which sought to destroy all respect for human life and treat people as merely disposable objects. To prevent this from happening we had to be prepared to accept hardships and possibly even injury and death; the song exhorted us to "make the world a better place, when the world is free".

Now looking back, I wonder what went wrong. Many petty "brutes and braggarts" sit in government quangos and local authorities monitoring everything we do while corruption is rife in high places. As for respect for human life, it is almost non-existent. Thousands of perfectly viable lives are routinely terminated for purely social reasons and medical men seemingly mindless of the Hippocratic Oath are taking upon themselves to decide which lives are worth preserving and which not.

It seems to me that we have betrayed the ideals for which our parents fought so strongly and the voices of the churches are almost silent. I hope that Mr Fawcett's letter receives a stronger response than did the article by Felicity Smart; we need to wake up before it is too late.

Yours faithfully,
John Randall
Leamington Spa, Warwickshire


Catholics should avoid confessional parties

From Mr Michael Elmer

SIR - Owing to the final illness and death of my father, may he rest in peace, I am late in responding to David Campanale's article (Comment, November 6) suggesting that the time is ripe for a Christian Democratic political party.

I, too, believe that there is a place here for a Christian Democratic party, which is precisely why I am actively involved with the Christian Democrats. Where I differ from Mr Campanale is that I do not believe that the Christian Peoples Alliance (CPA) is a Christian Democrat Party and therefore consider it incapable of providing voters with a Christian Democrat electoral option. Moreover, I do not, for a variety of reasons, regard the CPA or its richer confessionalist bedfellow, the Christian Party, as worthy of Catholic support.

A hallmark of Christian Democracy as a political doctrine is that it is Christian-inspired but open to all. Thus, the late Professor Jerzy Einhorn, a practising Jew, was a valued senior member and sometime candidate for the Swedish Christian Democrat Party, the KD. Confessional parties like the CPA either restrict membership to Christians or exclude non-Christians from candidateship or senior positions. The Catholic Church rightly disapproves of such parties and no doubt many readers will have been surprised to see a quarter-page advertisement recently in this paper, placed by CPA's richer election partner, the Christian Party.

When in 2007 the CPA chose to become a confessional party virtually all its existing Catholic membership resigned and many have remained active with the Christian Democrats, leaving CPA with an overwhelmingly Protestant Evangelical membership of which Mr Campanale, despite his Italian surname, is an example. He, I am sure, does not hold anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic views and attitudes, but there are those in CPA who most certainly do, some of them at senior levels.

Standards matter, truth matters. The Christian Democrats offer a pro-life moderate political option. Catholics need not look elsewhere.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Elmer
By email

It’s as if we no longer believe the young are capable of virtue

From Fr John Cahill

SIR – Regarding the opinion expressed in your leading article (November 13), it does indeed appear that the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales has let us down, at least in so far as its representatives have failed to oppose more forcefully the ceding parental rights to civil government. These rights are embedded in the natural law and constantly defended by the Church. The right of parents to oversee and moderate their children’s education, especially in the sensitive area of sexuality, has been reaffirmed in recent years both by the Vatican Congregation for Education and the Pontifical Council for the Family.

The reality is that we have long since lost our way on many of the moral issues surrounding sex education. The approval of curricular material such as Marriage Care’s Foundations for a Good Life reveals the chasm that now exists between elements of our secularised educational establishment and the authentic mind of the Church. Much of this curricular material would surely fall under the censure of what Pope John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio: “The Church is formally opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex education disassociated from moral principles” (FC 37).

Where in any of the curricular material for Catholic secondary schools do we find a coherent and substantive defense of the natural moral law regarding contraception or homosexuality? Where is the pervasive ethos of chastity, that natural sensitivity and modesty so necessary when dealing with matters of sexuality, especially given the nature of (dare I mention it) Original Sin. It is, to say least, problematic to suppose that information about sex can ever be imparted in a manner which is merely neutral and objective.

It is not a knowledge of the mechanics of contraception that will enable young people to make appropriate decisions about sex; common sense and experience would suggest quite the opposite. All too often this approach is a powerful contributory factor in conditioning the minds of young people towards the acceptance of promiscuous lifestyles. No, the duty of Catholic educators is to reconnect young people’s understanding of sex to the mysteries of life and love.

Is a deep sense of reverence before the mystery of life beyond the youth of today? Are they incapable of aspiring to sexual relationships which express the total self-gift of the human person in full responsibility and freedom? Have we become so cynical as to believe that young people are no longer capable of virtue, or is it that we have unwittingly become adapted to a morality no longer rooted in reason and Faith but revised according to the political mood of the moment ?

Yours faithfully,

John Cahill
Holy Souls,
Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire





Liturgical anomalies

From Fr Gary Dickson

SIR – While accepting the orthodoxy and validity of the 1970 Rite, and declaring that both contain the same sacrifice and are worthy of attendance if celebrated according to the mind of the Church, I must disagree with Fr Leo Chamberlain (letters, November 6)) when he says differences between the 1962 and 1970 liturgies are not substantial, for the very prayers removed by Cranmer to form his Protestant Missal were removed in forming the 1970 Catholic Missal. Neither Cranmer’s Missal nor the 1970 Missal contain heresy, but both excise some specifically Catholic prayers.

Fr Aidan Nichols and Moyra Doorly both support a better expression of sacrifice in the Preparation of the Gifts. I agree, for at present we have a Jewish grace before meals which gives lie to the teaching that what we are preparing is pre-eminently a sacrifice. Indeed, Our Lord left us the Eucharist “in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross through the ages”, not to perpetuate the meal at which that Sacrifice was instituted.

Closely linked to this is the orientation of the priest: one does not host a meal facing away from one’s guests or address an assembly facing away from the participants, whereas one does turn to face the deity to whom one is offering sacrifice. Thus the orientation of the priest is of major import.

In point of fact, the 1970 Missal (authorised by Pope Paul to specifically to enact the reform desired by Vatican II) actually directs the priest to face the altar from the offertory onwards. That noted, the restructuring of churches does not equate with facing the people, but brings the altar closer to the people – something I fully support, along with more (and vernacular) readings.

Reduction in the number of genuflections is another notable loss since liturgical rites should clearly express our belief, in this case belief in the Real Presence. The reduction from 14 (each time the priest touches the Sacred Species) to three is at least a liturgical anomaly. Finally, no one denies abuses occurred in the celebration of the 1962 Missal, but since the current General Instruction and Celebrating the Mass are inconsistent in a number of places (ie CTM does not mention the required use of the Communion plate and instructs extraordinary ministers to come to the altar before the “Lamb of God” rather than after the priest’s Communion), one may ask if abuses have not become so common that they are unrecognised, even institutionalised.

Yours faithfully,

GARY DICKSON
The Sacred Heart and English Martyrs,
Thornley, Co Durham



A pressing problem

From director of education and development of the Archdiocese of Riga

SIR – Last week’s article (Catholic Life, November 13) has brought a need to clarify a couple of points. First, Dace Mozeiko is my personal assistant, and she is Latvian. Secondly, as in many countries and institutions, money has to be carefully used. That is why any funds received are processed via the Brian Faul Foundation for transparency and effective use. The banks in Latvia are also in a precarious situation and thankfully British banks are beginning to clean up their act.

The article failed to reflect the serious problem facing the school – a £30,000 gas bill that needs to be paid off by the end of November, otherwise the gas will be cut and sadly the school will close. Yes, there are other problems, but this is the most pressing.

Yours faithfully,

Seán O’Donnell
education@rkgimnazila.lv



Freemasons are not hostile to the Church

From the grand secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England

SIR – The United Grand Lodge of England was saddened to learn of the article by Fr Ashley Beck (Features, October 30). It perpetuates a number of untruths and misconceptions about Freemasonry.

Regular Freemasonry, which is recognised by Grand Lodge, is not a “naturalistic religion” or indeed any kind of religion at all. It offers no sacraments and does not teach a “way of salvation”. The ceremonies practised in Lodge meetings are best described as “morality plays” derived from narratives in what Christians call the “Old Testament”. They are designed to present lessons in morality or virtuous living and nothing more than that.

The Holy Bible is open throughout Lodge meetings and occupies a prominent place. The Scriptures are referred to as Freemasonry’s “great light” and their importance to a Freemason is made explicit at a number of points in different ceremonies.

The obligations taken during the degree ceremonies ask the candidate only to keep secret certain traditional modes of recognition, derived from the days of medieval trade guilds.

Freemasons are urged never to let their membership of their Lodge come before their duty to their family. The are urged – through the exercise of charity – to have a concern for the poor and needy; there is no suggestion whatsoever that such charity will earn them eternal salvation. The immense generosity of Freemasons to a large number of causes at home and abroad is a matter of public record. Immoral behaviour of any kind is certainly not encouraged or treated lightly – though Freemasons, like all men, can fall short of the high standards of behaviour which they set themselves.

Freemasonry counts among its membership many thousands of active and committed Christians of every denomination, whose Christian witness is very far from “weak”. The United Grand Lodge of England is glad that the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church no longer makes the assumption that Freemasons “plot against the Church”. It regrets that Roman Catholic teaching continues to cast doubt on the compatibility of Masonic ritual with Catholic doctrine. Grand Lodge bears no animosity whatsoever to the Catholic Church; all Freemasons are strongly encouraged to be diligent in the practice of their religious faith.

Yours faithfully,

C N R Brown
London WC2



The bishop must defend homeschooling

From Mrs Michelle Scott

SIR – We have been a home-educating family for getting on for five years now. The philosophical basis of our education here is Charlotte Mason’s gentle art of learning with Catholic home-educating material.

The Government has had a couple of reviews of home education in the recent past and found nothing wrong. It was a shock therefore to see the Badman review (Report, November 13) begin with allegations in the press from Baroness Morgan, the NSPCC and others that home educators were likely to be abusing our children, using them as domestic servants and even forcing them into marriages.

The Badman review was published and immediately accepted by Ed Balls despite the huge number of flaws in the review, the lack of evidence for either abuse or poor educational outcomes and the selective use of quotes in the review itself. Essentially Badman wants to see home-educating parents licensed to parent and offers powers to the local authority to take children alone for interview, because parents are guilty until they can prove otherwise. Parents who refuse to have their rights removed and their children made property of the state will be criminalised.

The Catholic Education Service (CES) wrote a report backing the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ view that the state owns our children. The person who wrote this report on behalf of Oona Stannard had absolutely no knowledge or understanding of home education, and yet felt able to rip away the right and duty of parents to the education of their children. There was strong implication that the CES should be allowed to interfere with family life as well. The piece was finished with the CES view that there was no such thing as Catholic home education curriculum.

Apart from the great number of set curriculums out there (mainly American) many of us use a variety of great Catholic resources (mainly American again) to ensure our children actually know their Faith.

While I understand that many people are ignorant of what home education is and how it works, it behoves those who intend to write on the matter, especially to the Government, to ensure they are well prepared. It is very worrying that the mainstream media see the CES as speaking on behalf of our bishops. I am sure our bishops do not want to see the rights of parents and children trampled in this way.

I do not accept that the CES has any remit over family life and the rights of parents to educate their children at home. Yours faithfully,

MICHELLE SCOTT
Birmingham, W Midlands



Don’t attack the church you are leaving

From Mr Jack Pigden

SIR – The news that children’s author G P Taylor is in the process of leaving the Anglican Church to become a Roman Catholic (Report, November 13) will no doubt please many who have already made this move, or are in the process of doing so. What a pity, though, that he would find it necessary to justify this with an attack upon the Church of England. I must confess that I find this difficult to understand. If Christians cannot treat other Christians – including their different beliefs and practices – with respect and generosity, what hope is there for the rest of the world?

As someone who made the same move in the opposite direction many years ago I have never found it necessary to attack the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I have frequently come to the Church’s defence when others have done so.

Mr Taylor is entitled to his opinion that Anglican bishops spend too much of their time talking about issues like climate change, but I feel certain that he is in a minority on this one. I would have to say that my Roman Catholic daughters and their children are more concerned about climate change than they are about whether women should be allowed to become priests, or even bishops.

Yours faithfully,

Jack Pigden
By email



Fighting depression

From Mrs Julie Maurice

SIR – James Le Fanu’s article (October 11) concerning anti-depressant pills is astute and to the point and of particular relevance to our Christian community.

It is sad that doctors do not have the time to listen in depth to the woes of their patients and offer life-changing advice and coping strategies as an alternative. Many GPs are at liberty to refer patients to psychologists and cognitive behaviour therapists for exploration of life circumstances, habits and events contributing to depression, but the suggestion possibly constitutes many patients’ worst fears that they will be considered “nuts” – a misconception that probably prevents them from seeking help in the early stages of depression and contributes to the more accurately described despair that most feel at the point of ultimately seeking medical help.

In an ideal world we would live a godly life in extended family situations but unfortunately this does not appear on the list of resources that a GP can draw upon... yet? I fear that until it does anti-depressants will have their day.

Yours faithfully,

JULIE MAURICE
Aberaeron, Ceredigion



A touchy pagan deity

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR – Fr Leo Chamberlain’s wise, pacific letter (Letters, November 6) on the liturgy ends strangely: “I am getting impatient for the availability of better translations... of the Ordinary.” Has he read what they propose? Remember St Jerome.

What we have now, like Challoner’s original Garden of the Soul and Newman’s Meditations and Devotions, is in good contemporary English. It has literary flair (a parishioner tells me what won him from Anglicanism was our liturgy’s “flow”). It removed the fourth-century Roman inculturation that wordily addressed God Our Father like a touchy pagan deity. And it translated the meaning, not the words. Liturgiam Authenticam and Mgr Harbert condemned the last good practice.

