Letters Archive

A true educational marketplace: is it an evil to be avoided or a good to be embraced?

From Dr Matthew Huntbach

SIR - If there is no market in the British education system, as Professor Philip Booth claims (Letters, June 12), why are schools competing intensively with each other to obtain high SATs and GCSE pass figures? Parents have a choice over local authority schools, hence they compete to obtain the best applicants, and these figures are their sales pitch. A market need not be cash-based.

Prof Booth calls for the liberation of schools from state control. He, and others of his sort, like to pretend this state control comes from the political Left. It does not. The National Curriculum was imposed by the previous Conservative government out of fear that teachers, left to their own devices, were giving insufficient attention to core educational issues done in the approved conservative way.

Media commentators on this issue like Prof Booth often suggest it is the local authorities exercising control over schools and hence imposing the uniformity. This is untrue: local authorities provide the finance for the schools but have little say over what is taught, and how, within them.

That is in the hands of the headteacher and governors within the bounds set by national government. But it is convenient for those who don't really like democracy and prefer rule by money to attack local government in this way.

It is unfortunate that the debate on education in this country is soured by people who are using it to make political points, and what they say only makes sense if they are either ignorant over how it really works or deliberately deceiving.

Archbishop Nichols's speech was refreshingly free of tiresome propaganda. Let us have more like him who have something original to say, and fewer who start with the party political line they favour and bend the facts to fit it (Nick Thomas, take note).

Yours faithfully,
Matthew Huntbach
By email


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

SIR - Professor Grace, or at least participants in the study he quotes (Letters, June 19), comes close to falling prey to one of the most dangerous secular trends among modern intellectuals - the desire to raise feelings above facts and reason. One can only be concerned if so many headteachers see market forces as a reality in modern British education because it is a matter of fact that they are not. There is no market on the demand side and no market on the supply side. What they see, together with Professor Grace, are certain trends in the ends to which education is directed that they do not like. They may also see those trends operating in markets in certain contexts. But the complete absence of markets in British education shows that utilitarian trends can operate in the context of government planned, provided and controlled education - even in some Catholic schools.

Those who wrote The Common Good in Education would do well to study papal teaching on the matter. It describes as an injustice a situation where parents are not provided with equality of financial support for attendance at private and state schools.

If market trends in education are so wicked, perhaps Professor Grace would like to point to the features of the Dutch or Swedish systems of education that he feels are more utilitarian than the British system. These systems, and the system that gave rise to the founding of most British Catholic schools, show that civil society, philanthropy, parental autonomy and the Church can work in harmony with state financial support to produce outcomes that are more worthy than our current utilitarian, state-dominated model.

Yes, there would be aspects of a market within such a system but, with the right participation of civil society and the Church, it would be a market oriented to the common good.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Booth
London SW1

We should launch a Ghandi-style campaign

From Audrey and Paul Edwards

SIR - If the Government does introduce legislation which threatens the right to display crucifixes (Report, June 12), we hope the bishops, in conjunction with other Christian leaders, will make clear that if any attempt is made to implement it they will lead a peaceful campaign of Christian civil disobedience, Gandhi-style.

At a time when the Government will be struggling to retain public confidence, as it deals with the consequences for public finances of the current recession, we doubt it would wish to take on also hundreds of Christian institutions and hundreds of thousands of Christians proclaiming their adherence to the cross of Christ. If it did so it would at least bring home to Christians the reality of the secularist persecution with which they are faced today.

It is time that the anti-democratic and totalitarian nature of the secular lobby is exposed. The public which pays the taxes to finance public expenditure includes Christians, secularists and others. All Christians seek is to have the right, when involved in the expenditure of those funds, to do so in a way which reflects their Christian values and does not compromise them. We do not seek to impose those values on secularists or others. In contrast, the secular lobby wishes to use the power of the state to impose its values on everyone. This must be resisted. We are called on to render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's; we are not called on to surrender to Caesar the things which are God's.

Yours faithfully,
Audrey and Paul Edwards
Cambridge


From Dom Aldhelm Cameron-Brown OSB

SIR - If Christian institutions cannot have Christian symbols on their interior walls in case they offend atheist dinner ladies and the like, then why are buses allowed to drive through the streets of London with messages promoting atheism, which might offend Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus alike?

The idea is also an insult to the intelligence of dinner ladies.

Yours faithfully,
Aldhelm Cameron-Brown
Prinknash Abbey, Gloucester

Paths to renewal

From Lord Hylton

SIR - The nations are now becoming ever more interdependent, the economy is challenged by new strains and the Church is shamed by its own internal scandals. This is a good moment to assess its most valuable assets.

I suggest these are Catholic schools, religious or contemplative orders and voluntary and charitable organisations. Among the latter, I include lay movements for Christian renewal.

The schools not only educate but help families provide a moral framework for the young. The orders have the potential to develop the spirituality and commitment that adults need and seek. The Christian voluntary bodies enable us to be the Church of the poor, meeting the widest variety of needs, both at home and overseas, within the Church and outside its membership. I urge the laity to ask our bishops to lead the three kinds of hidden assets in a new and coherent strategy of witness to the Gospel. This does not mean that parishes should be abolished. It does imply that the Church's resources of people and funds should be re-deployed to create communion / community, witness and service. These were the hallmarks of the early Church. Let us at least consult about a new vision of God's kingdom, capable of changing our society.

Yours faithfully,
Hylton
House of Lords


From Mr Patrick Fahey

SIR - While sitting prior to Mass last Sunday I was struck by the now outdated missal entry for the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ and thought how sad it was that we have gradually over my lifetime lost our Catholic identity.

As a child I did not understand what being a Catholic was but I did understand that we ate fish on Friday, had days off school when the majority did not, were reverent in church and knelt before the altar for Communion which itself was given directly to the person - not in the hand to be fiddled with or carried away from the sanctuary prior to consumption.

Why have we thrown away precious acts and observances that set us apart? Is it that we wish to be anonymous, the same as all the other Christians? If so, is this because we would upset them by being different? I do not know.

What I do see is that by casting away our identity others, and maybe we, cease to know what we do believe in. From what I see, this has not improved the Church in any way. In fact, as we all know, we are weaker in faith now than any time since the Restoration.

Before it's too late, those of us left who know the beauty of our liturgy need to make a fuss and ensure that it is in place in our parishes.

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Fahey
West Bromwich, West Midlands

An open cathedral

From Fr James Walsh, Dean of St John's Cathedral, Norwich

SIR - I was puzzled by the letter from Dr John Hogg (June 12) in which he complained that he found the Catholic cathedral in Norwich "locked during the day". I can only assume that his visit took place many years ago. The main entrance to St John's Cathedral is open every day from early morning to evening and welcomes many visitors from home and abroad.

Yours faithfully,
James Walsh
Norwich, Norfolk

Voting for the BNP

From Mr Eric Hester

SIR - In different places in your paper this week there is speculation on how a BNP candidate came to be elected to the EU parliament in that most Catholic part of England, the north-west. Might I, as one who lives in Catholic Lancashire, offer an explanation?

Quite simply, those Catholics who voted for the BNP were following strictly the advice of the bishops' conference as expressed in the much publicised document, The Common Good. In paragraphs 62 to 65, this document gives clear advice that Catholics can vote for candidates even though an item of their policies seems opposed to clear Catholic teaching: "This consideration will discourage the making of a choice solely on the basis of one policy issue alone, even where the attitudes of a candidate on such an issue are at variance with Catholic teaching...

A general election must never be confused with a single-issue referendum... It is legitimate for an individual elector to say to a candidate: 'I disagree with you totally on this one issue, but I may vote for you and in return shall want to come and talk to you further about the issue over which we disagree.' " That is what Catholics have done: they have followed what their bishops said and voted for the BNP.

The Common Good, so praised by some, was greeted with alarm by SPUC, LIFE and all those who are pro-life since it was perceived as a device to say that Catholics could vote for those who support abortion, which, of course, they never should. But what was sauce for the goose of abortion is also sauce for the gander of "racism". The bishops cannot say that it is all right to vote for a person or party who supports abortion because we are not involved in "single-issue politics" but then say that we cannot vote for a party which is deemed to support "racism".

Yours faithfully,
Eric Hester
Bolton, Lancashire

Citizens for heaven

From Mrs Daphne McLeod

SIR - As a Catholic teacher, now retired, I was very interested in Archbishop Nichols's address to the conference at Heythrop on education and young people (Report, June 12).

His Grace is right to point out that Catholic schools give a genuine service to society at large, but of course they were built to do far more than that. Our forbears made real sacrifices to enable schools to be built which would ensure their Catholic children, their grandchildren and future generations would receive the full effective religious instruction they need to lead good Catholic lives. This would make them good citizens while also preparing them for the life to come.

Unfortunately effective religious instruction has been so neglected during the last 40 years, now 97 per cent of Catholic school leavers lapse either on or before they leave school. The Archbishop of Westminster will have to address this issue by supplying teachers with sound Catholic textbooks (some are available from America) and re-introducing annual religious knowledge inspections.

Then our Catholic schools will once again produce, not only good citizens for today's society, but good citizens for heaven.

Yours faithfully,
Daphne McLeod
Great Bookham, Surrey

Scotching a legend about Monk Dawson

From the Very Rev Fr Leo Chamberlain OSB

SIR - I read the interview with Piers Paul Read (June 19) with interest and some sympathy; our attitudes are perhaps closer now than they were 40 years ago. I will certainly hope to read his new book.

In the course of the interview he says, as he has said before, that his book Monk Dawson was banned at Ampleforth, although he reports that this was denied by a former headmaster who accosted him at a party.

I was probably that headmaster, although "accosting" might be a little strong. We had been contemporaries at Ampleforth, his son came to the school for the sixth form, and I would always be happy to meet him.

In fact, when Monk Dawson was published, I was a young monk, running the college bookshop, at the time joyously expanding into new space. This was the time when paperbacks had sprung into colour, and loads were being bought avidly by the school. It was wonderful fun. The boys who staffed it were enthusiasts, and not just because we had a dinner on part of the profits each term.

As well as the classics, we had all the titles which caught the mood of the time; I remember, for example, Gormenghast and The Magic Mountain.

The only hardbacks stocked were staples such as dictionaries and the Bible; we also had the Dutch Catechism, which was at least the first attempt to encapsulate the insights of the Vatican Council.

Monk Dawson was quite an expensive hardback at the time and it was available like other hardbacks, on order. We worked with good distributors and delivery was prompt. We sold a few. I thought then and think now that it was not a fair book and romantic rather than realistic in its denouement; but censorship was not my approach, and I hope this letter both finally scotches that legend and eases any remaining irritations.

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

The Blairs, the Magisterium and Newman

From Mr Simon Reynolds

SIR - As an aged cradle Catholic who, like Piers Paul Read, experienced a Benedictine education, I would like to respond to Fr Clovis and Mr Read's spirited letters (April 17). Indeed, one wonders whether, when Mr Blair sought his spiritual home within the Catholic Church, he fully appreciated that he could not transpose the democratic experiences of his political career into his newly chosen religion; gone were the days when he could dine with Cherie on an à la carte menu. The governance of the Catholic Church has perhaps a greater affinity to that of the Sun King than to that of Westminster. The silence of the Cistercian cloister best becomes a dissenting Catholic.