St Jerome’s translation suffered the same criticism: anything not word for word was counted “a mistake”. Less biddable than our bishops, he replied: “They want to convict someone else of incompetence. They only expose their own. Apart from Scripture [ie the Vulgate] where even word order is revealed mystery... I am happy to own that in translation from Greek I translate the sense, not the words.” He cites Cicero’s practice and Horace’s principle: “To translate faithfully, you don’t try to render word for word.” Even more to the point, he cites St Hilary of Poitiers.

Although they did not see wholly eye to eye, St Hilary favouring a more literary style, St Jerome the sermo simplex of the Latin liturgy, both rendered in vernacular Latin, not a Grecising pidgin. True, it was a “Christian” Latin. Latin vocabulary was scanty and words had to take on new meanings.

Its failures in euphony apart, the version Fr Leo is impatient for is literal and Latinising – back to what Newman noted: “RCs can’t write English... It is not English, it is Latin or French.”

Yours faithfully,

TOM McINTYRE
Frome, Somerset



Aisle spirituality

From Mr Francis Reilly

SIR – I found it moving in a large Sainsbury’s store last Sunday at 11am to be among so many people respectfullly observing a complete silence and cessation of activity in a Remembrance Day gesture. However, this also got me thinking about the meaning of “respect”, in that situation, for those brave soldiers’ sacrifice.

Respect, in this matter, must have a spiritual aspect – a belief that those who’ve made this sacrifice must truly still be alive in spirit – for otherwise it would surely be quite meaningless to stand there in silence in respect of nothing. Unless, of course, it is all for some palliative self-satisfaction.

I sometimes feel that many people who profess not to believe in God unwittingly betray themselves at times as spiritual in their words and actions. To my mind, the true atheist at the Cenotaph is a contradictory figure.

Personally, and probably in common with most Catholics on such occasions, I say a prayer of thanks, and for the repose of the souls. In Sainsbury’s I decided for the first time also to bless myself before and after this prayer.

Yours faithfully,

FRANCIS REILLY
Orpington, Kent

Belittling the reforms that shaped the post-Vatican II Church

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - Fr Aidan Nichols's reply (Feature, October 30) to "a confused Catholic" is troubling. True, he silkily demolishes all her Lefebvrist canards. But he patronises - like undergraduate essays - the form and indeed the content of the Church's decrees, and the devotion of her faithful ("Even for 'post-Conciliar' Catholics the Mass as a sacrifice of supplication is not so difficult an idea.")

The most able English academics of the 1960s failed the Church by neo-modernism. (Jacques Maritain, explaining the evangelical thrust of the decrees, saw that neo-modernism as inevitable reaction to the 19th- and 20th-century Church's Manichaeistic neglect of its duty to love and engage with the world.) Yet those misguided academics had something that their successors do not share: whole-heartedness. Fr Nichols is not the worst. He would not imagine that Vatican II was deafeningly silent about evangelism, or that language should be obscure to remind the faithful they are far from God, or hint that Louis Bouyer's ringing acclaim for the rosary was tongue in cheek, or that the altar should not be close to the faithful if it spoils the look of the place.

But his selective endorsement of the General Council's practical decrees is the same: reasons perfunctorily dismissed - Fr Nichols does not explain that there actually are arguments for a versus populum Canon; implications not worked out; in the end a crippled catechesis. In July, for instance, Fr Nichols told Moyra Doorly that the Liturgy must strike people as "something that happens". Yet he belittles as a "blank cheque" the very decree that after bleak centuries makes natural growth a possibility again. Liturgical growth, though, and the theological understanding it affords, can never be more than stunted until our best minds forswear this Laodicean attitude to the Church's guidelines for our time.

Yours faithfully
Tom McIntyre Frome,
Somerset

From Mrs Elizabeth Price

SIR - In Letter from a Confused Catholic Moyra Doorly talks of "propitiation and supplication" and goes on to stress the need to see the Mass as a continued re-enactment of Calvary. Sacrifice and petition (to a God presumed angry with the sinful human race) led by a cultic priesthood are main features both of early Judaism and many pagan religions. Constantine and the early Greek converts brought this idea into Christianity, which hitherto had obeyed Christ's request to repeat the Last Supper in memory of Him in table gatherings in their own homes with the householder (male or female) as the celebrant.

The Vatican II liturgy conforms far more to the Last Supper than the exquisite Tridentine ritual of High Mass. What both Moyra and Fr Aidan forget is that text in Scripture where God states he does not want bloody sacrifices and burnt offerings but a contrite and loving heart. Here, surely, is the sacrifice. Gathered round the altar with Christ at the centre in the elements of bread and wine (not blocked off from view by the priest imposing himself between altar and congregation) the whole People of God as priests offer their intended change of heart as sacrifice; as kings they receive their heavenly food in the Eucharist, which is an infusion of Christ into each soul strengthening them with His Royal Blood to imitate Himself their King. Then as prophets they go out into the world (or should) preaching the Gospel by the life Christ leads in and through each of them. This is that change of heart God asked for as the sacrifice He most desires.

Nor can I understand the longing for a return to the ad orientem stance. Is God really more present in the roof space of the most eastern point of the church than in the Second Person on the altar, visible to all in the New Rite, where Christ is the central point at the heart of the congregation gathered around Him - a congregation inspired and instructed by reading and hearing the Word in their own language?

Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth Price
By email

Feeding the laity

From Bernadette Wall

SIR - It was interesting reading the feature by Will Heaven (Notebook, October 16) about the Abbey at Lagrasse. My husband and I went to Mass there in August 2007 when staying at the campsite just outside the town.

We spoke with several of the monks, both priests and brothers,who supplied us with Missals in French and were all most hospitable; we also were delighted to see how many of them were very young.

Several days before we had also visited an old Abbey de Bellaigue, to the north-west of Clermont-Ferrand. This too had been left to ruin by the Revolution and had been fairly recently occupied by Benedictine priests and brothers who were renovating it.

We talked to a young American brother who has taken his final vows in September this year; he was very helpful with translated Missals and Office and, on the Sunday morning, we talked after Mass to a number of the monks. We had remarked how many young men were there and were told that there had been and was, an upsurge in a desire for this form of life.

But it did remind us of one Sunday at a town just west of Perpignan where, after a great deal of searching, asking and driving around, starting at noon on Saturday, we found a priest saying Mass, to a small congregation. We spoke to him after Mass and he told us that he was the only priest to care for the town and nine surrounding villages.

So it would be nice to think that the "apostolic work" of thriving communities like Lagrasse and Bellaigue would include celebrating Mass in their local areas, to help out the few priests and feed the laity.

Yours faithfully,
Bernadette Wall
By email
The first sheriff

From the Revd John Whooley

SIR - My interest was taken by the question of Catholic sheriffs featured in your article in Catholic Life (October 16) and by the subsequent letter of the Viscountess Monckton of Brenchley (October 23).

As far as I understand, the first Catholic Sheriff of London after the Reformation was an Armenian, Alexander Raphael, originally from Madras, India, where his family was involved in banking.

Later, in 1847, he was elected Tory member for St Albans, remaining so until his death in 1850, aged 75. He was responsible for the construction of St Raphael's, which is now the parish church of Surbiton, Surrey, completed in 1848, and built on what was then his estate by the River Thames. In the background of one of the stained-glass windows may be found what appears to be a depiction of Mount Ararat.

Yours faithfully,
John Whooley
Holy Ghost and St Stephen,
London W12

The consequences of state sex education

From Dr Christopher Shell

SIR - When government-sponsored state sex education began in earnest in the early 1970s, it joined much of the media and social services in their new (unsolicited and still ongoing) departure of normalising teen and extramarital sex as socially acceptable "choices".

So it's no surprise that in that period British births out of wedlock, teen abortions and instances of first intercourse for girls under 16 have all quintupled. Under-16 girls attending birth control clinics increased tenfold before the advent of the morning-after pill made statistics imprecise. First intercourse under 16 has been shown to lead to a sixfold chance of having two or more sexual partners in a given year. STDs, especially among teens, doubled in the 1990s alone.

The point of all education is the causal connection between imparted theory and practice. To deny this connection is to deny that education is effective or necessary; to affirm it is to affirm that disastrous practice points to disastrous theory.

Secular humanism, so un-multicultural as to go directly against the tenets of practically all the large international cultures, shows here an intellectual bankruptcy matched only by its lack of care for children's welfare.

It's logically undeniable that we should not rest till the perpetrators are replaced in power by those who retain the worldview that produced five times better statistics.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Shell
Hounslow, Middlesex

Protestant England?

From Mr James Maurice

SIR - Although at present still technically an Anglo-Catholic who has recently felt compelled to seek admission to the Catholic Church, pre-empting the recent papal declaration, I must take issue with James Sinclair's letter (October 30).

Quite apart from the decidedly un-Christian tone of the letter, Mr Sinclair seems a little short on history. Given that the "winners" almost always write history, what is often overlooked is that King Henry VIII, although excommunicated was not expelled and died a catholic. His heir, the ineffectual, ailing adolescent Edward VI, nominally presided over the biggest property seizure since 1066 under the guise of inflicting European Protestantism on England. In any event, articles 28 and 29 of the 39 Articles are at best ambivalent.

By the end of the 17th century the English monarchy was captive to Parliament which enacted ecclesiastical legislation for political and strategic reasons. The inclusion in the coronation oath of the denial of transubstantiation dates from the Act of Settlement 1688, nearly a century and a half after the Reformation. This inclusion was to accommodate the accession to the throne of William III, a Dutch Protestant.

It was not until the Act of Union of 1706 that a positive exclusion clause to maintain the Protestant religion was included in the coronation oath, this time to accommodate the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and even the text of this has been altered from time to time.

Yours faithfully,
James Maurice
Aberaeron, Ceredigion

Halting a silly gallop

From Mr Joseph Foyle

SIR - I suggest that Stuart Reid is falling into the usual trap when he lists (October 30) people who might have done a better job in the debate with Secularists (they deserve the capital letter as much as Christians etc, as they adhere to the Secularism creed as much as others do to other creeds) Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.

I have found that the trap is set in favour of the latter when such debates don't focus from the start on the Secularist tenet that there isn't a hereafter that rewards and penalises earth doings. Hitchens and Fry would gleefully assert that belief in such a hereafter is poppycock. That glee lets them confuse in cavalier under-graduate debating style. It means that to win they can be untruthful in their assertions, and even be immoral and choose suicide to avoid painful consequences, in the belief that there isn't such a hereafter.

But when they are stopped in their tracks they must admit that they cannot prove that such a hereafter is impossible and, therefore, they must admit that it is possible. That changes the debate exchanges radically. We Catholics could, for example, say that we could choose to be as cavalier as they are, if we didn't believe in the possibility of that hereafter. But we have chosen to so believe, just as they have chosen the opposite belief.

It is true that that might produce a stalemate that would more or less end debate. But it would put a stop to their silly gallop. In this respect it is significant that, when the late Ludovic Kennedy was asked why he declined to believe in such a hereafter, he admitted with great honesty: "If I so believed I would have to believe in judgment and accountability. I don't want to go down that road."

Yours faithfully,
Joseph Foyle
Dublin

From Mrs Felicity Smart

SIR - Elizabeth Sweeney asks whether the absence of Catholics at the recent debate held in the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, was due to the fact that many of us were unaware that it was taking place (Letters, October 30). The answer is yes.

Had I known that the "high priests" of atheism and anti-Catholicism, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, were opposing the motion that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world" I would have been there to support the redoubtable Ann Widdecombe MP, for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, and Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, who spoke for it.

We need more information at national and parish level if we are to defend our faith.

Yours faithfully,
Felicity Smart
Twickenham, Middlesex

Halloween may become a national holiday

From Susan Hegedus

SIR - Will Heaven's article "The antidote to Halloween is a stiff drink" (Notebook, November 6) skims over what is worrying about Halloween. The point is, 15 years ago Halloween was a non-event. Now, a huge proportion of the population will don a scary mask and generally make a nuisance of themselves. In Britain approximately £120 million is spent on the festival annually and it is our third most lucrative festival after Christmas and Easter.

I'm sure few people would have a problem with children "wandering next door to ask neighbours for sweets and chocolate". But that is quite different from the anti-social behaviour of trick-or-treat that many find disturbing. If you turn off your lights and pretend you're not at home you may well risk getting your car egged and floured by feral teenagers. It could be argued that the festival diverts children from television and parents have fun with their children, teaching them something about death and the excitement of ritual. It's creative, dramatic and fun. But it is also unregulated, anarchic and boundaries are blurred. Worst of all, participation is virtually compulsory.

In some secular schools they are removing the religious significance of Christmas, calling it a "winter holiday". If Halloween starts to get fireworks of its own, there's no doubt that it will swallow up Bonfire Night as the two celebrations are so close. Then all that is left is for Halloween to become a national holiday - and that would really would be sad.

Yours faithfully,
Susan Hegedus
Billericay, Essex

From Janet Peterson

SIR - American-style Halloween is here to stay, if only because small children love dressing up and face-painting - we will have to get used to it.
Yours faithfully,
Janet Peterson
By email

Cardinal Hume, Anglicans and 'Conversion'

From Mr John Wilkins

SIR - In his article about the new Roman Catholic approaches to Anglicans (Comment, October 30), William Oddie quotes from Cardinal Hume's interview with me in February 1993. At that time - just as now - an influx of Anglican newcomers, both clergy and laity, into the Catholic Church in England and Wales was anticipated.

This could be "the conversion of England for which we have prayed all these years", the Cardinal said. The quotation by William Oddie is quite correct.

On the other hand, one should remember that Cardinal Hume very soon felt he had gone too far in expressing his expectations, and issued a public clarification. The conversion of England to the Christian faith, he explained in a statement released in March, could not be brought about unless all Christians were united. "The way to achieve that unity is by conversion of life, prayer and dialogue. It is a mandate that applies to all Christians of all denominations. In particular, it applies to the search of the Catholic Church for full unity with our Anglican brothers and sisters. That search, and all it implies, goes on."

He reaffirmed that the one Church of Jesus Christ "subsists within the Roman Catholic Church". But he recognised, he said, that the word "conversion" could be taken by some Anglicans as denying the authenticity of their witness. "I did not, of course, mean to imply this." He was explicit. "'Conversion' was a word which would have been better not used by me."

The approaches today from the Roman side are different, for now they are worldwide to an Anglican Communion that has become an acknowledged federation. But Cardinal Hume's later, more cautious, formulation surely retains its force.

Yours faithfully,
John Wilkins
London SW1

Losing the debate could inspire Catholics to be a force for good

From Mr Christopher Koe

SIR - "Is the Church a force for good?" (Report, October 23). This was precisely the motion debated at the university in Paris in the early 1830s, which was also defeated.

Among those present was one Frédéric Ozanam, a law student. He thought he ought to do something about it. But he was unsuccessful until he met a Daughter of Charity of St Vincent de Paul who invited Frédéric to join her at her soup kitchen. The result was the founding of the Society of St Vincent de Paul (SVP). The SVP's motto is that "no work of charity shall be foreign to the society".

Vincentians, as we are known, are simply men and women who are trying to be Christians, (ie a "force for good"); to be a Christian you have to do your very best to follow Christ; that means "love one another as I have loved you", even if it costs you your life. Maybe the Church that Mr Fry knows is not a force for good; perhaps he has never met the SVP, although all the brother and sister Vincentians that I have met would readily admit that we are failures - we fail to love "as Christ has loved us".

Is there not a Catholic among Mr Fry's or Mr Hitchens's circle who could invite them to come and see the good works that are being done in every parish and all over the world?

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Koe
Peterborough


From Dr A N Moran

SIR - Reading your report and Stuart Reid's comments (Charterhouse, October 23) on the debate at Cadogan Hall in which Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens bested Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop Onaiyekan, caused me to ponder the extent to which we all have a duty politely to correct caricatures and misrepresentations of Catholic views.

Perhaps we should send a message to Mr Fry to point out that his being homosexual causes us neither to hate him (indeed we are encouraged to love him) nor to regard him as evil, despite the fact but that we might very well see great wrong in some of the things he may do. (We could add that we don't have a problem with Darwin either, and we don't pray to the bones of dead saints.)

Caricatures are easy to mock. That, after all, is why they are created - but we must not allow them to be mistaken for the real thing.

Yours faithfully,
A N Moran
By email

Small is beautiful

From Priscilla Noble-Mathews

SIR - It was interesting to note Ray Knight's idea (Letters, October 23) of what to do about evangelisation in our own parishes.

I have just started two groups (six in each group) to discuss any matter relating to the Church or the Faith. We meet about once a month informally, in one of the group's houses, and have about an hour's discussion on any subject one of the group wants to raise. Sometimes this can be continued the following week or a different subject introduced.

I facilitate both groups to have some cohesion between them but we felt 12 is too many for one group. So far it has been a good experience. (There is already a separate prayer group.) Our parish priest knows about this but did not want to be personally involved. But we know we could refer to him if we run into any sticky problems.

Yours faithfully,
Priscilla Noble-Mathews
By email

A place in history

From Helena Muller

SIR - The article headed "Catholic makes History" (Catholic Life, October 16) appears to have given rise to some confusion. In the first paragraph the post of High Sheriff refers to South Yorkshire and not to the whole of the country. I therefore am the first Catholic female High Sheriff in South Yorkshire as stated.

I hope this clarifies the confusion for Lady Monckton (Letters, October 23).

Yours faithfully,
Helena Muller
Slade Hooton Hall,
Rotherham, South Yorkshire

Awkward questions

From Dr Anthony Cole

SIR - "1,100 babies with Down`s Syndrome are aborted every year", the Telegraph reported on October 6. As the medical director of the Lejeune Clinic for Down's Children with over 300 children on register, may I pose a few questions.

Do those who advise pregnant women how many Down's children are happy, loved and loving persons (the vast majority)?
Did the medical or nursing staff who counselled the women have any direct experience of a child with Down's Syndrome (hardly ever)?
Did they every think of putting the women in touch with a family with such a child (almost never)?
Do they know the life expectancy of a Down's person (60 plus years)?
Do they know how many will attend a normal primary schools (80 per cent)?
Do they know how many are likely to be in conflict with the law at any time in their lives (after 12 years on the bench I have never known a case)?
How many can be predicted before birth as suffering from "a serious disability", in the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 (virtually none)?
When was the last time the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had a joint meeting with a group of paediatricians to update themselves on the modern outlook for Down's persons (never)?
Are we really serving the mothers-to-be and their children well, or at all?

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Cole
By email

Special favours

From Mr John Tabor

SIR - Focusing on the immense amount of interest concerning the importation into this country via the Channel Tunnel of the relics of St Thérèse of Lisieux, commonly known as the Little Flower, I would like to draw the attention of your readers to her parents, Louis and Zélie Martin, who have been beatified and are now awaiting canonisation.

By profession, Louis was a clockmaker and jeweller and Zélie, whenever her household duties allowed, was a maker of lace. I was instructed and converted to the faith by Fr Gerald Flood, at that time serving in the parish of St George, Southwark. Being in need of a special favour I contacted the authorities at Lisieux who stated that they would place it on the coffins of the parents. I am exhorting all my friends and contacts, secular and lay, to pray for their canonisation.

Yours faithfully,
John Tabor
By email

Echoes of Nazism

From T M H Fawcett

SIR - Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, October 23) gets queasy whenever the Nazis are used to emphasise a point about abortion or attacks on Catholicism, apparently on the basis that the Jewish people were persecuted because of their race rather than for any other reason. But the Nazis did not confine the use of their death factories to Jewish people. Countless Catholics, Slavs, gypsies and disabled people were exterminated in them too. These victims must not be forgotten.

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944 to describe the Nazis' attempt to destroy a race. In our country today we do not kill people on the ground of race but on the ground of age. We could perhaps call this "chronocide", the licensed murder of people simply because they happen to belong to a certain age group. We started with the unborn, anyone under the age of six months gestation has been classified as sub-human and therefore expendable. Stuart Reid makes the point that a Jew cannot change his race, but can an unborn child condemned to death in the womb change his age?

Now that abortion is widely accepted those in favour of clinical killing are setting their sights on the other end of the spectrum and the elderly are being placed in the firing line - another defenceless sector of the population. Why stop there?

Why should criteria other than age not be introduced? The state has arrogated to itself the right to determine which age groups can legally be dispensed with and finances all the machinery to facilitate it. Most ingeniously of all it has passed the commission of this mass murder to supposedly autonomous individuals under the pretence of increasing freedom. The killing is carried out not in ostentatious concentration camps but in hospitals and clinics in the modest and agreeable suburbs of provincial English towns. Some 6.75 million souls since 1967. And the silencing of those who refuse to cooperate in this profound evil is well under way.

This has such strong echoes of the progress of Nazism that it seems to me Stuart Reid is wrong to censure use of the parallel. Rather the reverse: it should be declaimed loudly from the housetops.

Yours faithfully,
T M H Fawcett
Churchstoke, Montgomery


From Lesley Lee

SIR - Perhaps liberal Roman Catholics should ask for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to consider a way of accommodating in the Church of England Catholics, like me, who would welcome women priests and a more compassionate approach to our homosexual brethren.

Yours faithfully,
Lesley Lee
Bristol, Somerset

Anglican journey

From Mr Peter Comyns

SIR - In the genial atmosphere created by the Holy Father towards the Anglican Church, would it not be appropriate to ask Her Majesty the Queen to consider the return of Westminster Abbey, Canterbury Cathedral and York Minster to us? And of course we would welcome the archbishops, particularly the saintly and radiant Archbishop of York.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Comyns
By email

We must learn to think with the Church

From the Very Rev Fr Leo Chamberlain OSB

SIR - Fr Aidan Nichols has engaged at length with Moyra Doorly about the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite of the Mass (Features, October 6). In accepting her neologism, to "re-sacrificialise", he enters doubtful territory. Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter to the bishops make it clear that both forms of the Mass are entirely legitimate. The differences suggested by Moyra Doorly are not substantial.

In using two separate treatises to discuss the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Council of Trent set the scene for the several hundred years of theological effort that obtain to this day to bring together the two aspects of Eucharistic faith in a single expressive statement. The Second Vatican Council has been a boon. The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a full and sufficient statement of the whole Mass as a fundamental unity (para 1346) and of the Mass as at the same time and inseparably the sacrificial memorial and the sacred banquet (1382). The entire chapter is worth the attention of any Christian seeking deeper understanding.

We all need to concentrate, in either form, on its worthy celebration. There have been abuses of the Ordinary Form, we know; only those old enough to remember know what abuse was possible in the Extraordinary, or old, Form. The reforms initiated at the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy made sense, and make sense now. Which is not to say that development is not desirable - a point that the Pope makes, ignored by many, about some aspects of the old form.

To take one point, it does seem to me that whichever way we face at the altar, we face, as Fr Aidan says, towards the Father, provided in the Ordinary Form a priest and congregation devote their attention to the altar and the Sacred Body and Blood which are offered, rather than to any attempt at constant eye contact and engagement. Equally, in the old form a fussily precise following of the rubrics can distract now as could the opposite, the hasty celebrations of the 1950s.

There is a deeper question not addressed in the charitable discussion you have printed. The SSPX will not be reconciled to the Church by any amount of liturgical change. Pope Benedict wrote in his letter that "the reasons for the break... were at a deeper level".

Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers blamed the Vatican Council for the ills of the present. The archbishop, by all accounts not notable in his own toleration of dissent, then went outside the bounds of the discipline of the Church when he ordained bishops. Those faithful to the Council hold, on the contrary, that it came at a providential moment, just as profound changes in social and religious attitudes were becoming evident. Newman foresaw what he called the "anti-dogmatic principle", theological liberalism. This has become an all encompassing and paradoxically totalitarian liberalism which brooks no alternative to its secular vision for the public square. To meet it we need a profound theology which people like Fr Aidan are working to give us, and a renewal of the sacramental and devotional life of the Church.

Part of this, not the whole, but yet an important part, must be a renewal of liturgical understanding. I am getting impatient for the availability of better translations, both of the Ordinary and of the Scriptures to be read at Mass. But right now, a study of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and our own bishops' document, Celebrating the Mass, is a fair start. These documents are not just about rules: they have spiritual import. We must all take pains to think with the Church.

Yours faithfully,
Leo Chamberlain
St John's Priory,
Easingwold, York

Don't blame Darwin for his followers

From Dr John Nichols

SIR - Blaming Charles Darwin for the excesses of his so-called "followers", the Nazis and other Social Darwinists (Mary Kenny, October 23) is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.

Darwin was very careful to keep to the facts. The inconvenient fact that imperialist colonists wiped out whole populations of tribal peoples was something that had to be reported and explained. While on the Beagle voyage, he and Captain Fitzroy wrote an article for The South African Christian Recorder denouncing these colonial policies and praising the activities of liberal-minded missionaries who protected indigenous tribal peoples.

Darwin and his family were major supporters of the anti-slavery movement and on his Beagle voyage he recorded his thoughts on the tendency of colonists to treat slaves as animals: "Has not the white Man, who has debased his Nature & violates every best instinctive feeling by making slave of his fellow black, often wished to treat him as other animals." His experiences on that voyage hardened his resolve to see an end to slavery. Although most accounts of 1859 emphasise the role of Alfred Russel Wallace in prompting Darwin to publish On the Origin of Species there was another reason for urgency. In America, Louis Agazziz, professor of zoology at Harvard, was winning the scientific argument for categorising black people as a separately created and inferior species, only fit for slavery. The anti-slavery movement was being made to look old fashioned and unscientific. With the publication of On the Origin of Species and the subsequent realisation that all races of people are one human species, Agazziz and his pro-slavery movement were totally demolished almost overnight.

Does this Charles Darwin sound like a man who would want his followers to persecute the poor and downtrodden?

I think not. Yours faithfully,
John Nichols
Guildford, Surrey

Don't blame Darwin for his followers

From Dr John Nichols

SIR - Blaming Charles Darwin for the excesses of his so-called "followers", the Nazis and other Social Darwinists (Mary Kenny, October 23) is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.

Darwin was very careful to keep to the facts. The inconvenient fact that imperialist colonists wiped out whole populations of tribal peoples was something that had to be reported and explained. While on the Beagle voyage, he and Captain Fitzroy wrote an article for The South African Christian Recorder denouncing these colonial policies and praising the activities of liberal-minded missionaries who protected indigenous tribal peoples.