On matters of faith, humanity and morals Catholics need to look to the Magisterium. Was it not Cardinal Newman shortly after his conversion who expressed his relief that he no longer had to exercise his troubled Anglican conscience?

Surely a practical route to out "liberalism" among the faithful would be for the hierarchy worldwide to issue a "reassertion of faith" to all adult churchgoers assembling all dogmatic principles in simple boxes to be marked by parishioners with a tick or cross. All those who do not make the required grade should be asked firmly but politely to leave the Church allowing, of course, a route open for return should there be a subsequent "seeing of the light". A resultant exodus out of Egypt might prove to be of biblical dimension, leaving a numerically reduced but purified Mother Church.

Yours faithfully,
Simon Reynolds
London SW1

19 June 2009

Catholics can't afford to 'kick Hitler out of our rhetorical toolbag'

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

SIR - Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, June 3) argues that it's "time we kicked Hitler out of our rhetorical toolbag" since "evil can get along quite nicely without him".

Try telling that to the Plett, Elscheidt and Romeikes families of Germany, (the latter have sought asylum in America) who have all been charged and convicted under a law introduced by Hitler in 1938 outlawing homeschooling.

The parents simply tried to exercise their legal right to withdraw their children from sex education classes where content was at odds with their moral convictions. This legal right is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and defended vigorously in Church teaching.

In the case of the Elscheidts, two subsequent appeals were rejected, resulting in a recent appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The application objects to the punitive measures applied by the German court in convicting the applicants and seeks to establish that such opt-outs of "sexual education" programmes are in line with ECHR Protocol.

Home-schooling is not illegal in Britain. However, it is increasingly frowned upon by local authorities. The findings of the recent McDonald review into Personal, Social and Health, Education (PSHE) supporting mandatory Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) from age five argues that, since only 0.4 per cent of parents bother to exercise the right to withdraw their children from sex education, the need for the law to remain grows less.

The similarities are striking between the stealthy undermining of parental authority by the state today (particularly the authority of Christian parents) and the aggressive subversion of the same in National Socialist Germany in the 1930s. In paragraph 39 of the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge ("With Burning Sorrow") - which left Hitler so beside himself that for three days he did not want to see anyone - Pius XI reminds German Catholic parents that "their rights and duties as educators, conferred on them by God, are at present the stake of a campaign pregnant with consequences."

Those rights include what John Paul II called "an unrenounceable duty" of parents to protect their children's morality. In jurisprudence this is a fiduciary principle, which means one must exercise this duty beyond the bare minimum.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
London SW1

Fine distinctions

From Mrs Ann Farmer

SIR - I apologise if my letter of May 22 about Pope Pius XII appeared confusing (Letters, June 5); I was merely trying to draw attention to the historical processes that have tarnished Pius's reputation regarding the Holocaust - the same political and religious tendencies now seeking to destabilise and de-legitimise the state of Israel.

However, Mr Cuming makes some serious points, the most serious of which is that Israel is a racist state; in fact, it excludes no race or religion, allows all residents the vote and elects Arab representatives to the Knesset. This contrasts favourably with Gaza and the West Bank, administered by Hamas and Fatah respectively; moreover, a future Palestinian state would exclude any Jewish component.

Attempts to portray Israel as a racist state, whether by Jews or non-Jews, simply play into the hands of those who like to equate Jews with Nazis in a distorted moral equivalence. And what imperialist nation would give away territory in the hopes of peace - hopes which sadly have been dashed in the case of Hamas? True, Israel has nuclear weapons, but its neighbours are more concerned about Iran, which will soon be using its own "hoard" of nuclear weapons to strengthen its hegemony in the region.

Mr Cuming is right about the need to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism, but Islamist extremists hate all Jews, do not want peace, do not want two states and would be overjoyed to see every Jew driven out of the area. Their anti-Zionism is truly anti-Semitism, and Catholics may find themselves in the position of those who, between the wars, claimed to have a problem with "capitalist" Jews or "Bolshevist" Jews but not with Jews as such, while Hitler made no such fine distinctions.

Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer
Woodford Green, Essex

Reviving sacred art

From Dr Guillem Ramos-Poquí

SIR - Although I agree with Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith (Comment, June 5) that we have seen no renewal and no signs of any uplifting contemporary religious art in the Catholic Church in this country, I completely disagree with him that the academic realism of Guido Reni or John Nava is the answer.

His references to the conceptual approach of the "Young Brits" as a means of discussing the problem completely missed the point. What do you expect to come out of art colleges today, when there is no longer training in painting technique and when any attempt to convey spiritual or religious meaning is banned?

We do not have contemporary sacred art of any quality in this country mainly because of the lack of training of priests during their seminarian years about the "sacred tradition" - comprising the icons, and the early Italians (Duccio, Giotto, Fra Angelico, Masaccio, Piero), and 20th-century art, and the work of painters who have captured something of the spirit of the sacred, such as Paul Klee and Rouault.

More than ever, we need schools of sacred art where young artists can be trained, and I believe that the best place for these today are art studios in monasteries, where sacred art training can be rooted in prayer and liturgy, and shared with the creative vision of a community. But for this we need inspired leaders who, unlike Fr Lucie-Smith, are well informed.

Yours faithfully,
Guillem Ramos-Poquí
London W9

An utter disgrace

From Mr Richard Dodd

SIR - The medieval historian Henry of Huntingdon, archdeacon of Huntingdon and a canon of Lincoln Cathedral, is a chronicler of great repute. His History of the English People, written c 1150, is considered a classic. In it he writes: "In the same year (1102) Archbishop Anselm held a council in London at Michaelmas (September 29) in which he forbade English priests to have wives, which had not been prohibited before. This seemed to some to be the greatest purity, but to others there seemed a danger that if they sought a purity beyond their capacity, they might fall into horrible uncleanness, to the utter disgrace of the Christian name."

Why is it that, even today, we still cannot recognise something that was glaringly obvious to that thoughtful Englishman 850 years ago?

Yours faithfully,
Richard Dodd
Hemel Hempstead, Herts

Make your voice heard on abortion adverts

From Mr Roger Hammond

SIR - May I appeal to any readers who have not already done so to respond to Question 62 of the public Consultation by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice: the BCAP Code Review Consultation on the proposed BCAP Broadcast Advertising Standards Code. (visit www.bcap.org.uk). However, it is not necessary to see the document in order to respond.

Question 62 is in two parts. Part i) is worded in a convoluted way which does not make for an easy "yes" or "no" answer. It is important to oppose totally any relaxation in the current restrictions on broadcast advertising by post-conception advice services on television or radio at any time or in any place.

The objections can be supported by arguments:

That it is offensive: if sufficient individuals would be offended then the authorities would have to recognise that they are generally offensive.
That it is misleading: they lure women into a false sense of security.
That it is harmful: to the unborn child and the mother.
Part ii) of Question 62 proposes a new rule 11.11: "Advertisements for post-conception pregnancy advice services must make clear in the advertisement if the service does not refer women directly for abortion."


This is an attack on pro-life pregnancy care services instigated by the Government's Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV. The proposed rule 11.11 would make it increasingly difficult for pro-life services to operate and is not wanted.

A response can be made as an attachment to BCAPcodereview@cap.org.uk or fax 020 7404 3404 or by post to: BCAP Code Review, Code Policy Team, Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice, Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London WC1V 6QT.

Unless there are widespread objections it is likely that the proposal will be implemented leading directly to more abortions. Moreover, it will be almost impossible to reverse.

Yours faithfully,
Roger Hammond
By email

Crackpot policies

From Mr Michael Elmer SIR - "A vote for CP/CPA is not a vote for anything that is either criminal or insane," says Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, May 29). He might not be quite so sure if he had done more than read an election pamphlet.

The Christian Party-Christian Peoples Alliance is not the closest thing we have here to a Catholic political movement. Indeed, the CPA element is a full member of the European Christian Political Movement (ECPM)_which a leading academic in the field has termed the "Protestant International". The ECPM is the brainchild of the confessionalist Dutch Christen Unie which is electorally linked to the SGP, a party that will have neither Catholic nor women candidates.

Both CPA and CP have their origins in the genuinely ecumenical Movement for Christian Democracy founded by David Alton. The original vision, which Britain's Christian Democrats retain, is of a party akin to European counterparts, presenting moderate policies deriving from Catholic social teaching and welcoming all who accept the platform. European mainstream CD parties frequently number non-Christians among their ranks.

The founder of the CP was expelled from CPA in 2004 while CPA itself split in 2007 because the Protestant Evangelical group which runs the party today would not accept a Muslim party member as a candidate in the Scottish elections of that year. Since then the Christian Democrats have campaigned under that name with some success at local government level though they were not financially strong enough to contest the current European election.

CP has virtually no Catholic members and CPA few. CP, which is confessionalism heavy as opposed to CPA's confessionalism lite, has some simply crackpot policies. One was to abolish the Welsh flag on the ground that the dragon is a biblical symbol of evil.

CP-CPA stands for confessionalism. The Christian Democrats want to offer the electorate another choice long available in mainland Europe and open to all. They have already achieved some electoral success and, with God's help, will achieve more.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Elmer
By email

Cherishing liberty

From Mr Frank Beswick

SIR - In all the furore over the election of the BNP we must remember that there are two clearly morally suspect parties holding elected office: the BNP and the Labour Party.

While the sins of the BNP are evident, Catholics should be aware that all the threat to religious liberty identified by Neil Addison (Feature, June 12) comes from elements in the Labour Party, its supporters and its fellows on the politically correct Left. The rest of the nation is quite tolerant and cherishes its traditional liberties.

Christians should know what to do. At the next election let us ascertain where each candidate stands on liberty and attitudes to Christianity and if they do not match up to standard, vote for someone else. People such as Harriet Harman and Barry Sheerman, neither renowned for their pro-Christian views, should be voted out. Let us remember, our loyalty to the faith is higher than any party loyalty.

To be heard Christians need to be a strong group of discerning voters ready to move votes according to their consciences.

Yours faithfully,
Francis Beswick
Stretford

Needing a miracle

From Margaret M Rainford

SIR - In Cecil Kerr's Teresa Helena Higginson, Fr Bertrand Wilberforce OP, the great, great, grandson of Lord Wilberforce, the anti-slavery campaigner, wrote: "We may therefore conclude that the devotion to the Sacred Head, as the Shrine of the Divine Wisdom, can be defended theologically and is in harmony with the teaching of the Catholic Church".

The Devotion to the Sacred Head has nothing to do with the physiology of the head but focuses on the soul, the highest part being the intellect.

Teresa's life is a testimony of fidelity and holiness (Letters, May 1). Her beatification, according to well-known letters of the postulation dated 1938, was merely temporarily blocked, not rejected outright and a striking miracle would certainly move things to be reconsidered. We need an example for all teachers to guide generations to the realisation of the infinite value of the soul.

In a private revelation in 1880 Our Lord told Teresa that He wished the first Friday after the Feast of His Sacred Heart to be set apart as a day in honour of His Sacred Head as the Seat of Divine and Eternal Wisdom, adding that this devotion would crown the devotion to the Sacred Heart and lead to the conversion of England. This year it falls on June 26.