Darwin and his family were major supporters of the anti-slavery movement and on his Beagle voyage he recorded his thoughts on the tendency of colonists to treat slaves as animals: "Has not the white Man, who has debased his Nature & violates every best instinctive feeling by making slave of his fellow black, often wished to treat him as other animals." His experiences on that voyage hardened his resolve to see an end to slavery. Although most accounts of 1859 emphasise the role of Alfred Russel Wallace in prompting Darwin to publish On the Origin of Species there was another reason for urgency. In America, Louis Agazziz, professor of zoology at Harvard, was winning the scientific argument for categorising black people as a separately created and inferior species, only fit for slavery. The anti-slavery movement was being made to look old fashioned and unscientific. With the publication of On the Origin of Species and the subsequent realisation that all races of people are one human species, Agazziz and his pro-slavery movement were totally demolished almost overnight.

Does this Charles Darwin sound like a man who would want his followers to persecute the poor and downtrodden?

I think not. Yours faithfully,
John Nichols
Guildford, Surrey

Orthodox writer to speak at the Cathedral

From Eileen McDade

SIR - I thought the article by Fr Robin Burgess (Features, October 23) was excellent. I'd like to point that there is a slight error in the "further information" section. The Silence in the City talk by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on Tuesday, November 24 at 7pm in Westminster Cathedral Hall is called "Word and Silence in Prayer". More details can be found at www.silenceinthecity.org.uk.

Also, WCCM, Contemplative Outreach UK and the Julian groups support the Silence in the City series of talks rather than sponsor them.

Yours faithfully,
Eileen McDade
By email

Should Pope Benedict have consulted widely before announcing the Anglican provision?

From Lord Hylton

SIR - A key question for the reuniting of all baptised believers is how will "the primacy" of the Bishop of Rome in practice be exercised? This has so far been too little discussed. Many are hoping that it will be exercised in a collegial manner, as Vatican II laid down when counter-balancing the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility.

One is therefore bound to ask what consulting Pope Benedict did before making proposals to the Lefebvrists, and before his recent invitation to Anglicans who wish to enter visible unity with the Roman Catholic communion.

Did he consult the head of department in the Vatican or the College of Cardinals? As far as I know neither matter was ever discussed by the Synod of Bishops.

If these important steps were taken on the Pope's initiative alone, what does that say about his understanding of collegiality? There is evidence for saying that the Catholic Church is already over-centralised. Can this be for its own good? Surely we need more subsidiarity.

Given that a very large measure of doctrinal and theological agreement has already been reached, especially with Anglicans, Lutherans and in effect with most Orthodox, the manner in which moves towards visible unity are taken become very important. One hopes and prays that the manner will not only be generous, but also be attractive and appealing.

Perhaps we should also consider which is the more important, visible unity or spiritual unity. Does orthopraxis (right conduct) have to precede worldwide orthodoxy (right belief)? Unity is something we all have to work for. It cannot be left solely to Church leaders. Disunity has certainly been a cause for scandal, but I think we should also understand that every tradition and denomination will bring its own gift to the great Church of the future.

Yours faithfully,
Hylton
House of Lords,
London SW1


From Mr Eric Hester

SIR - All English Catholics should welcome the wise provision that the Holy Father has made for Anglicans who become Catholics. Pope John Paul II said previously: "Be generous to these men." But that did not always happen, though some, like Cardinal Hume, made Anglicans most welcome.

Let us not see the Anglicans as a problem, rather as solving some of our existing problems. For instance, it is said that Anglican priests will need more money from parishes. But many of them would make superb teachers, helping to solve the huge problem of finding good RE teachers. An extra priest in a parish would be literally a God-send, and he could support his family by teaching full- or part-time.

There is a desperate shortage of chaplains in our schools so that some are actually breaking Church law by having lay "chaplains". A school could pay a priest to be chaplain and teacher. It would be much easier for independent schools, since their teachers need not have formal teaching qualifications, though they are often required to have better degrees.

But in maintained Catholic schools a teacher can be employed and paid while qualifying for a teaching certificate. Then there is the problem of the perceived need to close parishes and to initiate clusters. All this should be put on hold: reinforcements are coming. Catholics have, too, been timid in standing up to the Government over such matters as its plans for compulsory politicised sex education laid down for all schools, institutionalised abuse. We will now have staunch allies.

Let us be generous and humble, recalling what Cardinal Wiseman said of the converts of the 19th century: "I honestly believe that, except for having the fullness of the faith, they are better men than we are in every way."

Yours faithfully,
Eric Hester
Bolton


From Mr Barry Oakley

SIR - While Anglicans will be welcome to the Church, as a Catholic I have to say that the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, does have good reason to be distressed about the manner by which the Vatican has gone about opening the door of membership to members of the C of E and other Anglican groups.

The Church has acted in a cavalier fashion in spite of the embarrassing press conference held by Archbishop Nichols with Dr Rowan Williams. Everything was clearly done in haste with little consideration, courtesy and sensitivity by the Vatican towards the leader of the Church of England.

In recent times the Church has handled other matters in a clumsy, insensitive and inconsiderate way. The Holy Father should have extended a special invitation (perhaps a summons) to Dr Williams to inform him specifically of the Church's intentions.

I think it important that the Church (the Vatican) gives serious thought as to how it can improve its public relations so as not to ride roughshod over other churches in spite of their differences.

Yours faithfully,
Barry Oakley
Stone, Staffs


From Mr James Sinclair

SIR - I hope the Anglo-Catholics finally do what they should have done over 150 years ago and that is leave the Church of England and move en bloc to Rome.

This over-indulged minority have, since their foundation, sought to undermine the Reformation and turn back the clock to medieval superstition in the Church of England. It's high time (forgive the pun) they put up or shut up.

Of course the Roman Church will not be so indulgent of their indiscipline as the Church of England has been over the past century and a half during which they have tried to subvert the Protestant nature of this reformed church.

In case you don't think the Church of England is Protestant, I would refer you to the coronation oath of its supreme governor, who swore to uphold and defend the Reformed, Protestant religion.

You are welcome to them.

Yours faithfully,
James Sinclair
Jersey

Renewing Canada

From Anne Côté-Harriss

SIR - I so enjoyed reading Michael Coren's article (Feature, October 16). I am a French Canadian who married an Englishman, and so have lived in Britain since 1971, and revisited Canada from time to time. How very accurate is Mr Coren's description of the Canadian post-Conciliar Church - though perhaps, after all, the picture he painted is not quite bleak enough!

But last year in Quebec City, where I was born, the 49th International Eucharistic Congress was celebrated after long preparations that brought together Catholics from all over this vast country. It was quite unforgettable, and such a reason to hope. The Canadian Church seemed at last to have recovered its vision, rediscovered the witness of its wonderful founders and martyrs, and set out joyfully and unapologetically towards a new future of faith. The Primate of Canada, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, stated that this week-long celebration of the gift of the Eucharist "was a veritable Pentecost", which left a profound impression on those who attended, and will be a turning point for the Church in Canada. I am full of hope.

Looking ahead to 2012, may the 50th International Eucharistic Congress, which will be celebrated in Dublin, bring to Ireland the many blessings and renewal that it has brought to Canada.

Yours faithfully,
Anne Côté-Harriss
By email

Civil war anecdotes

From Estelle Cooch

SIR - I am a history student at the London School of Economics currently doing my dissertation on the attitude of working-class Catholics involved in the Labour movement to the Spanish Civil War.

I am addressing the theme of divided loyalties and the impact of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) on working-class Catholics involved in trade unions and the Labour movement. This can include issues such as involvement in the International Brigades or controversies over money being sent to the Spanish Republic (as purely two examples).

Much of my primary research has come from archives of the Manchester Catholic Herald, but I was wondering if your readers had any information, anecdotes, stories, contacts or suggestions on this theme (or similar) would be much appreciated. Could anyone with any information please contact me on s.e.cooch@lse.ac.uk. I am particularly keen to get individual stories or oral histories.

Yours faithfully,
Estelle Cooch
By email

The Fry-Hitchens debacle should be a wake-up call for Catholics

From Elizabeth C Sweeney

SIR - Having attended the debate (Report, October 23) last week, at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, where the motion "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world" was put forward for scrutiny, I feel I had to write to express my disappointment at the lack of a clearly audible (and visible) Catholic presence in the audience. Indeed, Zeinab Badawi, who chaired the debate, was compelled to inquire (in the interests of fairness, as she stated) whether there really were any Catholics present, for each time she invited a question from the floor it was almost invariably one from the opposition, often accompanied by cynical and sneering comment.

What a pity that some of our erudite and spirited priests and lay people, possessing thorough knowledge of Church history, skilled in apologetics, (most likely) accustomed to debates and quick thinking to boot were not there to be heard. Could it be that they thought a popular debate arranged by an organisation calling itself Intelligence Squared would be a far from intelligent affair and therefore not worth their time and trouble? As it turned out, the debate (almost inevitably) did come to resemble pub discussion, rather than serious, open-minded exchange, but nonetheless it is still going to be broadcast to around 80 million people (in Africa and America) on the November 6 or 7 by the BBC World Service. But though she might have guessed that the debate would be just another opportunity for "Catholic Church bashing", this certainly did not deter the indefatigable Ann Widdecombe from taking part and from putting forward a calm, dignified, reasoned and totally convincing set of arguments in defence of the Church, once again. Perhaps the absence of Catholics in the audience was due to the fact that many of them, living within travelling distance of the venue, were unaware that the debate was taking place. If this is the case, then surely our Catholic press and our parish priests should have alerted (and should be alerting) their readers and parishioners.

The Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria, John Onaiyekan, understood only too late how vehemently opposed to the Church were the many participants who had arrived in their hundreds to hear two of their idols, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, scoff and spit venom at the Church while, it must be said, raising one or two issues worthy of serious consideration and valid response. Could he not have been briefed beforehand? As a consequence, his opening speech was lame (almost to the point of indifference), all too brief and completely wasted. Only later did he make some most pertinent comments silencing the opposition, when, for example, he stated that when it comes to discussing Aids in Africa we are talking about his nephews and nieces.

Arguments from the opposition included the following: the claim that anti-Semitism was preached as official doctrine until 1964; that a cardinal of Massachusetts sanctioned the "rape and torture" of children; that the doctrine of Limbo had caused untold suffering; that Thomas More had persecuted people for owning an English Bible, that the Islamic and Catholic religions were equally opposed to women's freedom; that the Church is obsessed with sex; that our priests and nuns are sexually dysfunctional; the practice of indulgences; the Crusades; Catholic charities; Purgatory (not in the Bible); paedophilia (most definitely in the Church, though no mention was made of homosexuality in the Church); and that Stephen Fry feels himself a perennial victim of a judgmental Church which continuously points its accusing finger at him for being in a state of mortal sin. (Why this should unnerve him is anyone's guess, since he does not care a fig for the Church's teachings in the first place; neither - one must presume - does he know what three conditions need to be met before one is in a state of mortal sin according to Church teaching, or he might realise that he is most probably not in that state.)

It was only later that evening, thinking about and discussing the issues that we had heard, that my sister and I were able to think of a few poignant questions that we might have put to Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, had we been, like a few of the other Catholics present, more sure of our ground. It is, of course, up to us to ensure we are better informed, but there is also a most urgent need at parish level to actively and untiringly encourage every parishioner to attend courses in apologetics and for us all to take a confident and clearly audible stand at each and every debate where reference is made to the Church. We require for this powerful and magnetic leaders. Fr John Corapi (on EWTN) comes to mind as one example.

At the close of the debate, the number of voters in support of the motion plummeted to 206, to the great hilarity of the audience who greeted the result with resounding guffaws. In some respects, this result stings a little, but it also leaves us doubting the Catholic credentials of those who voted for the motion at the outset only then to change their minds after listening to accounts from the opposition which were continuously emotive, acrimonious and deeply prejudiced.

Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth Sweeney
By email


From Mr Philip Diaz-Lewis

SIR - I am repeatedly disillusioned by Hitchens, Dawkins and the like in their choice of debate opponents. I would like nothing better than to see them take on such Catholic heavyweights as Scott Hahn, Benjamin Wiker, Peter Kreeft or Dave Armstrong.

I always thought that if I were a professional atheist, and I was utterly convinced of my own atheism, then I would track down the greatest mind in Christendom and debate them, instead of worrying with archbishops and MPs who are neither philosophers nor theologians. I find that these men can be likened to a playground bully, who deliberately avoids the strong kids who might beat him and instead attacks the small and weak, against which he has his victory assured.

Time and time again have such claims been refuted, leaving one baffled completely as to why they keep being put forward. The greatest weapon in the modern secularist's arsenal is not fallacy or slander (both of which are habitually employed) but rather the art of "selective ignorance" in which he views all the arguments against him, and engages only those that are childish or put forward by obvious fanatics. Those that are well-informed and intelligent he simply pours ridicule on and then ignores.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Diaz-Lewis
By email

Mother Angelica deserves more recognition for her amazing work

From Mike and Julie Stewart

SIR - Your item (Report, October 16) on the papal award of the Cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice to Mother Mary Angelica, foundress of The Eternal Word Television Network, was disappointing in its brevity.

Since Mother Angelica started it in 1981 with just $200 and an empty garage, EWTN has grown into the largest multimedia religious network in the world, reaching 160 million households in over 140 countries. Such phenomenal growth, supported solely by viewers' voluntary contributions, can only have been the Will of God working through Mother's unfailing obedience and complete trust in His Divine Providence.

Such a contribution to the Church has been, and still is, incalculable, providing both stability and evangelisation during a turbulent period. While it is known that EWTN has transformed and saved an enormous number of lives, the true total is know only to God.

Surely Mother Angelica's great service is deserving of more column inches and recognition than you gave her.