Yours faithfully,
Margaret Rainford
Ormskirk, Lancs

A hostile environment

From Christopher Keeffe

SIR - The decision by Harriet Harman (Report, May 5) to refuse Julian Brazier's request for a debate on discrimination against Christians in public life comes as no real surprise.

What does come as a surprise is that she thinks that discrimination against Christians in public life by the public sector is properly a matter for the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I would have thought that matters of discrimination in the public field would properly be matters for either the Department for Works and Pensions or, in its wider context, the Ministry of Justice.

Ms Harman's action in this matter demonstrates what we all know: that this once great Christian nation of ours is now a hostile environment for Christians.

In reply to Evan Harris's Bill to allow Catholics to marry into the royal family and retain right of succession, the Lord Chancellor Jack Straw said that the Government would not support the Bill as it had its own Equality Bill which had a far-reaching remit in hand. This Bill has now been started and by my reading continues to persecute Christian teaching under the guise of equality.

Perhaps our Labour Catholic MPs can inject some common sense into this Government.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex

We must resist an 'educational marketplace'

From Professor Gerald Grace, director of the Centre for Research and Development in Catholic Education

SIR - Readers must not be misled by Professor Philip Booth (Letters, June 12) to the effect that "the Church should not be afraid of a true educational marketplace".

In 1997 the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales in The Common Good in Education gave more reliable guidance: "Education is not a commodity to be offered for sale. The distribution of funding solely according to the dictates of market forces is contrary to the Catholic doctrine of the common good. Teachers and pupils are not economic units."

Your readers may care to consult my research study, Catholic Schools: Mission, Markets and Morality. Chapter eight shows very clearly that almost all of the 60 Catholic headteachers interviewed in that study saw market forces as a reality in contemporary schooling. Against a market imperative of competitive individual survival, they counterpoised the Catholic values of partnership, community networks and professional collegiality.

Professor Stuart Ransom got to the heart of what markets mean in education when he wrote in 1993: "Action in the market is driven by a single common currency - the pursuit of material interests." While market forces have their place in the commercial exchanges of the secular world, their presence in Catholic education has a polluting effect on the spiritual, moral and social purposes of Catholic schools and they should be resisted. Archbishop Nichols is right to warn the Catholic community of these dangers to the Catholic educational mission.

Yours faithfully,
Gerald Grace
London WC1

12 June 2009

The Church should not be afraid of a true 'educational marketplace'

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

SIR - Archbishop Vincent Nichols's lecture on education last week is certainly to be welcomed. It points to a number of disturbing features of education in Britain which we would like to see reversed.

However, it is wrong for the Archbishop to argue, as he did, that these are the trends of an "educational marketplace". Specifically, he said: "Once this [approach to education] really takes hold, then education has truly entered the marketplace and its entire ecological system is threatened with pollution...

"In effect what is happening is that the patterns of the market are flooding over all aspects of life and we are finding ourselves considered as nothing more than consumers and suppliers." Yet there is no real concept of a market in the British education system. There was something a little closer to a market (especially in Scotland) until 1976 when direct grant schools were abolished and those schools, I suspect, were much less utilitarian than today's state-controlled schools operating completely outside the market economy.

There is currently much discussion about how schools should be funded and an imprecise use of terms in other contexts could potentially cloud that debate. One aspect of that debate is whether schools could be much freer from state control yet still be state funded and possibly be profit-making (as in Sweden).

Catholic schools could sit very happily in such a "marketplace" for education in the same way as fair trade products (of which I am sceptical, but that is another matter) sit in the marketplace and friendly societies in the 19th century sat in the marketplace for welfare insurance. The marketplace does not have to be driven by materialistic or narrowly instrumentalist considerations.

The trends in education that the Archbishop rightly criticises are instrumentalist, utilitarian and materialistic. But these values can take hold in a society with no market - the former Soviet Union, for example.

There is a genuine danger that when language is used so imprecisely we will see headlines reading "Archbishop attacks market trends in education" and so on which then cloud an important debate which could actually lead to the liberation of schools from the utilitarian straitjacket that is being imposed on them by government.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Booth
London SW1

A two-edged sword

From Mr John Martyn

SIR - I have read with interest Professor Scarisbrick's reply (Letters, May 22) to my letter (May 8) about abortion and breast cancer. I want to make four miscellaneous observations.

1) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is not alone in thinking that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. A short search on the web reveals that the US National Cancer Institute thinks the same, and that Cancer Research UK says that abortion does not seem to increase breast cancer risk. Websites reveal similar remarks by Macmillan Cancer Support and Breakthrough Breast Cancer.

2) If there is credible evidence of a link, it is strange that the manufacturers of contraceptives (both barrier and oral), have not used it for promotional purposes. Indeed, any evidence of a link would be a powerful reason for promoting contraception, whatever the motives of the promoters.

3) Encouraging people to be sceptical of doctors is a two-edged sword. If people are discouraged from believing them when they say that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, people are less likely to believe them when they give us repeated warnings (as they do) of the dangers of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

4) In order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, the community needs to minimise the kinds of behaviour that give rise to them. These include early teenage sex, promiscuous sex, and sex where the man and woman do not use efficient contraception. The community needs to create a climate of opinion in which these kinds of behaviour are viewed with disapproval. It also needs to take practical steps to discourage the behaviour.

Yours faithfully,
John Martyn
Bromley, Kent

Faith in Cannes

From Fr Peter Malone MSC SIR - Having been at Cannes, I read your correspondent's article (Film, May 29) with great interest. However, he did not mention the Church's presence at the festival.

Something which some readers may not be aware of: the Mass celebrated by the European media bishop, Jean-Michel de Falco, followed by a gathering with Protestant worshippers in the street, as well as the ecumenical prayer service where the members of the ecumenical jury speak of the Church and cinema. They come from SIGNIS, the World Catholic Association for Communication, and from Interfilm, the Protestant cinema organisation. This year saw the 35th anniversary of the ecumenical award with jurors from Romania, Canada, Switzerland and France.

The two films your correspondent singled out as his favourites, Ken Loach's Looking for Eric and Michael Haneke's The White Ribbon, were, indeed, the recipients of the ecumenical prizes.

The film he disliked, The Antichrist, was, somewhat ironically, mentioned for an "anti-prize" for its misogyny, something which whipped up more headlines than anticipated. The churches have a strong and significant presence in Cannes.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Malone
By email

A sad indictment

From Mr John O'Reilly

SIR - Mary Kenny's suggestion (June 5) that "priests everywhere" should "let a member of the laity give the sermon" is a sad indictment of the Vatican II generation.

First, it is not a sermon but a homily and, as Malcolm Muggeridge said, all the differences between our religion and the Church of England are in those two words.

Second, the last thing the Church needs is any more downgrading of the priesthood in favour of a middle-class laity.

Third, it is good of Mary Kenny to say "let the celebrant say the Mass". I wonder who else could say it.

Finally, it against the rules of the Church for anyone but the priest or a deacon to say the homily.

The priesthood is, as so many of the great saints tell us, the greatest divine gift given to our Church. If Mary Kenny put aside her need to re-make the Church in her own image and instead prayed and reflected on the priesthood with humble gratitude, I am sure she would hear the words of the homily in an entirely new way.

Yours faithfully,
John O'Reilly
Southampton, Hants

The city where liturgy is simply a way of life

From Mr Michael O'Neill

SIR - In the course of a short visit to the Polish city of Krakow recently we happened to visit the Church of Ss Peter and Paul. It was a Monday evening and a First Holy Communion Mass was in progress.

All the children were kneeling at the front, the girls in simple white dresses, the boys in white suits. Behind them knelt their families and further back an overflowing congregation.

During the Mass the building was filled either with sound, as the entire congregation joined lustily in the singing and the responses, or with the most profound silence as the liturgy progressed.

The reverence continued at the end when the organ stopped playing and all left in complete silence. Sitting at the back, watching a queue of young people going to Confession, two thoughts occurred to me. The form of the liturgy and the language in which it is celebrated do not themselves bring a sense of the awesome presence of God; the language used was Polish but could well have been Latin or English. What mattered was the respect and involvement of all those present. That church and its liturgy were totally integrated into those people's lives.

How sad it can be sometimes to see British churches holding similar services but where the building is crowded with people for whom the liturgy seems totally alien and whose concerns seem to centre around chatting, chewing, fashion and texting and who by their behaviour overwhelm the congregation which would normally worship there, destroying the respect and reverence due to a house of God.

Yours faithfully,
Michael O'Neill
Liverpool

Deep understanding

From Dr Tessa Murdoch, deputy keeper of the Department of Sculpture, Metalwork, Ceramics and Glass of the Victoria and Albert Museum

SIR - In his article (Comment, May 15) Fr Anthony Symondson SJ criticises the V&A's interpretation of religious objects. However, he also refers to his own role as consultant for the display on Secret Catholicism, a feature of the V&A's Whiteley Sacred Silver and Stained Glass Galleries. These galleries opened to critical acclaim in November 2005.

Indeed Fr Symondson's review in November 2005 described them as "a glittering testament to the Real Presence" and concluded that "the sacred silver and stained glass galleries are a triumph and deserve success; they inform as well as delight the eye. Why not combine a Sunday visit with Solemn Mass at the Oratory where you will find sacred silver, fine vestments and good music still in use to the greater glory of God? No better path to understanding could be found."

That invitation still stands and the V&A continues to work closely with Brompton Oratory both on the video of the celebration of the Mass shown in the current Baroque exhibition and over the new displays devoted to sacred objects for the Medieval and Renaissance Galleries which open to the public on November 13.

As part of the curatorial process, my colleagues and I consulted with leading experts on the different faiths represented in the Sacred Silver and Stained Glass Galleries.

The V&A has a long tradition of displaying sacred objects. Curators across the museum regularly consult with the appropriate outside experts, most recently in preparation for the new Buddhist Sculpture Galleries. Metalwork curators have displayed loan church plate from all over the United Kingdom since the early 20th century. Scholarship of sacred silver was championed by our distinguished former colleague Charles Oman in English Church Plate 597-1830, (Oxford University Press, 1957).

Our invitation to Fr Symondson and others was to ensure that the texts explaining the significance of these objects were entirely accurate. As a result, the sacred meanings are clearly and sensitively explained to all our visitors.

A profound understanding of the religious significance of museum objects is essential to the scholarly make-up of a curator.

We would like to reassure readers that the principles that were embraced in the Sacred Silver and Stained Glass Galleries remain central to the curatorial role.

Yours faithfully,
Tessa Murdoch
London SW7

Keeping an art alive

From Mr Hugh Dwan

SIR - For some time I have marvelled at the breadth of Tom McIntyre's erudition (Letters, June 5), the certainty with which he expresses his opinions on such a wide range of subjects and his generosity in sharing them with us so frequently in the letters columns of this and other journals.

Clearly in Frome, at least, the art of letter writing is far from dead, but does he have time for anything else? Please don't tell me he also has a garden to rival Wisley and a single-figure golf handicap.

Yours faithfully,
Hugh Dwan
Wokingham, Berkshire

Open the locks

From Dr John Hogg

SIR - Sadly I can concur with Simon Knott's experience (Letters, May 15) as I have visited Norwich to find the Catholic cathedral locked during the day. For some years now I have written to the Catholic papers, bishops and parish priests about the desirability of keeping Catholic churches open, but with no effect.

The various excuses for closing Catholic churches are completely nullified by the fact that some priests do have their churches open every day in spite of some vandalism or theft. I do not need to outline the considerable spiritual benefits of open churches, but I would ask: what does it say of the mission of the church if it is locked? I have spoken to church insurers who have assured me they would not have withdrawn insurance if the churches were kept open.

Yours faithfully,
John Hogg
Bristol

A touch of old Adam

From Mr Bernard Cartwright

SIR - As I read your report (June 5) on the upcoming conference on the Cause of G K Chesterton, my mind kept substituting Malcolm Muggeridge for Chesterton.

He was as good a writer as Chesterton and made a conversion with his wife, Kitty, to Catholicism, but more importantly is more relevant to our times because of his depth of experience of the 20th century and his gift of communication par excellence which confronted contemporary neo-paganism, confusion and organised atheism.

The Church is for sinners after all, as well as for good and holy men. Naturally, this would have made him laugh.

Perhaps we need a saint who has a touch of the old Adam in him and one who can give us some belly laughs too.

Yours faithfully,
Bernard Cartwright
Stourbridge, West Midlands

Hysterical reaction

From Mr Alan Whaits

SIR - I read to my surprise (Leading article, May 29) that I am tainted by child abuse and share the sin of it. This hysterical reaction seems flawed. If one does no wrong in this respect one cannot be guilty either directly or vicariously.

Such collective thinking can be catastrophic. Some Jews were perceived to have upset Hitler so all Jews within his grasp suffered. No German born after 1935, perhaps earlier, need feel the taint, guilt or shame for that or the war, for the obvious reason that either they were not around or could not influence matters.

It is also foolish to drag history before the court of current secular liberal values. We cannot reconstruct the Crusades or the Inquisition. Men usually act through mixed motives and it seems likely that both good and evil were present. I feel no shame for either event. Nor do I, as a Bristolian, feel shame for slavery or the need to apologise for it, though one laments such inhumanity. I wasn't alive and as a Catholic I have enough reminders of my own sins without wishing to be saddled with other people's, living or dead.

Yours faithfully,
Alan Whaits
Bristol

Dropping miracles

From Mr Philip J Butler

SIR - You report (May 8) Deacon John Sullivan as believing that there is no other explanation for his healing from a severe spinal condition than the intercession of Cardinal Newman.

I am happy that he has been healed and do not doubt his faith and devotion, nor would I question the integrity of the Vatican's canonisation procedures within their limits, but in fact there must be several other possible explanations. If medical science cannot explain a healing, that does not mean there is no medical explanation, only that we do not know what it is. It may become clear in the future.

Within the religious sphere itself it is possible that God acted without prompting from anyone, or at someone else's prompting. There is no way of knowing - and what sort of God he is who will only heal someone when asked to do so and will heal this person rather than that we may wonder.

Is not time the Vatican dropped what I have seen described as "its infantile demand for miracles to prove sanctity"? Like the preoccupation with relics it is an embarrassment to thinking Catholics in the 21st century. Miracles in themselves prove nothing.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Butler
London NW10

5 June 2009

There is another side to the story of schools run by religious orders in Ireland

Name and address supplied

SIR - I was in an orphanage in Belfast run by nuns in the early 1960s and would like to make a few observations as someone who is surely qualified more than many to do so.

It upsets me to see so much negative rhetoric accepted without question about so-called cruel, heartless, Catholic clergy and nuns (Report, May 31). While some people surely have genuinely suffered and this is a dreadful crime, I suspect financial "compensation" has encouraged others to apportion blame and resentments on people who are not really the cause of their deep-seated anger, sadness and disappointments in early or later life. When money was put on the table the accusations rocketed. That is surely an aspect of the story which no media are covering.

I would ask this question: where would I and the hundreds who were my peers have been without those nuns? I remember very clearly that we were so many and the nuns were few and, yes, certainly harassed. It was 24/7 for them with no holidays. In those days abortion was generally still, thank God, rightfully a crime, so "the saved", "mistakes", along with the kids from broken homes, depended on the religious orders for survival.

How many thousands of good citizens have "my" nuns and the other orders been responsible for sheltering, feeding, washing, educating and caring for when others couldn't - or wouldn't? Why are they all being so mercilessly condemned for the actions of "some"? Why is the description "endemic abuse" being promoted so freely and without question? Many of the accused generation are now incapable of defending themselves and the Church, after a series of scandals, seems to prefer not to even attempt to defend the good name of most of its apostles of that time, which is so very sad and unfair.

I was never once beaten, mistreated, molested or manhandled in the six years I was in the care of the nuns. However, when I eventually found myself in a non-religious state school I was strapped, humiliated and thumped on many occasions. How much will the government offer me for that "abuse"?

In my experience I can say that the nuns did their best at all times in very difficult circumstances and I will always be grateful to them for giving me a chance to survive. I hope that more people like me will write to tell the other side of the story, because there is another side.

Yours faithfully,
Name and address supplied


From Mr Joseph F Foyle

SIR - Take a bow, Stuart Reid! Of the countless written and spoken contributions - including by Church prelates and spokesman, and the six in your publication this week (May 29) - related to our Irish Commission Report on Child Abuse, he alone said: "We must pray for victims, of course."

Whereas relatively few can help abuse victims via money and counselling, all of us can help by repeating this specially composed prayer: "God, help 'harassed and dejected' people, particularly victims of abuse of all kinds. Amen."

A number of us who owe much to Christian Brothers now repeat that prayer during free moments. The "harassed and dejected" words are from the well-known verse Matthew 9:36, which tells us about the compassion that prompted Christ to recruit and instruct disciples to help "harassed and dejected" people. Let readers of this letter start repeating that prayer today.

Yours faithfully,
Joseph Foyle
Dublin, Republic of Ireland

Mary Tudor: Looking at the bigger picture

From Mr Jeremy Gaskell SIR - It is marvellous to read Eamon Duffy's review of the wealth of recorded details, so painstakingly pieced together, from the reign of Mary Tudor (Feature, May 29).

However, I wonder if I am alone in finding that reading such a myriad of detail is rather like being asked to appreciate the qualities of an Old Master through close study of the artist's brush work. What one yearns for is to be able to stand back to appreciate the whole. Perhaps I may be permitted to place a few large daubs on the crowded canvas of that era, the better to throw its intricacies into sharp relief.

The policy adopted towards the early Protestants was similar to that adopted towards the Lollards in the early 15th century. These followers of Wycliffe, the "morning star of the Reformation", were treated as "sacramentarian heretics", by Parliament at the time of Henry IV (1399-1413) when the bill De Heretico Comburendo ("Concerning the Burning of Heretics") was passed into law. A century later Protestantism was viewed in England as the violent recrudescence of a heresy which had been suppressed but not extirpated. In view of its destructiveness it was seen as requiring extreme measures if it was to be brought under control. Many in Europe perceived a doctrinal line running directly from Wycliffe via the Bohemian Hus (whose followers were violent iconoclasts) to Luther. Less than a decade after Luther had nailed his famous theses to the door of Wittenberg cathedral, Germany was rent by a Peasants' War of great ferocity. Most conventional Catholic Christians regarded this as a symptom of the rending of Christendom, a view which seems quite understandable within that historical context. Equally understandable was the position of the Church hierarchy in England, and perhaps in Rome, at the beginning of Mary's reign. This can be characterised as: "Don't worry unduly about the earlier unjust expropriation of monastic lands - just make sure the common people of England are restored to the True Faith."

If we are to use the wisdom of hindsight to say what policy Mary, and Philip, her Spanish husband, should have followed, justice bids us do the same in regard to the Church authorities. Surely if the Crown and the hierarchy, spearheaded by the fanatical Bishop Bonner, had concentrated less on eradicating false doctrine and more on reversing the terrible social as well as religious consequences of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, Mary, whether her reign proved short or long, would have been remembered with affection by her subjects and by ensuing generations.

Yours faithfully,
Jeremy Gaskell
Gorleston, Great Yarmouth

A Bible for reading

From Dr John Newton, editor-in-chief of Baronius Press

SIR - There are several points I would like to raise regarding the accuracy of Fr Ounsworth's review (May 22) of our Douai-Rheims/Vulgate Bible, but for the sake of brevity I will restrain my reply to his remarks about Baronius's customers.

I have met several people who have brought the volume, and Fr Ounsworth will be happily surprised to learn that they all seem to have read portions of the parallel texts. They have certainly not brought an expensive leather-bound book just to make some sort of political point by displaying it on their bookshelves.

At the risk of caricaturing the book's purchasers myself, I believe the volume has appealed to young university-educated men, who have a deep interest in the Church's history and a love for the beauty of texts such as Bishop Challoner's revision of the Douai-Rheims and Pope Clement VIII's revision of the Vulgate. Surely customers such as this instinctively understand Pope Benedict XVI's concept of the hermeneutic of continuity and reform?

I think it is somewhat glib to dismiss our purchasers as backward-looking reactionaries with an unhealthy interest in incense and Latin (which is what Fr Ounsworth seems to me to be suggesting). But since I have heard the Herald's readers dismissed in similar terms, I can only remark that Baronius's customers are in excellent company.

Yours faithfully,
John Newton
London W1


From Mr Alan Robinson

SIR - Fr Richard Ounsworth wrote in his review of the Douay-Rheims New Testament (Books, May 22) that it was "what English-speaking Catholics would have had as their Bibles for the 200 years leading up to the Second Vatican Council".

He forgets to mention the well-known and much-used translation of Mgr Ronald Knox. His translation was used in the Finberg-O'Connell Missal (1949-1962) and in the Layman's Missal (1961 and recently reprinted). The New Testament was reprinted about five years ago in America. Mgr Cormac Burke has recently published version on his website of the New Testament with an alteration of the old second person singular forms. Apparently it is very popular.

The Knox version can provide a dignified, yet readable, version of Sacred Scripture for those who might be intimidated by the language and structures of the Douay-Rheims version and yet still dislike the modern language of the newer translations. Surely it is time for a Knox revival.

Yours faithfully,
Alan Robinson
Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon, Republic of Ireland

Ready to speak out

From Mr Mervyn Maciel

SIR - How refreshing it was to hear the newly appointed Archbishop of Westminster say that he wants to make the Catholic voice heard in this country (Report, May 29).

Much though atheists and others in this country are bent on silencing our voices, it is encouraging to know that we have, in this country, a leader who is prepared to speak out fearlessly.

Yours faithfully,
Mervyn Maciel
Sutton, Surrey

A puzzling defence

From Mr Peter Cuming

SIR - Ann Farmer (Letters, May 22) has confounded so many issues in her puzzling defence of Israel that it is hard to know where to begin. Those who profit from linking anti-Semitism with opposition to Israel are to be condemned. A vast community of Jews continues to express deep distaste for imperialistic Zionism that promotes ethnic cleansing with vigour and denies basic human rights to its neighbours.