It must also be mentioned that the chairman of EWTN, Deacon William Steltemeier, who has devoted many years to the administration of the network, has also been awarded the Cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice for his untiring work and support.

Yours faithfully,
Mike and Julie Stewart
By email

St Thérèse's relics brought peace to the people of England

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR - As a parishioner and a steward of Westminster Cathedral I, like many, wondered what effect the visit of the relics of St Thérèse of Lisieux would have on the Cathedral. Whatever I imagined was a million miles away from the reality. Unlike so many grand events in cathedrals and other important venues across the land there were no VIP reserved places; everyone was a VIP: they all queued, some for many hours, to pay their respects to this saint who died so young yet has left a massive impression on millions.

What struck me most was the sincere emotion that was clearly visible in so many. The most moving was seeing a young man in his early 20s. It was just after 5am in the morning and there was a very brief break in the endless queues we stewards had been witnessing. The young man kept his distance. I asked him whether he would like to pray at the relics. "No," was the reply. When I asked him why not he told me he had not been to Confession in two years. He was clearly upset and considered himself unworthy to approach the relics. He asked if there were Confessions going on. I told the priest on duty of the young man who so wanted to confess. "Bring him to me," he said. "I'll hear his Confession."

Just before 7am, as I was about to off duty, I saw the young man now standing by the relics. I can only say the look on his face was total peace; it was certainly different from the much troubled soul I had seen earlier.

As Fr Michael Dunne, the organiser of this great event, and the Cathedral authorities analyse the great cost and hundreds of hours of effort of bringing the relics of St Thérèse to Westminster, I hope they will recognise the grace and peace that the saint brought to so many. No papal visit or grand affair will ever mean more to me than the hours I had the honour to be close to the relics of this great and most holy saint.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1


From Anita De Lacey

SIR - St Thérèse's relics were on display at Aylesford Priory in Kent last Saturday, on a bright and sunny October day. I was among the 7,000 to 8,000 pilgrims queueing to view the relics. I was struck by the atmosphere of friendship, love and warmth displayed by my fellow pilgrims. St Thérèse said in her life that she wanted to travel round the world and with her message broadcast on the internet she has just done that so well.

Yours faithfully,
Anita de Lacey
Burgess Hill, West Sussex

Facing the elephant

From Mr Stratford Caldecott

SIR - Clive Copus claims that in my analysis of the challenge of evangelisation (Comment, October 2), I ignored the "elephant in the room", namely the Darwinian world view which lies at the root of modern atheism.

But in an online article called "Theories of Evolution" I suggest that Darwin does leave room for religious belief. We do not have to take Richard Dawkins at face value, nor should we ignore respected theistic evolutionists such as Simon Conway-Morris (Cambridge). Darwin himself seems to have lost his faith for other reasons than the theory of natural selection. Atheistic evolutionism is a result of the split in our culture that I was writing about - the three-way split between science, art and faith.

Unfortunately the debate on evolution too often gets bogged down in the discussion of atheism versus creationism or Intelligent Design. It needs to be broadened out, with reference also to psychology, neurophysiology, the nature of the soul and the human person. Religious believers have nothing to fear from facts discovered by modern science, although we must be wary of interpretations that may be placed upon them.

Yours faithfully,
Stratford Caldecott
St Benet's Hall, Oxford

A lukewarm body

From Mr Ray Knight

SIR - We are urged to work at evangelising but surely it would be reasonable to first plug the gaps responsible for so many thousands leaving the Church.

We have tended to blame those who left; it has been suggested that many will eventually return, and "numbers aren't everything" (Letters, October 9).

Maybe those who left were acting honestly and even bravely; if so, we should want to know what they found wrong with the Church. The purpose of the Church is to make followers for Jesus Christ, so if the "lapsed" were not led into a working relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, they were left with the routine Mass and sacraments which, without Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life, would be dry and boring, even meaningless.

Of course, we still have many holy members whom the Church has led into full and happy lives with Jesus Christ. But for too many who remain the Church is a lukewarm organisation not readily seen as the Body of Christ on earth. With different approaches, the last four popes have urged us to wake up. Our Pope Benedict wants the parish to become "a beacon, radiating the light of faith".

That is great target for us, but we have to face the fact that our light of faith did not radiate brightly enough to stem that outflow of those closer to us.

So what can we do? Well, eventually our parishes must become evangelising communities, so we could see a faith-building phase as an essential preparation for that evangelising, and divide our parishes into groups of up to about 12 for weekly prayer, Bible study and discussion. One of the groups could be a lead group to offer course programmes and help.

Obviously, the Gospels and Acts would present the best resources and example for growing in faith as they improve our working relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Yours faithfully,
Ray Knight
Baldock, Herts

A glorious future?

From Geraldine Roberts

SIR - I was interested to read Michael Coren's account (Features, October 16) of the revival of the Canadian Church. But I wonder if the situation there is not a little more complicated.

While undoubtedly the hierarchy has made great strides in the direct and clear proclamation of Catholic truths, there is still much room for reform.

In the same issue, for example, you report that a Canadian bishop has been arrested for allegedly possessing child pornography on his computer. If he turns out to be guilty this would have deeply disturbing implications. It might be brushed off as simply the sinful act of an individual. But the question would be: How could such a person be ordained not only to the priesthood, but also to the episcopate?

We must of course reserve judgment on this case. But it does suggest that the Canadian Church is not marching in lockstep towards a glorious future of orthodoxy and evangelical purity.

Yours faithfully,
Geraldine Roberts
By email

A musical idea to celebrate the papal visit

From Mr Anthony Buckley

SIR - One can find interesting stuff in The Catholic Herald. For example, a few weeks ago, I read not only that the Pope was coming to Britain but also that the Church needs to engage with the culture of the world around it; and almost every week someone writes a piece saying that Catholics need to make a real commitment to music in worship.

I think I have found a way to bring these disparate themes together. What I propose is the creation of a new musical work to be called "A Decade of the Rosary". It would not be an interpretation of any particular joyful or sorrowful mystery but a musical setting of the Our Father and the Glory Be with, in between, 10 different settings of the Hail Mary.

It could be performed for the Pope, who is a famous music-lover, and would be a permanent gift from the Catholic community to the people of Britain, an enrichment of British culture. Some people may object that choral singing is not exactly at the heart of modern culture, but I would give a threefold reply: choral singing has been around a long time, it is not going to go away and, judging from what one sees on television, it is undergoing a renaissance in this country.

That is the core of the idea. Now for some musical practicalities. Here are my suggestions. I envisage a setting for choir and two or three soloists plus small orchestra. Since some of the words are going to be repeated quite a lot, variety will be essential - variety of forces involved, keys etc. Maybe there should be variety of language, with some of the settings in English and others in Latin.

Modern composers are fond of composing sacred works in which they cut and paste the liturgical text and introduce other texts. We don't want any of that. Sticking to the straight text would make this work a specifically Catholic contribution to British culture.

I would allow one departure from the normal text: I would allow the composer to leave out the name "Jesus". Now, this may seem crazy and to negate the idea of a specifically Catholic work, but I think that - in English, at least - there are peculiar musical difficulties in including the holy name. If it is not emphasised, it might sound like an afterthought. On the other hand, if it gets a lot of musical emphasis, there is the possibility that it will suck the life out of the preceding poetic metaphor "the fruit of thy womb". In any case, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the name of Jesus was not added to the Hail Mary until the 16th century, so leaving it out is not necessarily impious.

One other musical practicality: each setting of the Hail Mary should be detachable and capable of being sung as a stand-alone piece, which could be sung in worship or in the concert hall. This would make the overall work not merely a gift to Britain but a useful gift.

As to the composer, I have no suggestion. Could it be written by a team? (This was the original plan for the work we now call Verdi's Requiem; but the precedent is not a happy one, because the other composers fell down on the job and Verdi had to write the whole thing himself.) I leave this decision to the people who are going to commission and pay for the work.

It is going to cost a bit. A recent article on the subject of commissioning music mentioned a figure of £1,000 a minute. (This sounds like the fee for consulting a London lawyer, but it refers to a minute in the completed work, not a minute of the composer's time.) A website I have looked at suggests the more modest figure of £780 a minute.

Who is going to pay? Maybe we could find 12 dioceses each willing to commission a movement or section. If Welsh or Scottish dioceses were willing to chip in, they could reasonably ask for "their" Hail Mary to be in Welsh or Gaelic. If the dioceses are unable, maybe we could find 20,000 or so Catholics each willing to subscribe a pound.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Buckley
Coventry, West Midlands

Astonishing fruits

From Fr James Mulligan

SIR - In his letter (October 16) Christopher Keeffe states that I have "reiterated the myth that Bishop Peric has been stripped of jurisdiction". I have done no such thing - or indeed have I ever heard anyone claim that the Bishop Peric has been stripped of his jurisdiction.

I wrote that the responsibility for the Church investigation into Medjugorje had been removed in 1986 from the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and given to a commission established by the bishops' conference of the old Yugoslavia. This work continues under the bishops' conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Bishop of Mostar's views will be taken into consideration but will not have any definitive status. This is obviously something the current Bishop of Mostar, Bishop Peric, finds difficult. (And incidently it's just as well that this is the position since Bishop Peric has stated before witnesses that he does not accept the authenticity of either Lourdes or Fatima so his objectivity on the subject of Medjugorje is hardly likely.)

Mr Keeffe also criticises me for holding to the 1991 Declaration of Zadar, which places Medjugorje under further investigation by the Church. Let me remind Mr Keeffe and Medjugorje opponents that this is the official position of the Church on the subject and perhaps they should be humble enough to accept it.

Finally, on the subject of pilgrimages to Medjugorje: yes, millions do go there in the belief that something supernatural may be happening. And they have very good reason to think that this might be so considering the astonishing manifestation of good fruits, good works, revival in prayer and changed lives that have emanated from there. In the 13 years between the ending of the apparitions at Fatima and the authentication by the Church thousands upon thousands made their way to Fatima on pilgrimage. Were they wrong to do so? Of course not.

This is exactly the same with Medjugorje, and until (and if) the Church comes out with a declaration that Medjugorje is not of a supernatural character then all are free, and within obedience to the Church, to go there on pilgrimage.

Yours faithfully,
James Mulligan
London NW1

Making history

From Marianna, Viscountess Monckton of Brenchley

SIR - With reference to the article (Catholic Life, October 16) about the appointment of Helena Muller as the first Catholic High Sherrif. I, born and bred a Catholic, had the honour to be High Sherrif of Kent 1981/2.

Yours faithfully,
Marianna Monckton
Maidstone, Kent

A positive decision

From Mrs June Walters

SIR - It's heartening that Tom Cruise has allowed his daughter, Suri, to attend a Catholic preschool (Report, October 16). Let's hope and pray that he will one day return to the Catholic faith of his youth.

Yours faithfully,
June Walters
By email

The Vatican's Nobel comment was unhelpful

From the director of the department for pastoral affairs of the Diocese of Westminster

SIR - One cannot help feeling bewilderment at some elements inside the Vatican applauding the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. (Report, October 16). We're told that he "deserved it for his promotion of peace", so that this presumably chimes with the Vatican Secretariat of State's general diplomacy à propos nuclear disarmament. And yet doctrinally of course we are under no illusions as to President Obama's rather aggressive (as far as the Church's teaching is concerned) anti-marriage, anti-family agenda.

Both Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, of the Pontifical Council for the Family, and Archbishop Robert Sarah, secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, have denounced the so called "gender theory" at the recent Synod as "lethal" in its menace to the family. Yet this ideology is given high priority by the Obama administration.

In March this year, in his personal letter to the world's bishops, the Holy Father spoke of how the Holy See must utilise the internet so as to have precision in both its appreciation of and commentary on current affairs. A five-minute search of its own website would have equipped the people inside the Vatican responsible for commenting on the news of the Obama Peace Prize with the Pope's own words from the 2008 message for World Day of Peace, in which he states: "Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace."

This puts rather a different hue on the decision of the Nobel Peace Prize committee and should certainly have caused elements inside the Vatican to have pressed the pause button before issuing any rash statement of approval. Once again, in my humble opinion, following the Williamson affair and the Recife abortion case, it's 3-0 for incorrect worldwide media perception of Catholic truth against actual truth.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
London SW1


From Mr John Sullivan

SIR - President Obama's differences with Catholic teaching are well known, and so it's not surprising that some were shocked when the Vatican congratulated him on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. But it's important not to read too much into the Vatican's statement, which was an expression of diplomatic politeness rather than an endorsement of the President's policies.

It is the Vatican's time-honoured custom to congratulate the winner of the Peace Prize - whoever they may be.

Yours faithfully,
John Sullivan
By email

The only safe stance on the events at Medjugorje is 'wait and see'

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - Fr James Mulligan (Letters, October 9) makes the case that a) people can go on pilgrimage to Medjugorje, b) the local bishop has been stripped of jurisdiction, c) by way of quoting a Fr Svetover Kralijevi that Rome will decide the matter, and d) somehow the fact that bishops and sometimes up to 200 priests concelebrate Mass at the site and that many people have found their faith there verifies the claim.

As readers may know, Fr Mulligan wrote a pro-Medjugorje book, Medjugorje: What's Happening. Fr Mulligan must be aware that during an assembly of the French Episcopate that Bishop Henri Brincard of Le Puy-en-Velay in 2001 said: "How, in fact, [can one] organise a private pilgrimage without it being motivated by the conviction that the events of Medjugorje are of a supernatural origin?" Basically, why go to a hill in the Balkans unless you believe that something happened there? If it is motivated for that reason then the pilgrimage is contrary to the dictates of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which said that pilgrimages which tend to promote the notion that something supernatural happened are to be avoided.