From its foundation with UN approval, Israel continues, with impunity, to ignore modern UN resolutions, hoards nuclear weapons and arrogantly despises those it subjugates with its US-backed military superiority. Catholics should consider standing alongside, if not joining, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) and securing a safe and peaceful settlement in the Middle East and helping to halt anti-Semitism elsewhere too. Sadly, the militaristic and racist actions of Israel have become the spurious justification for wholly unjustified antagonism to Jews reluctant to endorse the idea of a Jewish state as well as towards Jews who favour Israel.

It may be hard for Catholics to reach out to Jews seeking a just peace in the Middle East, but we must try and distance the debate from H G Wells, Pius XII and the Holocaust and other dusty topics and concentrate on those suffering daily torment and persecution.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Cuming
London NW5

Coaxing a rich man

From Mr Richard Box

SIR - John Gilheany tells us (Letters, May 22) Jesus never claimed to be perfect, and he quotes Mark 10:18, which reads: "And Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.' " The whole passage is a good one and deserves to be re-read from time to time. There's more to this than a quotation.

Jesus knows what is in the rich man's heart, he knows everything. He doesn't say: "I am not good" or "I am not God"; he doesn't deny his divinity. What he does is gently coax the rich man to proclaim an Act of Faith, before going further.

Superimpose this quotation around "the Father being in me, and me being in the Father", and the doctrine of the Trinity, and the whole thing hangs together.

Your faithfully,
Richard Box
Yeovil, Somerset

No cause for hope

From Mrs Jean Keenan

SIR - Your headline, "Surprise drop in abortion numbers" (May 29), should not give rise to hope.

While the abortion rate for England and Wales may have fallen, there is no record of the number of abortions which have been carried out by the morning-after pill.

Indeed, no such statistics can be found because no one knows if the woman who takes the pill has conceived, not even the woman herself.

Even so, a conceived child may have been aborted. Add these to the abortion rate and abortions will have soared, not lessened.

Yours faithfully,
Jean Keenan
Coventry, West Midlands

Intinction approved

From Fr Frank Maguire

SIR - Reaching my mid-70s my irritation threshold must be lowering: referring to preceding correspondents (Letters, May 29), I believe the Curia has not banned "intinction". There is an approved procedure for licit intinction.

What is banned is the communicant him/herself "dunking" the Host in the Precious Blood and thereby giving him/herself Holy Communion, something that only the celebrant and concelebrants of the Mass can licitly do. Not even deacons or extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist may do this. The procedure is simple: the communicant hands the Host already received to the person administering from the chalice, who dips the proffered Host into the Precious Blood and then places it on the tongue of the communicant.

Hygiene is a red herring: having breathed and coughed and shaken hands before Communion what makes Communion in the hand (which I personally favour) and intinction so much more hygienic? And no one has received any less by Communion under one species: under both kinds is more fulfilled liturgically, if you like.

And I agree: we are very bad at catechising on these and other fundamental matters.

Yours faithfully,
Frank Maguire
By email

Hooray for Haydn

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - Yes! For Damian Thompson's eulogy of Joseph Haydn (Features, May 29), three passionate cheers.

One thing, though. He says Haydn's Masses are "well suited to the celebration of the liturgy". Missae Breves apart, for big occasions Haydn, like Mozart and others of the Viennese school, adopted a Lutheran practice, subdividing each element of the Ordinary into freestanding movements. St Pius X specifically forbade such settings as ill-suited to the Mass. Only Council or Pope may qualify that.

In dissenting, Dr Thompson may feel that a Protestant treatment is ecumenically laudable and we should bury the Motu Proprio. Ordinary orthodox Catholics, careful to do what Mother Church asks, are increasingly irked by this modernist and traditionalist spirit of selective obedience.

The Holy Father wants more extra-liturgical devotion. Since all devotions in the end find their meaning in the mystery of Christ's cross and resurrection, is there no haven - there is certainly precedent - in musical oratories, St Philip Neri-style, for the great choral movements that once swamped the Mass, though lovingly and beautifully derived from it? Especially Haydn's.

Yours faithfully,
Tom McIntyre
Frome, Somerset

A new challenge for the new Archbishop

From Mr Diarmuid Collins

SIR - I read with interest the "10 challenges" that you have set for the new Archbishop of Westminster (Leading article, May 24). Few would disagree with any of these. Other Catholic /Christian concerns might be added by some.

I would simply make a suggestion which (I believe) covers all of these "challenges", as it were. It is that Archbishop Vincent Nichols (as the new head of the bishops' conference) solemnly consecrate our country to the United Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

In July 1948 Cardinal Griffin in Walsingham consecrated England and Wales to Our Lady. Many Catholics feel that it is now the right time to solemnly renew this Act of Consecration.

In June 1996 Bishop Nichols consecrated his "North London Area" here, to the United Hearts at the Shrine of Our Lady of Willesden. Our desire now is to continue and extend this Consecration. For this we pray.

Yours faithfully,
Diarmuid Collins
London N13

29 May 2009

The Church and the dominant liberal culture speak different languages

From Professor John Loughlin

SIR - Debra Flint and Terence Reid (Letters, May 1) complain about the Church's teaching in areas of sexual morality and gender. Miss Flint takes refuge in the Anglican Church while still claiming to be a Catholic. Terence Reid adds more complaints and distinguishes "the people" (presumably liberals like himself) and the "institutional Church" (the Curia). This correspondence was sparked off by Tony Blair's claim that the "ordinary Catholic" in the pews would agree with his liberal understanding of homosexuality.

What I take from these comments is a failure on the part of the Church to educate its own members in the deeper significance of its teaching and how important this teaching is in the modern world. Far from being irrelevant, it is highly pertinent to confronting the challenges today, not just to the Church, but to humanity itself.

The teaching of the Church as expressed in the Creed, but also on moral issues, is based on the concept of the absolute dignity of the human person by virtue of his creation as a child of God, fallen but redeemed by Christ. The Catholic concept of personhood is one that is holistic, embracing all dimensions, including the sexual and the differentiation between men and women. The Church teaches that we accept man in his totality - body, soul and spirit. It also teaches that true love is the basis of human relationships and that this is realistic, based on the complementarity between the sexes. Gender is not a social construct but a dimension of our being that we receive at birth. To think otherwise is to fall into Gnosticism, an old heresy which the Church fought in the early centuries and which helped it to define its understanding of these issues (including the question of female priests since the Gnostic sects had such priests). A personalistic understanding of sexual activity, interpreted in a holistic way to include the aspect of procreation alongside the other "ends" of marriage. Because it takes into account the possibility of the birth of a child, the Church teaches that sexual activity should be confined to men and women who are married since this is the optimal situation for the child's spiritual, physical and psychological well-being.

The difficulty of dialogue with contemporary western culture is that the dominant western liberal culture and the Church are operating according to two radically opposed anthropologies. Contemporary liberalism tends to have a truncated and reductionist understanding of the human person based on the absolutisation of human choice as the supreme value: women choose whether to get rid of the human life in their body; I can choose my gender or sexual orientation; I choose to believe or not to believe whatever articles of the Creed that suit me; I choose to kill myself or to let a doctor kill me whatever the consequences for others, etc.

Of course, this does not mean that Catholics should retreat into a ghetto and construct their own perfect city rather like the Amish do in America. On the contrary, Vatican II, in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, called for us to engage in a constructive dialogue with contemporary society and called on us to discern "the signs of the times" to see what was from the Spirit. At the same time, it recognised the existence of evil and the degradation of the human person and urged Catholics to fight against this.

Liberal Catholics such as Tony Blair, Debra Flint and Terence Reid are clearly ill-educated in the teaching of their own Church and hinder this genuine dialogue by misrepresenting the Church's teaching on issues of faith and morals. Dialogue does not mean importing into the Church the latest fads and fashions of contemporary society even if these are followed by a majority of people. Rather, it means being willing to take a stand against trends which we see as detrimental to the human person in the way we have defined this. The Church has been in existence for almost 2,000 years and in almost all the cultures of the world since then. It is rightly described as an "expert in humanity". The current sexual liberalism and gender construction theories have been around for only about the last 40 years and then only in small segments of the world's population.

Yours faithfully,
John Loughlin
Cardiff University


From Miss Catherine Donner

SIR - Some of your correspondents seem unclear whether it is permissible to dissent from Catholic teaching. They should heed that great English saint, Thomas More, who wrote that Christ "will have you believe all that he tells you and do all that he bids you, and forbear all that he forbids you, without any manner of exception. Break one of his commandments and you break all, forsake one point of His faith, and you forsake all as for any thanks you get from him for the remnant."
We cannot serve both both God and mammon (cf Mt 6:24). Written in the Tower of London, this quotation demonstrates that More understood the question that faced him.

Yours faithfully,
Catherine Donner
London SW7

A paranoid tendency

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - Stuart Reid's criticism of the "paranoid tendency" of some Catholic bloggers (Charterhouse, May 22) is timely. But hasn't the same tendency touched him a little too? In his first paragraph he sneers at Lumen Gentium ("We did not ask to be called the People of God"), fellow Catholics approaching Christ in the Eucharist ("shuffling forward for Communion in the hand") and the bishops ("do not let them scare you into receiving Communion in the hand"). The last two are false: the bishops simply gave a permission, and even in my little parish some receive on the tongue, one or two kneel before receiving, some receive only under one kind, most prefer the more active way. No one notices much, and no one sneers. (The Curia's banning of intinction did distress some daily communicants who had found it less distracting hygienically than tongue or common chalice.)

Mr Reid's first sneer is false too: the Church was not giving us a new name, simply reminding us of what we are. But is he not with the blogging extremists in spirit? They too scorn the Church's teaching in documents like Lumen Gentium, as "only pastoral" - as if the Holy Spirit did not guide all General Councils and we had no humble duty to heed them.

Yours faithfully,
TOM McINTYRE
Frome, Somerset

Sentiment and reason

From Mr Tony Bond

SIR - Vegetarians don't say that eating red meat is immoral and contrary to Jesus's presumed example, thus mutually exclusive with Catholicism as Graham Moorhouse postulates (Letters, May 15).

The unanswerable objection is that eating too much red meat is bad for us, as countless studies linking it to cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes and hypertension have shown; and, if such excess is bad for us, it cannot be in the Almighty's plan for us. Whether Jesus ate red meat is a red herring, just as would be the fact that He travelled by donkey, wore long robes and probably sported long hair and a beard - only Luddites and Dawson disciples determined to finally empty our churches would argue that Catholics today must follow those examples at the expense of scientific progress.

Jesus would probably have eaten what most people in first century Palestine ate: bread, fish, pulses, figs, herbs, olives - lamb being reserved for special occasions, probably not more than once a month. Which is close to what is now known as the Mediterranean Diet, famed for health and longevity.

Eating red meat is unnatural for humans: only humans must cook it to tenderise it and kill off deadly bacteria, whereas nature equips us to eat vegetables raw; and, relative to body size, our colons and intestines are several times longer than those of carnivores, more akin to those of herbivores, meaning that meat decay, as it moves slowly through the gut, increases the risk of pathogens.

Sentiment aside, vegetarianism is not about morality; it's about reason.

Yours faithfully,
Tony Bond
Kesgrave, Suffolk

Don't follow Obama's pragmatic example

From Mr Paul Kokoski

SIR - Speaking on the need to find "common ground" regarding fundamental issues such as abortion and embryonic stem-cell research President Obama told students at the University of Notre Dame (Report, May 22) that they can "doubt" their faith even as they "cling" to it. His call for "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words" is, ultimately then, a plea to doubt the objective tenants of one's faith. In such a world, doubt becomes the criterion for truth.

This doubt about God's covenant and the accompanying invitation to human beings to free themselves from their limitations has appeared in various forms throughout history. It began in the Garden of Eden with the serpent who rather than deny God outright made an apparently completely reasonable request for information, which in reality, however, contained an insinuation that provoked the human being and lured him from trust to mistrust: Did God say, "you shall not eat of any tree of the garden"? (Genesis 3:1). The first thing is not the denial of God but rather doubt about his covenant, about the community of faith, prayer, the commandments - all of which are the context for living God's covenant.

Once people begin to doubt God's covenant they are well on the way to building their own worlds. Obama, though he speaks of "The Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated" - does not practice the same conviction in regard to his own political policies (on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research). He instead treats the weak, powerless and defenceless as a sub-class of human beings.

May God preserve us from doubting our Catholic faith and from following his pragmatic example and agenda.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

The Speaker's failure

From Mr Adrian Murphy

SIR - If it is true that Archbishop Conti is seeking to defend the Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin as a popular and good public servant (Report, May 22) then that defence will be both incredible and incomprehensible to ordinary tax-paying Catholics who do not have the advantage of seemingly unaccountable expense accounts.

Mr Martin has presided over a Parliament many of whose members have no sense of morality and whose abuse of a system has rightly resulted in outright condemnation and the disgust of the people of Great Britain. It was his responsibility to ensure probity in the financial affairs of the House and this he has singularly failed to do. The country is well rid of him.

Yours faithfully,
Adrian Murphy
Carmarthen

The 'wow' factor

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR - Among the many words and reports of the installation of our new Archbishop of Westminster, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, very little has been said of those behind the organising of this enormous and spectacular event - a relatively new team.

Gratitude and congratulations must go out to the Cathedral Administrator Canon Christopher Tuckwell, his deputy, Fr Slawomir Witon, the sensational Cathedral choir and all concerned.

As a regular at the Cathedral it was a very proud day and the efforts of those responsible deserve our eternal respect and thanks - I am not sure in religious terms how to describe it, but in modern street language, the day had a true "wow" factor.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1

The crusaders were not religious extremists

From Mr Guy Sainty

SIR - Richard Dodd's dismissal (in an aside) of the Crusades as an example of religious extremism (Letters, May 25) demonstrates a misunderstanding of their cause and the widespread support they enjoyed. The Muslim capture of Jerusalem in 638 had been followed by the massacre of almost every Christian and Jew who had failed to flee the city; for the next 461 years Christians suffered appalling oppression, with limited rights and in constant fear of further persecution. Periods of relative calm were followed by brutal reaction and with rival Muslim dynasties striving for power the Christian population and pilgrims to the holy places frequently found themselves the unwitting victims of these internecine struggles. The reports of the brutal persecution of Christians that reached the West led in 1095 to a call to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim rule and make the Christians holy places safe for pilgrims.

The Crusaders were not extremists but represented the mainstream of contemporary Christian opinion. Support for the enterprise, embracing nobles and knights, merchants and peasants, was perceived as a just response to Muslim tyranny. The siege and capture of Jerusalem was typical of contemporary warfare, brutal and violent but no more so than in any other campaign; sadly the Muslim rulers were not going to respond to reason or calls for peaceful co-existence. Yet, after their military victory, most of the Christian rulers demonstrated extraordinary tolerance - the hospital of St John, for example, formally constituted as a religious order in 1113, treated men and women, Christians, Muslims and Jews, providing not only separate kitchens to satisfy Muslim and Jewish dietary laws but also separate graveyards.

Yours faithfully,
Guy Sainty
Le Vésinet, France

Our dark times

From Mr Brian G Birkhead

SIR - Watching the inauguration of the new Archbishop of Westminster last week, the pomp and sanctimony surrounding the occasion seemed somehow unpalatable in the light of recent revelations about widespread, Catholic-perpetrated acts of child abuse in Ireland.

The Church's moral authority has once again plummeted to a new nadir, is probably irreparably damaged, and yet the organisation seems unrepentant and remote.

Meanwhile, within a stone's throw of the ceremony, the Palace of Westminster is also reeling from recent, albeit different revelations, this time exposing the (lack of) moral substance among our political representatives.

As one who for a long time has advocated that these two magisteria (politics and religion) need to be brought closer together, I am left wondering what possible good could now come of it.

Yours faithfully,
Brian Birkhead
Ascot, Berkshire


From Mr Frank Gormlie

SIR - In his review (May 15) of Keeper of the Keys of Heaven by Roger Collins, Quentin de la Bédoyère states: "Enough has been written about the Crusades, the Inquisition and indulgences for me not to mention these further."

I wonder if readers are aware that this year marks the 800th anniversary of the Bezier massacre and the start of the Albigensian Crusade. The 40-year span of the crusade not only saw the deaths of tens of thousands but the establishment of the Dominican order and the Inquisition it went on to develop.

The massacre at Bezier is most famous, perhaps, for the answer given by commanding general and papal legate Archbishop Arnaud when asked how his troops would know who the heretics were. "Kill them all and God will know his own."

While the Church, through the Holy Father, has apologised for the Crusades against Muslims, the anniversary on July 22 presents the opportunity not only to mark a black period in Church history but to speak out against religious intolerance and the use of torture both, unfortunately, still so prevalent today.

Yours faithfully,
Frank Gormlie
By email

Feeling at a loss

From Mr Antony Pinchin

SIR - Simon Knott notes (Letters, May 15) that rural Anglican churches are often open daily. On visiting ancient churches where, before the Reformation, the Catholic Sacrament would have been present, many present-day Catholics feel a little at a loss over how to pray. Your readers may in interested in the Society of St Justin Martyr (www.justinmartyr.org.uk) which provides its members with a simple form of prayer to use when visiting such churches. Details may be requested online or from The Master, SSIM, 2 Cox's End, Over, Cambridge, CB24 5TZ.

Yours faithfully,
Antony Pinchin
Cobham Hall, Kent

22 May 2009

Pope Pius XII was the victim of an intensely political smear campaign

From Mrs Ann Farmer

SIR - It is not surprising that Gary Krupp of the Pave the Way Foundation grew up hating Pius XII for not helping the Jews during the Second World War. A couple of years ago I attended a meeting at which the view of Pius as "Hitler's Pope" was pretty well established among the Jewish audience.

As your interview (May 8) with the redoubtable Mr Krupp makes clear, following the war, Pius was regarded as a hero by many, including Jews. The historian Michael Burleigh has noted that the seeds of Pius's reputation as an anti-Semite were sown after the War by Italian Communists, and this view was popularised in the early 1960s by Rolf Hochhuth, a Left-wing German playwright, in The Deputy (he wrote a similar play about Churchill which has received far less attention).

However the 1960s proved a turning point in the relations between the Communist world and the state of Israel as the Soviet Bloc began to favour the Arab states, and the view started to circulate that Israel was an American imperialist project, planted on stolen land in the Middle East to salve the conscience of Europe for allowing the Holocaust to occur.

Nothing could be further from the truth - the British post-war government played a particularly lamentable role in trying to obstruct Israeli statehood - but the view of Israel as lacking in legitimacy now predominates among the western liberal Left. Since the 1960s, too, Marxist academics have subjected western culture to a strip-mining exercise that has resulted in the association of pre-Holocaust western culture with anti-Semitism, and Catholicism with Fascism. Moreover, Fascism has been portrayed as the extreme of Right-wing politics, rather than as nationalistic socialism, thus (since Hitler was a Fascist and anti-Semitic) historical figures and movements of the Left have escaped the taint of anti-Semitism. As Professor William Rubinstein has shown, this view is far from the truth.

For example H G Wells, who said some pretty unpleasant things about Jews, claimed that anti-Semitism was caused by the Jews stubbornly adhering to their Jewishness; to Wells, the Jews were an existential threat to his socialist world state idea and he demanded that they assimilate and disappear as a cultural entity. He protested against Hitler's anti-Jewish persecution, but he was, if anything, even more anti-Catholic than anti-Jewish, and in 1943 published Crux Ansata, a long rant against the Catholic Church in which he demanded that the Allies bomb Rome, charging Pius XII with ignoring the plight of the Jews. Now Pius is regarded as an anti-Semite while Wells's reputation has survived.

As Gary Krupp notes, just as the Jews face threats to the state of Israel, a wedge has been driven between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, not helped by the disaster posed by the Holocaust-denying Bishop Williamson. And yet it is less widely known that Rolf Hochhuth was a friend of David Irving, that other British Holocaust denier.

Those who are eager to widen the Catholic-Jewish rift for their own ends are the very ones who since the war have defined who was and who was not anti-Semitic - naturally claiming the moral high ground for themselves, despite the appalling human rights record of Communism - and now the same Marxist tendency has turned against the state of Israel, joining hands with Israel's totalitarian, extremist enemies.

All good Catholics must ensure that they do not succeed in their aim of de-legitimising and possibly eliminating the Jewish state.

Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer
Woodford Green, Essex

An invitation to explore a deeper truth

From Mr Gordon Lawrence

SIR - I write in response to Mr Donal Anthony Foley's letter (May 8). To say that the fossil record resulted from the flood of Noah makes a mockery of the whole field of Earth Sciences, as well as attacking truth which, as Catholics, we are supposed to seek and defend.

Earth Sciences work on the principle that there are three types of rock. Igneous rocks are those which are formed by the eruption or emplacement of molten rock from beneath the earths crust. Metamorphic rocks are those which have been buried to such a depth or heated up to such an extent that they become altered or deformed. Sedimentary rocks are those which are deposited on the earth's surface, and are sourced from living organisms, but also from the erosion of igneous, metamorphic and other sedimentary rocks.

These rocks are laid out on the earth's surface in a geometry that cannot be readily explained by the action of a cataclysmic flood, and which can only be explained by the slow evolution of the earth's surface by recorded processes such as plate tectonics over millions of years. This was understood before the fields of chemistry and physics confirmed this, independent of the fossil record.

Given this, one could either conclude that God brought the world into existence as per Genesis, and created it in such a way as to deceive us into thinking that it is older than it actually is, or else that Earth Sciences (and other scientific fields) are correct, and that we need to re-evaluate our understanding of the purpose of Genesis. I prefer the latter, as the former does not square with my understanding of God as a God of truth.

The Catholic Church exists to bring us closer to God through the sacraments and through its teaching on faith and morals. Science seeks to understand the physical processes by which God's creation works. Scientific knowledge and our faith cannot contradict each other, because both seek truth. Where apparent contradictions arise, there is an invitation to explore both more deeply using our God-given talents to understand both better.