Fr Mulligan reiterates the myth that Bishop Peric has been stripped of jurisdiction. Yet, as a member of the bishops' conference of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as Cardinal Bertone confirmed in a letter in 1998, any further consideration of the issue falls to the conference to decide. In the same letter the cardinal confirmed that the Holy See was not taking a view on the subject, leaving it to the local Church.

Like all devotees of Medjugorje Fr Mulligan holds on to the 1991 Zadar Declaration like a lifeboat. But if we actually read what it says it provides cold comfort. The alleged apparitions started in June 1981. In 1991, after a decade, all the Church could say was: "On the basis of the investigations so far it cannot be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations." This means that, after 10 years of virtually daily messages, Our Lady left no sign that her Son's Church could discern came from her. The only safe position with Medjugorje is to wait and see - and if one must follow an apparition then follow Lourdes, Fatima, Beauring or Banneaux.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex


From Jane Campbell

SIR - Has any approved apparition site created as much disunity within the Church as Medjugorje?

Yours faithfully,
Jane Campbell
Ballina, Co Mayo

Voting for Cameron

From Julia Nutwood

SIR - I was interested to read Will Heaven's questions for David Cameron in his Notebook (Comment. October 9).

I have really wanted to vote for David Cameron but feel I can't vote for someone who will further attack family values by defending homosexual marriage. I was horrified to learn that he had even been considering walking on the Gay Pride march in July.

He obviously feels that he would prefer the homosexual lobby on his side rather than the Catholic lobby (anyone who truly calls themselves Catholic should defend the teaching that homosexual "marriage" is totally unacceptable). He has made his choice and so I have made mine and will make sure that any Catholic I speak to knows about his views. It is a great pity.

Yours faithfully,
Julia Nutwood
By email

A DIY vaccine

From Sister Gillian Price FC

SIR - This week we celebrate Global Handwashing Day to encourage us to wash our hands with soap as well as water. At a time when many parishes are not giving a physical sign of peace, it is timely to reflect on research by the Hygiene Centre at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine which found that in Britain more that one in four people at railway stations had faecal matter on their hands. Dr Val Curtis, director of the Hygiene Centre at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, describes handwashing with soap as a "do it yourself vaccine" against infection.

Every year a total of 3.5 million children in the developing world die from pneumonia or diarrhoea. Handwashing with soap is one of the most effective interventions in the world to tackle this tragedy; in fact it is estimated that universal handwashing with soap could save a million lives every year.

In spite of this, the share of British aid to sanitation is tiny: 1.5 per cent of the budget goes to water and sanitation combined, which means even less to sanitation on its own. It is time that Department for International Development (DFID) should increase its investment in hygiene promotion, including handwashing with soap to prevent the needless loss of so many lives. It is also time that we in Britain should clean up our handwashing act.

Yours faithfully,
Gillian Price
St Elizabeth's Centre,
Much Hadham, Hertfordshire

Rights and wrongs

From Mr Mike Appleton

SIR - Vivienne Nathanson (Report, October 9) is quoted as saying that the mentally competent "must retain the legal right to refuse medical intervention".

But in the case of Kerrie Wooltorton this was not the situation. By her voluntary call for help she was not "refusing". Rather, was she actively seeking such intervention.

In addition, is there not an element of both circumstance and time specificity - that is, not once and for ever - in the judgment of "mental capacity"?

Yours faithfully,
Mike Appleton
Worthing, West Sussex

Depression is too complex for a single cure

SIR - As a sufferer from depression who has been helped by being prescribed anti-depressants, I found James Le Fanu's piece about pills both thought-provoking and troubling.

While I am inclined to agree with the notion that the "biomedical model of medical illness" has "bolstered the materialist view: where our thoughts, beliefs and emotions are 'nothing but' the consequence of the interaction of the chemical neurotransmitters in the brain", I worry that for many the situation is more complex.

On one hand it is too easy to say that depression is merely an imbalance of the brain on the other it is too simplistic to say that in severe cases a person can help himself come out of the depression.

When depression takes over, pulls one apart and makes one feel like one never will feel joy again, then sometimes it is a relief to know that what is tearing you apart is not just you, that something can be done when all other avenues have been exhausted. To be sure this can lead to a very materialist view of the human person and of human ecology, if one is not careful.

But it is just as dangerous to veer too much into the direction of another heresy where depression is concerned, namely a form of Pelagianism where one eventually believes that one can do everything oneself, without God's grace and without the love of others.

All too often people try and tell those suffering from depression to simply snap out of it or to pull themselves together. It is not always possible to do it on one's own, but much of the time in real depression, prayer and Prozac are a great help.

To be fair to Dr Le Fanu, his main point is to draw attention to the shift in what he calls the biomedical model of medical illness which has come as doctors change the way they diagnose depression and often prescribe neuro-meds where they are not necessarily needed, creating new imbalances previously uncharted.

Yours faithfully,
Thomas Boyd
By email

Why looks matter

From Mr James Duncan

SIR - How apt of Damian Thompson to compare our churches with department stores (Comment, October 9). Of course the "Apostles did not worry about the cut of their fisherman's clothes", and neither would they have cared what the inside of churches looked like 20 centuries later, but the Church must learn to market itself properly if it is to reverse some of the serious decline it has suffered in the past three decades.

In any organisation appearance matters. It signals how much pride and self-respect members feel for their group and product.

Dr Thompson's point is salient: pre-Second Vatican Council churches might have seemed strange and foreign to non-believers and newcomers, but some of the churches built since commit the far more serious offence of displaying a certain embarrassment about the faith.

I don't imagine that when the Holy Father visits these shores next year he will have time to visit some of the worst offenders, nor will the hierarchy wish him to see them, but perhaps it could still be an opportunity to do a bit of housekeeping.

To extend the corporate analogy (which is admittedly sometimes a dangerous thing when speaking of the Church), we should treat this as a visit from the CEO.

Yours faithfully,
James Duncan
By email

A Catholic voice

From Mr Mark Armstrong

SIR - I fear that the days of the Catholic vote being of any importance to the major parties are long gone (Comment, October 9). The Tories and Labour may have their differences over tax and Europe, but on issues of Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life from birth to natural death they are united in rejection.

If Catholics, Christians and non-believers sympathetic to Christian values want someone who will represent them in Westminster then they should put themselves forward.

In the North East we already have a young, orthodox Catholic by the name of David Lindsay standing in the traditionally Catholic North East Durham constituency. The area includes the old Catholic stronghold of Consett, the Recusant village of Esh, Ushaw College, and the Passionist Monastery at Minsteracres only just outside.

He is totally opposed to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human cloning, and supports the restoration of the tax allowance for fathers, the requirement that the providers of fertility treatment take into account the child's need for a father, and of paying poorer mothers to stay home with their children. He will also defend Catholic schools and RE textbooks, and promise to defend persecuted Christians abroad, which makes him a fine candidate.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Armstrong
Durham

Should there be fasting before feasting?

From Mr Tom Lydon SIR – -Ever since he started in Charterhouse, I just knew I would be writing to you about Stuart Reid sometime. Now is the time.

His Counter-Reformation corner, as he calls it (Charterhouse, October 2), in which he is calling for a change in the Eucharistic fasting rules, is surely ill-considered.

What a juxtaposition to appear on the same page as Ronald Rolheiser, who was lauding the Eucharist as a community celebration. Do you fast at a celebration? Fr Rolheiser claims that the God of the Incarnation is as much about kitchen tables as ecclesial altars. Do you think of fasting in a kitchen?

Let us consider the institution of the Eucharist. Had not the Apostles just finished a full meal when they participated?

So what credence can Reid claim to his call for at least a three-hour fast? He is on a very sticky wicket in an era of plentiful food when it is rare for a three-hour gap between meals.

But I see he makes an exception for the "cuppa". Hooray!

Yours faithfully
tom lydon
Leigh-on-Sea, Essex

Darwin's elephant

From Mr Clive Copus

SIR - Stratford Caldecott's piece (Comment, October 2) is fine as far as it goes, but, like so many Catholic commentators on the decline of belief in this country, he is either unable or unwilling to take the necessary final step and identify the elephant in the room: namely, the Darwinian world-view that underpins our secular culture.

As Mr Caldecott says, we have lost a sense of who we are and how we fit into the cosmos. There is no mystery about why this has occurred: it follows naturally from the Darwinian view that we are merely the product of blind forces, rather than the deliberate creation of a loving God.

The key is not, as he suggests, to highlight the complementary relationship of the arts and sciences, their common search for beauty, and the attraction of elegant solutions that please the heart: much of Darwinism's superficial attraction lies in the fact that it appears to satisfy all these criteria, while clearly leaving no room for religious belief.

Rather, we should be highlighting the latest research in such diverse fields as information theory, biochemistry and cosmology, which provide compelling evidence for traditional Catholic teaching on mankind's unique status within God's creation.

Until we (and the Church generally) grasp this nettle, it will not matter one jot how many "humane and intelligent alternatives to the increasingly oppressive secularism of our schools" are devised: our children will continue to regard religious belief as fundamentally irrational.

Yours faithfully,
Clive Copus
London SW12

Ecumenical choice

From Mrs Susan Gladwell

SIR - Bishop Bernard Longley is surely correct when he states (Report, October 9) that his ecumenical experience was one of the key factors in his appointment as the next Archbishop of Birmingham.

His ecumenical pedigree is indeed impressive, dating back more than 15 years, to 1991, when he was appointed Surrey chairman of the Arundel and Brighton Diocesan Commission for Christian Unity. Five years later he became the national ecumenical officer for the bishops of England and Wales. And in 1999 he was appointed moderator of the steering committee of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland.

Two years ago Bishop Longley prepared the Catholic commentary on the agreed joint statement by the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, Growing towards Unity and Mission. And let's not forget that he was ordained priest and brought to Westminster as an auxiliary by that leading light of the ecumenical movement, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.

The positive impression he has made on the leaders of other Christian denominations cannot have escaped Rome's notice as it sought a successor to Archbishop Nichols in Birmingham.

Anglican-Catholic dialogue has undoubtedly hit a turbulent patch, but this latest appointment shows just how important Pope Benedict XVI considers healthy relations with the Church of England to be.

Yours faithfully,
Susan Gladwell
By email

Missing millions

From Mr Bernard Cartwright

SIR - With all the recent party conference squealing over our national debt, pension age and taxation I do wonder what our finances would have been like if all those potential taxpayers had not been bumped off through abortion.

Yours faithfully,
Bernard Cartwright
Stourbridge, West Midlands

Having a laugh

From Mr Trevor Blanchard

SIR - One might have expected Ricky Gervais to think twice before turning his latest film into a sly assault on religious belief (Report, October 9).

Does he not remember how badly he came off when he argued with the Archbishop of Canterbury on Radio 5? The encounter can be seen on YouTube. Gervais's sixth-form philosophising is almost as funny as The Office.

Yours faithfully,
Trevor Blanchard
Via email

Don't rely on statistics to measure the health of the Church

From Mr John Stevens

SIR - Your leading article on the expected papal visit to Britain (October 2) was bracing, but I wonder if it was not too pessimistic.

No one can dispute that the Church in England and Wales has seen a sharp statistical decline since the visit of John Paul II in 1982. But there have been pockets of growth. You report, for example, in the preceding issue (September 25) that the number of seminarians in the Archdiocese of Westminster has risen for the third successive year. I believe that the archdiocese has also managed to avoid the steep drop in the numbers of laity seen in other dioceses.

Furthermore, as a community which trusts above all in the Holy Spirit, we should not set too much store by figures. There were only 12 disciples but they took the Good News boldly to the outside world without fretting about their numbers or the indifference of society. The work of the Holy Spirit cannot be measured with a calculator. Take the visit of the relics of St Thérèse of Lisieux to England and Wales. Yes, we know that tens of thousands of people have visited the relics, but who knows what effect the experience has had on their souls? Some, perhaps, have decided to return to the Church, others to enter the priesthood or religious life. These life-changing decisions are irrelevant to statisticians, but they shape the future of the Church.

Then consider the determination and strength of purpose with which Archbishop Vincent Nichols has begun his tenure at Westminster. He is busily building on Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's (sadly underappreciated) efforts to consolidate the Church in this country. And now he will be joined on the national stage by Bishop Bernard Longley, the new Archbishop of Birmingham, who is prodigiously gifted, but only 54 years old.

We have confronted immense challenges since the Second Vatican Council. But our story cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of decline. Something is stirring in the Church in England and Wales. In many places there are signs of new life: vibrant, multicultural parishes centred on the Eucharist and serving their communities; new movements giving lay people a deep formation in the faith; people rediscovering traditional devotions such as the rosary and prayer to the saints; and increased generosity to the poor and needy.

When Pope Benedict comes to Britain it will not be to give the Church in this country its last rites, but to encourage these tremendous signs of hope.

Yours faithfully,
John Stevens
By email

Happy Christians

From Mr Patrick Dickinson

SIR - I was in thunderous agreement with Will Heaven's comments about the off-putting nature of feel-good Christians (Notebook, September 4). I am by no means condemning the notion of being happy in one's faith. I simply think that if Christians are concerned with spreading the Word of God, then they need to view themselves from the perspective of non-Christians.

The non-denominational Christian Union of York University mixes Christianity with modernity in order to appeal to a contemporary audience. Complex moral isssues are condensed into sound-bites and handy Bible snippets, instead of taking time to reflect upon them. It's a very shallow approach to faith, and principles, especially Christian ones, should never be compromised in the face of advertising. It's all about selling the faith, rather than living the faith.