Yours faithfully,
Gordon Lawrence
By email

Doing greater things

From Mr John M Gilheany

SIR - Graham Moorehouse (Letters, May 15) need harbour no anxiety that Catholicism and vegetarianism should somehow be considered anomalous within the theory that "if it is immoral to eat meat, then Christ was immoral".

Perhaps James, the brother of Jesus merely engaging in sibling rivalry, and St Peter, whose abstinence from the flesh of animals has similarly been mentioned in the history of the early Church, should now be considered unsuitable unworthy of their traditional place in Catholic tradition?

Maybe the numerous saints (for whom asceticism and reverence for creation led to contemplative renunciation of cruelty and temporal opportunity throughout their time on earth) were simply attempting to outshine one another or usurp the reputation of their Saviour?

The Son of God, let us remember, never claimed to be perfect (Mark 10:18). Indeed, we are invited to improve upon the morality which prevailed in the first century rather than emulate ancient traditions such as human slavery which eventually became the everlasting shame of Christendom.

Our Lord would hardly succumb to a fit of pique at the increasing numbers of compassionate individuals who have turned their backs on slaughter during their earthly pilgrimage. Indeed, we have been given basic spiritual principles of mercy, love, peace, pity and perhaps what Tolstoy realised to be a religion of "infinite perfecting" rather than individual accomplishment.

After all, Christ admonished future generations of His followers with the prophecy: "These things shall ye do, and greater things than these shall ye do" (John 14:12).

It seems that from those to whom much has been given much will always be expected, so surely our vast consumer choice of alternatives to animal exploitation should inspire our daily pursuit of the Kingdom on earth.

Yours faithfully,
John Gilheany
Roath, Cardiff

A N Wilson's return

From Mrs Julia Ashenden

SIR - Your book reviewer, Francis Phillips, may not be up to date with the spiritual life of AN Wilson, who is mentioned (May 8) as "a cultivated agnostic".

This is no longer the case. He is now a believing Christian and wrote movingly about his conversion in an article in the Daily Mail on April 11.

Yours faithfully,
Julia Ashenden
London SW6

Theologians' crimes

From Mr Henry von Blumenthal

SIR - It is easy to find, as Duncan MacPherson does (Letters, May 1), murderous dictators who were Catholic. But they cannot be said to twist the Gospel because they are in no position of spiritual authority or theological leadership.

Liberation theologians are quite different. Dictators may shoot bodies but unscrupulous theologians endanger the immortal soul; their crimes are, therefore, all the greater.

Yours faithfully,
Henry von Blumenthal
Lameschmillen, Luxembourg

Beware the College

From Professor Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of LIFE

SIR - John Martyn (Letters, May 8) suggests that women should prefer the views of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) on the link between induced abortion and breast cancer to those of "a retired professor of history" like me.

But I have not been putting forward my own views. I have been reporting others' findings. Perhaps precisely because I am retired I have been able to immerse myself in much of the vast literature on the ABC (Abortion-breast cancer) link in learned medical journals from around the world.

The first thing to say is that all the authorities agree that the best protection against breast cancer in later life for a young woman is a full-term pregnancy (plus breast-feeding).

So if a woman has an abortion she inevitably forfeits that protection. Hence more abortion immediately means more breast cancer. The RCOG quietly ignores this fact.

But this is only the beginning of the story. By having an abortion a woman who is nulliparous, ie has not yet had a full-term pregnancy, increases the risk of breast cancer yet further. This is because early pregnancy produces a fast proliferation of undifferentiated breast cells which would normally become the milk-producers but which, if left "stranded", so to speak, by an induced abortion are vulnerable to carcinogens.

In a magisterial meta-analysis of the ABC literature in 1996, Professor Joel Brind, a world expert, and his team concluded that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 30 per cent.

The RCOG, however, responded that the evidence for the ABC link was "inconclusive", even though it reported (and still reports) that Brind's study had "no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded".

But why could it not be disregarded? Only because what it said was true. The RCOG had contradicted itself.

Subsequently the RCOG has sheltered behind another meta-analysis of the ABC literature produced by Cancer Research UK in 2004. This purported to show definitively that the ABC link was a myth. It was, of course, hailed by the pro-abortion lobby. But Brind and others have demolished it. They have shown, for instance, that nearly half its material was derived from a mere three studies (out of a total of 52).

One of these came from Denmark and, among other things, misclassified as non-abortive many thousands of women who had had abortions; while a second, from England, had records of only NHS abortion (and none from the private sector, which is now performing the majority of abortions in this country). And so on. This meta-analysis was almost unbelievably shoddy.

But it is on the strength of this study that the RCOG now says that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk". Faced with the fast-rising rates of breast cancer the College puts the blame on such things as HRT, obesity and binge-drinking.

But what have these things in common? They all increase oestrogen levels in women's bodies. But in the first trimester of pregnancy oestrogen levels rise by 2,000 per cent. Even if there were not further evidence, this fact alone should have alerted the College to the possibility that abortion was also a risk factor.

Alas, this once-honourable College has been captured, and corrupted, by abortionism. Women should beware it.

Yours faithfully,
Jack Scarisbrick
By email

Amazing ignorance

From Ms Rachel Everett

SIR - I wasn't surprised at Anthony Symondson's comments about museum curators having to be taught the basics about Holy Communion (Comment, May 15).

I teach history at secondary school and the depth of my students' ignorance never ceases to astonish me. I have students who confuse Christianity with Islam, students who are convinced that Jesus was a fictional character and one (highly intelligent lad) who informed me that Christianity wasn't a very good religion because it wasn't original - it was based on sun worship (that one had me stumped).

This year, for the first time, I actually felt daunted at the approach of the Year 7 topic on "The power and the glory: why no one could ignore the medieval Church". Depressingly, some of my younger colleagues are not much better.

Hand in hand with this sea of misinformation goes an aggressive strain of atheism and bigotry which manifests itself with this first "This is rubbish because God doesn't exist" shouted out across the classroom the moment the "r" word comes up.

I try and remind myself that every time I field questions (and I never make a secret of my faith) that each opportunity is one for evangelisation - or at least of broadening a few horizons and encouraging tolerance and respect. But quite often I just feel lost in a pagan world very different from the one I grew up in.

Yours faithfully,
Rachel Everett
Abingdon, Oxfordshire

A fabulous history

From Mr Claude Kauffmann

SIR - St Michael's Abbey in Farnborough is a far more interesting church than implied in Carolyn Reynier and Jean-Pierre Mariottini's article (May 15). It was designed by a French architect, Gabriel Destailleur, in a French Flamboyant Gothic style, using French materials and employing French workmen. It was commissioned by Empress Eugénie as a mausoleum for herself, the Emperor and Louis, the Prince Imperial.

Eugénie, a Spanish noblewoman, the Countess of Téba, not a mere "Spanish lady", bought the old Longman (the publisher) house in Farnborough (now Farnborough Hill School) and chose the plot where the abbey was to be built on a spot down the valley that could be seen from her bedroom window. She lived in the house until her death in 1920 and Queen Victoria, her friend, was a frequent visitor. The Queen's bathroom is preserved in its original state, as are other rooms in the house.

When the bodies of Napoleon III and the Prince Imperial were moved to the abbey in 1888, they were placed in granite sarcophagi given by Queen Victoria, as was that destined for Eugénie. When the Empress died her funeral at the abbey was attended by George V and Queen Mary, Alfonso XIII of Spain, the ex-King of Portugal and Princess Clémentine of the Belgians, among others. The Benedictine monks came originally from Solesmes, from which the abbey was dependent until 1947 when it became part of the English province.

Yours faithfully,
Claude Kauffmann
Guildford, Surrey

Nick Thomas: the campaign starts here

From Mr Eric Hester

SIR - In a week where British politics sank to the depths it was invigorating to read Nick Thomas's energetic column (Comment, May 15).

He writes that: "We have all had enough. We want less interference, fewer regulations, fewer laws and fairer taxes (even if we can't have lower taxation), less snooping, more freedom, fewer civil servants, smaller government. We want the primacy of our British law over the EU re-established, we want the governments of Europe, especially ours, to understand that their obligation is to the people who elected them, not to some debased ideal of cosmetic unity." There is more of the same, equally brilliant.

You will not, sir, want to lose such an outstanding columnist, but is there no chance that Nick Thomas might stand for Parliament? The main political parties are completely out of touch and it is time for a change.

Yours faithfully,
Eric Hester
Bolton, Lancashire

Is it hypocritical to attend Mass but then to 'cherry-pick' the teachings of the Church?

From Mrs Maureen Findlay-Wilson

SIR - If Catholics believe that Christ founded one Church, not half a dozen from which we can pick and choose, with St Peter its head and papal decendants, protected by the Holy Spirit, to guide the Church on faith and morals, surely it is arrogant to question its teaching on homosexuality, family planning and women priests etc. Studied prayerfully and with humility these teachings make wise and perfect sense.

The Church never professed herself to be a Church for saints, but for sinners also - hence "love the sinner, hate the sin".

What is hypocritical is to stay in a church while worshipping in another and choosing only the parts with which one agrees. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "Only he who believes is obedient and only he who is obedient believes."

Yours faithfully,
Maureen Findlay-Wilson
Marnhull, Dorset
From Mr Simon Reilly


SIR - Debra Maria Flint (Letters, May 1) should not be surprised that the Creed does not mention any of the moral subjects that she objects to: the Creed contains articles of faith; but it doesn't require the gift of faith to grasp the difference between right and wrong.

God made plain to mankind his moral laws from the moment of creation. So obvious was the moral law felt to be by pre-Christian civilisations that they called it the Natural Law, even though they found keeping it next to impossible. Furthermore, God's chosen race were given an even better grasp of the same Law on Mount Sinai, and through the Prophets - which is why our Lord did not tell them what commands to obey, only the spirit in which they were to obey them.

It seems in our day that people are unable to accept what was accepted even by those who never knew Christ, not least of all Tony Blair, who imagines that morality is something akin to a party manifesto.

Yours faithfully,
Simon Reilly
London SW2


From Mr Terence Reid

SIR - Thank you for publishing Debra Maria Flint's letter about Catholics who disagree with the Church. I write as one who cherry-picks only what makes transparent sense, such as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.

The institutional Church is weighed down by the dogmatic and doctrinal accretions added over centuries - excess baggage that Vatican II was intended to offload, thereby turning the arrogantly prescriptive Church Militant into a more Christ-like Church Humble.

Catholics only familiar with the vernacular Mass are confused by Traditionalists who are undermining a key Mass reform of Vatican II. But I'm not against the Tridentine Mass per se. It's inspired great music and celebrated with due reverence can be a moving spectacle.

Ms Flint mentioned the usual suspects: homosexuality, contraception, women priests. More examples: the likely re-introduction of indulgences; the casual dropping of limbo, claiming that it wasn't a doctrine (tell that to the thousands of weeping mothers down the centuries); a Curia against the reforms of Vatican II is still at it; currently canonising too many saints, exhuming bodies or parts of bodies -_for what? A Curia dedicated to maintaining the status of the institutional Church forgets that we, the people, though we have no say, are supposed to be the Church.

Yours faithfully,
Terence Reid
London SW12

A shelved Cause

From Fr Chris Findlay-Wilson

SIR - In commenting on the review of Teresa Higginson's life, Christopher O'Keeffe (Letters, May 1) mentions the status of her Cause in 1938. However, the story really doesn't end there. A non-expedire, rather than a reponatur, means that it was shelved rather than closed.