In addition, there appeared to be a lack of tolerance for any other attitude towards faith. You either had to emphatically exclaim it at every possible turn or simply didn't have it.

It has always been my opinion that a contemplative approach to faith is just as valid as an apostolic one. After all, our individual consciences are all under the gaze of God. It is there that our true intentions, feelings and, ultimately, our connection to him lie. As my parish priest said, the best method of evangelism we can embark upon is to lead by good example. We must show how our faith makes us better people to our neighbours and in the eyes of God, not merely how it has benefited us and made us feel better within ourselves.

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Dickinson
York

Pius the Righteous

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - Gary Krupp's plan to propose Pope Pius XII as "Righteous Among the Nations" (Report, October 2) is worthy of merit. Through due to the bias and popular myth presented at Yad Vashem - mentioned by Mordechay Lewy, Israeli Ambassador to the Holy See -_this proposal is guaranteed to fail.

Yad Vashem, which oversees the process of recognising Righteous Gentiles, proposes several criteria; one of these is that the person saved Jews without regard to personal safety and without reward. Several non-Catholic authors have proved Pius's case as a Righteous Gentile, including the Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide, Rabbi David Dalin and that great British historian Sir Martin Gilbert. These Jewish writers have used material at Yad Vashem itself to demolish the myth - created by the German playwright Rolf Hochhuth -_that Pius somehow collaborated with Hitler to liquidate European Jewry.

Mr Lewy and the Yad Vashem do those Jews who suffered during the Holocaust and knew that Pope Pius was their only friend a great disservice by continuing the slander against Pope Pius.

It is also significant that the American Jewish lobby group the Anti-Defamation League also heaped praise on Pope Pius at his death yet now it has jumped on the bandwagon against Pope Pius. Yet it has not justified its historical amnesia in persecuting Pope Pius, who was not only a great shepherd of Christ's flock but also a Righteous Gentile.

Incidentally, Pope Paul VI opened the beatification Causes for both Blessed Pope John XXIII and Pope Pius XII on November 18 1965 during a session of the Second Vatican Council, and not in 1967 as reported. The website www.ptwf.org provides access to historical documents proving Pope Pius's work on behalf of Jews.

Yours faithfully
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex

Pilgrims are free to travel to Medjugorje

From Fr James Mulligan

SIR - I must protest at the totally misleading information in the report "Bishop reiterates rules for Medjugorje" (October 4). The report states that "both public and private pilgrimages to Medjugorje were forbidden". Completely untrue and it is irresponsible of the Catholic press to publish such untrue information.

The Church position on Medjugorje is that while the apparition claims there are being investigated no 'official' pilgrimages are to be organised since Medjugorje is not recognised as a Church-approved Marian shrine. And this is as it should be - but no one is forbidden from going there. Each day in Medjugorje St James' church is overflowing with pilgrims from all over and often between 100 and 200 priests concelebrate Mass in various languages. Often concelebrating are bishops from around the world. Records show that over 50,000 priests have gone on pilgrimage to Medjugorje. If pilgrimages were forbidden that would be disobedience on a massive scale.

When the Church investigates alleged apparitions there are three positions that can be adopted. These are in effect:
1) Approved - in as much that the Church believes such apparition claims are worthy of belief and do not contradict anything in Church teaching;
2) The supernatural character of the alleged apparitions is not (yet) established and the investigation continues;
3) The alleged apparitions are found to be not of supernatural character.

The responsibility for the Church investigation of Medjugorje was removed from the then Bishop of Mostar-Duvno (the diocese in which Medjugorje is located), Pavao Zanic, by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1986. The investigation was given to a commission established by the bishops' conference of the old Yugoslavia. This commission's findings were reported in 1991 in what is known as the Declaration of Zadar and this has been the Church position since. Bishop Zanic's successor, Bishop Peric, finds difficult the situation that the responsibility for the investigation has been removed from his diocese and sadly appears to be speaking and acting on Medjugorje with all the fury of a bishop scorned.

There were, in effect, only two positions in the above three categories that the commission could adopt. (Category one was not ever a possibility as, while the apparitions are still occurring, the Church in its prudence would never declare the claims approved. An analogy would be declaring someone a saint while they were still alive.) So it was either category two or category three. If it had been category three that would have been the end of Medjugorje. Indeed, virtually all apparition claims are dismissed in this way. The Church commission chose to place Medjugorje in the second category. This is extremely significant and in the fullness of time, after continued investigation, a decision will be reached.

The obsessive determination by some, and indeed some in the Catholic press, to traduce Medjugorje and to malign the manifest good that comes from there I find unsettling. Last year in Medjugorje I spoke to Fr Svetovar Kralijevi, one of the priests with the most longstanding association with the apparition claims there. He told me that, "if one day Rome declared against Medjugorje, I would perfectly peacefully accept it. Why? Because all I have done here is preach the word of God and administer the sacraments."

It's a pity some opponents of Medjugorje cannot adopt such humility in acceptance of the Church position.

Yours faithfully,
James Mulligan
Holy Rosary,
London NW15

Parasitic tendency

From Mr James Bruce

SIR - Notwithstanding the important points he makes on the issue of population and climate change, Dr Dermot Grenham (Comment, September 24) does seem to have accepted a key element of the pro-contraceptiona genda, which in turn feeds into the "anti-birth mentality" described by the Holy Father in his last encyclical.

Even allowing for the fact that this only applies to people in the world's richest countries, surely we don't all have to accept the label of "emitter" (of greenhouse gases); this would amount to saying that homo sapiens, at least in the affluent western sub-species, is essentially parasitic in its relationship with the earth. Moreover, isn't our reckless determination to treat sex and reproduction as two different things at the core of our "parasitic" tendency?

Yours faithfully,
James Bruce
Bristol

Forming a panel

From Mr Anthony Spencer, honorary secretary of the Pastoral Research Centre

SIR - Since the Catholic bishops' conference de-classified all Newman Demographic Survey (NDS) reports and papers early in 2005 a total of 25 have been published. With Pastoral Research Centre (PRC) reports etc, a total of 44 are currently available. However, most of these relate to the Catholic community in the 1950s and 1960s, and very few to the 21st century.

We would like to do more contemporary work but for this we need the help of priests, deacons, brothers and Sisters. We would like to be able to refer factual queries and ideas to a panel of them, and get their comments on our own ideas, current research and draft papers. The PRC Trustees do this at and between meetings, but we need a much larger panel and now invite any willing to collaborate to write to me.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Spencer
Stone House, Hele,
Taunton, Somerset

A difficult journey to the Czech Republic

From Mr Martin Czerny

SIR - Benedict XVI's visit to the Czech Republic (Report, October 2) appears to have been fairly successful despite the circumstances attached to visiting a country where Communism has effectively rooted out Christianity.

Not only because the country is among the most atheistic in Europe, but also when one considers that this Pope is a German in the Czech Republic, where the Bene_ decrees are still in place and Germans are not popular. Also the country's fraught political situation has left most of its citizens preoccupied, so all in all the Pope did rather well.

I was interested to note that he did not seem address the question of Czechoslovakia's secret priests, at least not in public.

After the Velvet Revolution, when hundreds of thousands of Czechs fell to their knees and prayed the Our Father in Wenceslas Square, the men - some married - and women (one who had been ordained in order to minister to the women in a segregated prison) who had been ordained abroad or secretly, came out of the woodwork and asked to be recognised.

The Vatican and the established Czech hierarchy handled regularising these situations very badly, leaving many people who had risked their lives for their faith lost and angry.

It is sad that Pope Benedict did not mention these heroes of the faith, who did so much for Christ, to make amends for the wrongs that were done to them.

This is an issue that should be re-opened and redressed in this year that marks two decades since the fall of Communism in Europe. Yours faithfully,
Martin Czerny
By email


From Jeannette Francis

SIR - How uplifting it was to read of the Pope in the Czech Republic. Thinking of Benedict at the heart of Europe in a country which has, for the most part, forgotten the gospels, preaching about the love of Christ, inspires me with hope.

As ever, the Holy Father has given us reassurance and hope that in a world dictated by relativism and confusion, we can find the Truth through Christ. His reflections on the nature of freedom, on contemporary society's incorrect understanding of what it means to be free, had a particular poignancy in a country where freedom is still valued, because it was only recently returned to its people.

By visiting the Czech Republic in this year which marks the anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain and dedicating this journey as a symbol for all of Europe, Pope Benedict_XVI_has once again shown that he has the regeneration of Europe at the heart of his mission as Pope.

Yours faithfully,
Jeannette Francis
By email

Pursuing happiness

From Lesley Bennett

SIR - It was refreshing to read, in your interview with Fr Robert Barron (October 2), that Catholicism can involve the pursuit of happiness here and now, through the pursuit of virtue.

Too often, to my way of thinking, Catholicism is linked in people's minds with suffering. Suffering is part of life. But it is not the whole story. Priests like Fr Barron who proclaim the Gospel to the world with confidence can seem brash to Catholic eyes and overly influenced by Protestantism. But why should Protestants have a monopoly on joy?

As I understand it, the classical view of Catholics, going right back to Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount and later to the works of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, used to be that the moral life went hand in hand with the pursuit of happiness, where "happiness" meant something like "fulfillment". What are the Beatitudes if they are not Christ's response to the key question of philosophers, the question of happiness?

Would that there were more priests like Fr Barron. Judging by your interview, not only is he fiercely loyal to the Pope but also he has the brains and the presentational skills to confront the modern world head-on with the claims of the Church - on the Church's terms.

Yours faithfully,
Lesley Bennett
By email

A saint in space

From Mr Barry Swan

SIR - I am not sure what Minette Marrin in the Sunday Times meant by "the starry progress of the relics of the Little Flower" (Report, September 25). Perhaps it was the belated news that the US astronaut Ronald Garan on the Discovery space shuttle to the International Space Station last year carried a small relic of St Thérèse.

I happened to see the two spacecraft in procession as they passed over Wales on what was a rare, very clear night.

Yours faithfully,
Barry Swan
Lampeter, Ceredigion

How to enhance your parish music for the cost of a Premier League match ticket

From Lindsay Gray, director of the Royal School of Church Music

SIR - It was good to read Colin Mawby's recommendation for affiliation to the Royal School of Church Music (Comment, September 18). For an annual membership fee equivalent to the cost of an hour or so at a Premier League football match, churches can tap into a wide range of benefits including our training programmes, and quarterly publications such as Sunday by Sunday, which offers weekly suggestions for music linked to the lectionary, including hymns, songs for children, settings of the psalm, as well as music from Taizé and Iona.

Colin Mawby refers to the need for parishes to plan their music-making according to their circumstances, and to the appointment of a competent musician who can offer leadership and inspiration. We are committed to helping and supporting those churches with a wide range of musical resources and expertise. Readers might be interested to know that our training programme, Church Music Skills, is intended for organists and choir directors of all standards. Our courses for cantors and music group leaders will also be available in the near future. As far as the training of singers of all ages and abilities is concerned, our popular Voice for Life programme can be administered locally. We are also aware that there are many churches which do not have the usual SATB choir, and we publish a wide range of liturgical music for unison and two-part choirs, as well as SA+Men.

At the risk of this letter becoming a commercial, I am keen to draw readers' attention to the wealth of help and support that the RSCM can offer to those for whom the realisation of music-making at Mass is a weekly challenge. Colin Mawby is right: sacred music is a powerful instrument of evangelisation, and we can offer help. I am myself in regular dialogue with leading church musicians in the Roman Catholic Church, and we have a large number of RC-affiliated churches and individuals who (in drawing on their RSCM membership to address their own particular musical needs and issues) are indeed transforming their music at Mass.

Yours faithfully,
Lindsay Gray
Royal School of Church Music,
19 The Close,
Salisbury, Wiltshire


From Mr Jack Robbins

SIR - Colin Mawby's excellent article on liturgical music emphasised the need for a first-rate choir in every parish. He also stressed that building a fine musical tradition required strong clerical and episcopal support.

For over a century following the 1903 Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini of Pope Pius X, constantly repeated papal directives urged the renewal of sacred music. The insistent calls for adequate training were made explicit in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II: "Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, novitiates, and in other Catholic institutes and schools. Teachers are to be carefully trained ... composers and singers must be given a genuine liturgical training ... choirs must be diligently promoted ... religious singing by the people is to be skilfully forstered ... it is also desirable to found higher institutes of sacred music." Such an institute, staffed by eminent Church musicians and liturgists, could be a powerhouse for the various areas of training.

Pope John Paul II in 2003 wearily observed: "This [scheme] has still not been fully implemented." When can we expect an adequate response - from bishops, clergy and laity?

Yours faithfully,
Jack Robbins
Downham Market, Norfolk

A papal trip would glad hearts in the North

From Mary O'Regan

SIR - What joyous news that our beloved Pontiff will visit Britain. Verily, some of us here are like Simeon and Anna in the temple, waiting for the Vicar of Christ, and for "a light to enlighten the Gentiles". The papal visit will cause a greater societal discovery of Catholicism, but the secret thoughts of many will be laid bare. Already, the National Secular Society warns us about their activities to show that "he is not welcomed here by everyone". Put frankly, their threats of hostility reveal the mindset of a bully rather than a secularist's one.

Moreover, there's mention of the possible sparking of sectarian violence should Pope Benedict visit Northern Ireland. Sources in the Vatican articulate that a visit to Northern Ireland may be part of a separate papal visit, which would ultimately mean two visits to these isles. Two years ago, Cardinal Brady thought it appropriate to personally invite the Pope to come to Northern Ireland, and in following the cardinal's example, we too should look benignantly on a papal visit to Ulster.

Our Pope is the embodiment of Christ's serenity, and his visit would send a signal for further reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants, and would rekindle ardour for the peace process. The visit would also inspire those Catholic "men of violence" to re-evaluate their actions in accordance with our Pope's teachings. Our Pope's visit would also console and hearten peaceful Northern Irish Christians who have long prayed for peace.

Yours faithfully,
Mary O'Regan,
London SW7

Don't pity Sir Elton

From Mr Tony Bond

SIR - Mary Kenny (Comment, September 18) refers to Elton John not having been allowed to adopt a Ukrainian orphan because he is 62 and in a same-sex union, arguing: "If you were an orphaned child, would you prefer to grow up in a Ukrainian orphanage?"

Unlike Britain, which has no orphanages but rabid anti-natalist policies consigning "unwanted" unborns to abortion, Ukraine's orphanages at least save some unwanted children from this fate: indeed, a web search brings up several testimonials of loving and caring attention given to children in Ukrainian orphanages. Orphanage life cannot be ideal, but it can be better than some alternatives, including life with alcoholic or abusive parents. And they have occasionally produced people of great merit, including Coco Chanel, as Miss Kenny herself reminded readers in an earlier column.

Miss Kenny's sympathy for Elton John's adoptive aspirations is laudable but misplaced because reason, experience and the Church tell us that it is in the best interest of children to be placed with married male and female adoptive parents. If Elton John's 1984 marriage to Renate Blauel was sacramentally null and void, there is nothing to stop him following through his new found desire to be a father by changing his present lifestyle and, if he can, marrying someone with whom he may still be able to have children.

Neither Nature nor ageist adoption agencies need stand in his way and history, including the Bible, is full of examples of men in their dotage - not just today's celebrities - marrying much younger women and fathering children.

Yours faithfully,
Tony Bond
Kesgrave, Suffolk

Promise of asylum

From Mr William Ellis

SIR - Contrary to what Bishop Kenney said (report, September 25), Africans are not drowning because of "evil" six-metre high fences around Spanish-controlled Ceuta; they drown because the promise of asylum in Europe draws them here.

When Spain's lamentable socialist government gave an amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants in 2005, it resulted - as everyone at the time predicted - in a surge of Africans making their way illegally to Spain. It is not Christian to want to encourage Africans over dangerous waters towards a society which cannot accommodate them - it is folly. Bishop Kenney is well-respected by the vast majority of the faithful in this country but please, I beg the bishops not to put their weight behind the pro-immigration lobby.

Yours faithfully
William Ellis
London SW11


From Eleanor Brown

SIR - Bishop Kenney has done a valuable service in speaking up for the migrants stuck in limbo between Europe and Africa. For Our Lord, the migrant would be His main concern in the 21st century. Accepting immigration is not just the right thing to do - it is also in our interest to give our churches fresh vitality.

Yours faithfully
Eleanor Brown
By email

A secret conversion?

From Mr John Beaumont

SIR - I was very interested to read Mary Kenny's item "Did Edward VII become a Catholic" (Comment, September 25). She asks if anyone "can add any more pieces to this jigsaw".

The answer is yes, in the sense that I am the co-author (with Fr Mark Elvins, OFM Cap) of an article on this very subject (see "Popery at the Palace", Catholic Life, January 2009), to which we would refer readers. We set out there the evidence in some detail, including that mentioned by Mary Kenny about Fr Cyril Forster, and note Edward VII's many Catholic practices and devotions and his hostility to the existing coronation oath.

We also note the statements of Sir Shane Leslie and the persistent rumours of a conversion. We go on to deal with other evidence, including that of Paul Cambon, the French ambassador at the time; that of Niall Diarmid Campbell, the 10th Duke of Argyll; of Fr James Martin Gillis, the famous Paulist preacher; and finally that of Mrs Huber. We conclude that there is a real possibility that Edward VII did convert to the Catholic faith.

We also argue that a reasonable case can be made out for the same conclusion to be drawn in the case of George V (and his wife, Queen Mary). Of course, as we state about all of these matters, one cannot be sure, and we too would appeal for further information.

What we can be sure of, however, is the anomaly of the monarch bearing such a Catholic title as "Defender of the Faith" (awarded originally to Henry VIII for his defence of the seven sacraments against Luther) while making an oath to be a "faithful Protestant". This indicates vividly the injustice of requiring the monarch to embrace a faith that may be at odds with his or her conscience.

Yours faithfully,
John Beaumont
Apperley Bridge, West Yorkshire


From Miss Ruth Yendell

SIR - What an extraordinary statement by David Starkey (Feature, September 4) that "When most of the English ceased being Catholics, the Throckmortons in the main line refused to follow. Instead they became (my italics) Roman Catholics or papists." What does he think they, (and indeed the whole of European Christendom) were before the Reformation?

And does he not realise that the notion of Catholicism being "exotic and mildly dangerous" was merely the result of Tudor nationalist propaganda in order to justify the adoption of Protestantism by the crown? I am surprised at such a good historian's apparent blind spots.

Yours faithfully,
Ruth Yendell
Exeter, Devon

The home of style

From Mr Maurice Ricard

SIR - I was shocked by Nick Thomas's article (September 25) proclaiming Italy as "the world's most stylish nation". I cannot overlook this Anglo-Saxon slight against the nation which gave the world Coco Chanel, Yves St Laurent and Jean-Paul Gaultier. Italy indeed!

Yours faithfully
Maurice Ricard
By email

Anglo-Catholics simply don't want change

From Mr Stephen Ward

SIR - The main reason why the Church is not flooded by converts from that group of Anglicans known variously as Anglo-Catholic, Anglican Catholic or High Church is that they have spent most of their lives convincing themselves that they are already Catholics (Letters, September 25). They see communion with Rome as, at best, desirable rather than as essential to Catholic identity.

There is a grave danger that they would understand any move to the Roman Catholic Church as a change of jurisdiction rather than a change of faith. Though abhorring certain changes in their current denomination they cling to it ever more tenaciously by seeking special protection from General Synod in the form of ring-fenced dioceses. Precisely what they do not seek is change, particularly in their own core conviction that they are already Catholics.

Because of this particular characteristic it would be particularly dangerous to offer this group any special arrangements that would allow their entry into the Church as a group. Anything that could be construed of as corporate reunion would mislead all concerned as to the true nature of conversion.

They should be dealt with in a pastorally sensitive way, taking into account of their many abilities and positive theological insights. The Catholic Church in this country has welcomed converts from Anglicanism for generations and many of them have contributed significantly to Catholic life. But they have all started off as individual penitents seeking the fullness of faith.

I include myself in that last comment: I am an ex-Anglican priest who converted a year ago.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen Ward
Loughborough, Leicestershire

Assisted suicide and the work of Providence

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - Perhaps there was some providence at work in The Catholic Herald of September 25. Along with the report of the assisted suicide guidelines (available from the Crown Prosecution Service website, www.cps.gov.uk), you report the process of the beatification Cause of Mother Mary Angeline Teresa McCrory, the founder of the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm.

The assisted suicide (or assisted murder) guidelines are the result of the final judgment from the House of Lords, given in the chamber in July 2009. This is a serious threat to our parliamentary democracy, where Parliament decides these things. Indeed, as your report points out, Parliament rejected liberalising the suicide law already this year.

Mother McCrory, who died in 1984 aged 91, dedicated her life to caring for the aged and infirm. In her later life she suffered ill health. She always believed that no matter how old or how sick a person was each person deserved love, care and attention.

Having read the draft policy, I believe that the safeguards do not adequately prevent an elderly person (or person in ill health) from being pressured to take their life: as that great English moral philosopher Baroness Warnock said in 2007, those with dementia may have a duty to die.

Perhaps we should pray for Mother McCrory's intervention to guide our lawmakers to make laws that defend us at our most vulnerable.

Further information about Mother McCrory is available at www.carmelitesisters.com. Readers may wish to see what our bishops are saying at the following weblink: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/legislation_and_public_policy.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex

God helps us to cope with withering criticism

From Stephen Griffin

SIR - So religion makes us happier, healthier and able to withstand pain (features, September 25). This, I presume, is some sort of evolutionary measure designed to make it easier for believers to deal with Christopher Hitchens's books, Guardian editorial and tiresome atheist bores at dinner parties. The Almighty thinks of everything.

Yours faithfully
Stephen Griffin
By email

Anglo-Catholics are a spent force so the Church should focus on Anglican Evangelicals

From Professor David Jowitt

SIR - I am mystified by Damian Thompson's "We should throw a lifeline to struggling Anglicans" (Comment, August 7). He writes as if there is simply no such thing as the Anglican Evangelical tradition; the assumption seems to be that if you are an Anglican, you are either an Anglo-Catholic or a liberal.

The truth is that Evangelicals are, and have for long been, a major force within the Church of England and many other provinces of the Anglican Communion. In the Communion's current developing schism the principal dividing issue is not women priests and bishops but homosexuality; and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), which since the last Lambeth Conference has focused Anglican opposition to liberal teaching on this issue, is largely made up of Evangelicals.

One wonders, therefore, why among English Catholics there should be such concern at the possibilities, the modalities, the difficulties, of attracting traditional Anglo-Catholics to Rome; Dr Thompson's own account suggests that they are a spent force. Though the challenge is greater, surely our energies should instead be directed towards winning over Evangelicals: towards convincing them that the Catholic Church is where they belong, since she firmly upholds what they also hold dear, such as the centrality of the person of Jesus to faith, and the immutability of biblical teaching. Perhaps more thought should be given in the Vatican, as well as in Westminster, to this highly desirable goal.

Converts to Catholicism have included many one-time Evangelicals. I am one. So is Scott Hahn, the American writer. So was Newman.

Yours faithfully,
David Jowitt
Jos, Nigeria


From the Revd Dr D Anderson

SIR - Fr Ashley Beck (Feature, September 18) doubts that many Anglo-Catholics are ready to submit to the Holy See. He thus sees no reason why any special effort should be made to help them. He misses the point. It is not about the numbers, though he is wrong about those and understandably out of touch since having left the C of E 15 years ago.

The point is whether submissions are made individually or in some "corporate" way. If the Catholic Church could detach, and be seen to detach, a body of the Church of England it would not only gain a lot or a few new members. It would be seen to be The Church in England. The C of E has three main parts: Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals and liberals. The Evangelicals are already considering departure for some more orthodox Anglican Communion. Were the Anglo-Catholic party to depart, it would leave the C of E as a tiny bankrupt liberal sect, untrue to its historical roots and probably happy to consent to disestablishment. Already Catholic Communions exceed those in the C of E. There is a very real probability that in a decade the Catholic Church could restore itself to the position it enjoyed before the Elizabethan Settlement.

Many Anglo-Catholics belong to bodies such as Forward in Faith and Societas Sanctae Crucis. These bodies may not be the ideal vehicle, but then other un-ideal formulations have already been used in the conversion process such as the tautologous "full communion", with its implicit self-contradictory implication of partial communion. Forget numbers of converts. This is about one church displacing another. Or it could be if the English hierarchy is up to the challenge.

Yours faithfully,
D Anderson
Woburn Sands, Bucks

Walking on eggshells

From Mr John Deighan

SIR - I was interested to read the interview (September 11) with Christopher Caldwell. His work, given the current climate of politically correct eggshell-walking over Muslim sensibilities, is certainly refreshing. It is encouraging that he is getting a hearing even within the mainstream media establishment.

Yet I think this also has a discouraging side to it. As the author of your article admits, Caldwell's mainstream success "is due to his obvious decency and lack of racism" - while those who dare to openly criticise Islam for its beliefs, its ethics, its law and its practices are still marginalised and stigmatised with accusations of "racism" and "indecency".

I am not a racist. Yet I strongly object to the fact that, in accordance with Sharia law and the consensus of the scholars, blasphemy and apostasy are punishable by death in most Islamic states throughout the world. Why should those who wish to criticise such laws and the religious ideology which legitimises them, be branded as racists?

I have no wish to belittle the faith of others, being a person of faith myself. However, calling something a religion should not automatically prevent us from making important moral judgments. Islam - the religion itself, not those who abuse it - gives sanction to these barbarities and others, such as wife-beating and religious discrimination. Therefore it should receive legitimate criticism from those who love humanity.

Yours faithfully,
John Deighan
Stirling

Thriving community

From Mrs June Rockett

SIR - Dominic Scarborough (Comment, September 4) has overlooked one new community of female religious which is already thriving in England.

He mentions that the Franciscans of the Immaculate have "gained a foothold" in the Plymouth diocese, but ignores the Dominican Sisters of St Joseph, whose priory near Lymington (Portsmouth diocese) was established some years ago, and is now a much-loved and appreciated centre of spirituality for all who know it.

Yours faithfully,
June Rockett
Salisbury, Wilts

The ire of Pullman

From Mr William Dennett

Why is Philip Pullman (Report, September 11) always referred to as an "atheist"? Since the sole object of his ire is Christianity, would it not be more correct to term him as "anti-Christian"?

Like many so-called secularists and atheists nowadays, he is very comfortable in his attacks on people who, by the nature of their beliefs, are unlikely to offer him more than a cup of tea and a mild rebuke, but never a word is heard relating to other major world religions.

Yours faithfully,
William Dennett
By email

Edward Kennedy: a funeral fit for a king

From Mr Paul