It was later clarified that there was nothing in Teresa's life to bring this about; it seems that there were just too many requests for devotions at the time.

Fr Paul Haffner recently approached the Congregation of Saints in Rome, which confirmed that Teresa still appears in the book of Causes; there is no real obstacle. (Indeed the original decree against St Faustina Kowalska was much more severe until Pope John Paul II worked to have it rescinded.)

Readers might be interested to know that 12 volumes of her letters have just been painstakingly copied and now lie with Liverpool diocesan archives.

It could well be that her time has come at last. Certainly England could really do with her extraordinary and wonderful message of holiness and hope. There is more information at www.sacredhead.org.

Yours faithfully,
Chris Findlay-Wilson
Our Lady of All Nations,
Camborne, Cornwall

Joining the club

From Mrs Elizabeth Yates

SIR - I agree wholeheartedly with Dominic Scarborough (Comment, April 24) on the nature of Mass in some parishes today. It is quite possible to feel outside this close-knit "family of the parish" even if one has been a Catholic all one's life.

This is particularly true when coming to a new area. It is important that parishes do not become so entrenched in their own exclusiveness that it is impossible to "join the club". There is a hymn which has as its refrain: "All are welcome here."

The Blackfen experiment sounds as though it might be putting this into practice. Good luck to it and may it come to a parish near you!

Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth Yates
By email

Not welcome here

From Mr Bhagbat Chakraborty

SIR - Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, May 8) has traduced my city entirely unfairly. A cursory search on the internet would give you the countless hotels in Kolkata of various stars and grades.

I do not know what kind of shops Mr Reid frequents but the city's shops are heaving with goods, most of them luxury items, beyond the reach of a lower middle-class person such as myself.

Tap water is not of potable quality all over India, hence it is probably wise to keep his mouth shut while showering in our "filthy poor" city, otherwise he might upset his superior white European gastro-intestinal system during his so-called pilgrimage.

Can you tell Mr Reid he is not welcome here? I am sure there are Catholics all over the world crying out for his help. We ungrateful heathens do not deserve Catholic charity.

Yours faithfully,
Bhagbat Chakraborty
Calcutta, India

Catholic fanaticism

From Mr Richard Dodd

SIR - My wife and I enjoyed the responses (Letters, April 24) to our letter of April 10. They were interesting and thought-provoking.

I trust that Robert Ian Williams does not think of us as liberal fundamentalists any more than we regard him as the Christian equivalent of an Islamic terrorist. I accept that the self-righteous liberal can be as exasperating as the religious bigot.

Ruth Yendell's claim that Catholics did not become religious fanatics in past times is questionable. Many of the dreadful conflicts of the past were as a result of religious exclusivity whether it be Protestant or Catholic. The Crusades are another example, as are the appalling Sunni and Shia atrocities in the Middle East today.

I strongly disagree with David Brower's contention that the evolving definition of truth is the conforming of the mind to what one desires. This is often applied to those who reject dogmatic teaching which they feel in all conscience simply to be wrong. Informed conscience does not make life easier. The Sermon on the Mount does not always conform to my desires but I recognise its absolute truth.

We did not suggest that all religions are equally valid, but many can perhaps give us different insights to the nature of God, which help us to understand him better than if we rely on one religion alone. We do believe that God is open to all who seek Him with an open heart and mind whatever their background and that he does not have favourites.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Dodd
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire

Ed Balls's outrage

From Mr Tim Field

SIR - Jean Keenan (Letters, May 8) offers us the improbable vision of Ed Balls as a benefactor of Catholic education because he intends to charge only £100m to upgrade Catholic schools. She invites us all to applaud him. It won't wash.

Every child is entitled to free primary and secondary education funded from general taxation. Catholics are taxpayers too and pay in full their share of the cost. Any surcharge at all levied on the education of Catholic children is unjust and discriminatory. The proposed surcharge of £100m is an outrage but I am confident that if Mr Balls remains in office, it will be enforced.

Yours faithfully, Tim Field Solihull, West Midlands


From Mrs L M Chin

SIR - This is what we get for putting our trust in secular politics to provide for our needs - the chance to fund the destruction of our own Catholic schools system. We are now boxed in by secular politicians who act under the cover of fairness and neutrality to eradicate Christianity. As Jesus Christ so correctly said: those who are not for me are against me.

It is time we stopped deluding ourselves over the motives of secular organisations and started to depend on ourselves. We can't be eternally naïve. What ever happened to being as shrewd as serpents? We have served two masters for too long.

Yours faithfully,
L M Chin
London SE14

The Pope wants pastorally sensitive pluralism

From Mgr Gordon Read

SIR - I should like to thank Tom McIntyre (Letters, May 1) for his kind words and invitation to explore further the Pope's intentions in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. I do not think it helpful to focus too much on the words "ordinary" and "extraordinary".

The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a bishop, priest or deacon, and yet extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are used both widely and legitimately. The Pope is grasping for suitable words to explain how the two forms of one Roman Rite are related. We need to discern the significance of the words from the intentions expressed in the document and accompanying letter, and from the discipline set out. His intention was twofold - to heal wounds and encourage mutual enrichment. He comments, without stating his reasons, that the former Missal had never been abrogated. This is something many have struggled to understand. It did not seem like that at the time. It was described as the "normative Mass" and that was how most people understood it.

The logical conclusion would be that both forms enjoy equal status and freedom, but the Pope sought to heal wounds and reconcile, not inflict on those who had become attached to the forms promulgated by Pope Paul VI the wounds suffered by those attached to the older forms. He chose not simply to recognise the legitimacy of the former rites, but to intervene and regulate their use. I suggest this is the reason why, when a priest is celebrating Mass or the divine office "privately", or when a religious community is agreed on using the traditional form for office or Mass, they are given complete freedom. This has little impact on others.

Where a publicly scheduled Mass in a parish church is concerned, especially on a Sunday or Holy Day, the potential impact on the wider community is much greater. To protect the rights of others the Pope has chosen to regulate celebrations in the extraordinary form while leaving the ordinary form without such regulations.

The parish priest is required to respect the good of other parishioners in the way in which he uses this permission (art 5 §1) and to avoid creating dissension. Given the restricted "time slots" available in parishes and that priests are limited to celebrating three Masses on Sundays and Holy Days tensions in this area are likely and need sensitive handling. In the case of other sacraments and sacramentals, where the impact is primarily on those seeking them, he is to use his judgment as to what is for the good of souls.

I suggest that Pope Benedict XVI intended a pastorally sensitive liturgical pluralism in the hope that this would enrich the liturgical life of the whole Church and in the long term reduce the tendency to polarised views.

Yours faithfully,
Gordon Read
St Mary Immaculate and the Holy Archangels,

Kelvedon, Essex

Our churches should be open every day

From Mr Simon Knott

SIR - Peter Littleton's experience, that the times of daily Masses are often impossible for anyone who works, and the presence of the sacrament is not accessible outside of Mass times (Letters, May 8) is a familiar one. I am lucky to live in Ipswich, a town with five Catholic parish churches, and with a bit of juggling it is possible to attend a daily Mass at one or another most days. However, his other problem is more pertinent, for only two of these churches are open outside of Mass times.

There is a liturgical imperative for Catholic churches to be open as much as they can. It is both a privilege and a duty for Catholics to pray in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, and it seems to me that it should be a duty of the parish priest to ensure that this is possible.

I am fortunate that my own parish church is open every day, but most Catholic churches in the Diocese of East Anglia are not. This is ironic, because the Church of England, where such a liturgical imperative does not exist, has two dioceses in Norfolk and Suffolk which are very insistent that Anglican parish churches should be kept open wherever possible.

As a consequence, some 70 per cent of Anglican parish churches in East Anglia are open every day. It is a pleasure to be able to cycle or drive around the East Anglian countryside and wander into these Anglican parish churches, and they should be praised for their commitment, even if it does not allow access to the presence of the Catholic sacrament.

However, I was walking in Norwich recently and tried to go into a major Catholic parish church. I found the church locked. On inquiring at the presbytery, I was told that yes, the church was kept locked, and it would remain locked all day. No, I couldn't go inside. If I wanted to go inside, I would need to contact the priest to make an appointment. How sad!

Yours faithfully,
Simon Knott
Ipswich, Suffolk

Jesus the meat eater

From Mr Graham Moorhouse

SIR - Outside of that bizarre modern mindset that appears to be able to believe in square circles, it is clearly not possible to be a vegetarian and a Catholic (Letters, May 8). The reason is very simple: vegetarianism is based on the premise that it is immoral to eat meat. But if it is immoral to eat meat, then Christ was immoral.

But if Christ is immoral, then Christ is not God, for God is infinite in all perfections. But if Christ be not God, then the basic premises of the Catholic faith are lies, indeed blasphemous lies, and therefore the whole Catholic edifice must collapse like a pack of cards.

Yours faithfully,
Graham Moorhouse
Dartford, Kent

Thanks for donations

From Mr Tony Hartigan

SIR - Following Will Heaven's excellent feature (April 24) on Sylvia Wright, readers have responded very generously and, in some cases anonymously, to the invitation to sponsor one of the 230 profoundly deaf children in Sylvia's School for the Deaf in Tamil Nadu.

May we express our thanks to all those who have sent donations. The education and welfare of 160 children is now being funded by their "friends in the West". Readers wishing to find out more about this sponsorship scheme are invited to contact Angela Clark, 3 Eddison Walk, East Causeway, Leeds LS16 8DA. Tel: 0113 2677660.

Yours faithfully,
Tony Hartigan
By email

Orthodox Catholics are not free to regard Genesis as a myth

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR - Regarding Peter Wilson's letter (April 24) critical of the one published by David Brower (April 17), he apparently disagrees with the position that the "theory of evolution cannot be true because it is incompatible with infallible declarations by the Magisterium of the Church". He then goes on to say that the Magisterium has no standing in questions of palaeontological fact, and states that Genesis is a myth with internal contradictions which prove this.

On the first point, there are no palaeontological facts which absolutely prove evolution, just facts which can be interpreted in an evolutionary or creationist way depending on the presuppositions one brings to the debate. The barrage of propaganda in favour of evolution makes it seem like the "facts" put forward to support it can only be interpreted in one way, but this is certainly not the case. (See links at: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/creation.html for more information.)

The view of Genesis as a myth ridden with contradictions has, like the theory of evolution, grown up since the 19th century, but this is just not a view that can be squared with orthodox Catholic teaching. More particularly, it cannot be equated with what Jesus and St Peter and St Paul said about creation, the fall of Man, sin, the Flood, and the other events in the early chapters of Genesis, which are referred to as real history in the New Testament. The apparent contradictions in Genesis can and have been reconciled in creationist literature, but to do this you have to take the Bible seriously.

To say, as Peter Wilson does, that "accepting the gradual emergence of human characteristics may create difficulties with the doctrine of original sin", is, to put it mildly, an understatement. The truth is that is there isn't any orthodox way such an idea can be reconciled with original sin.

His final point is about the geological record, and he asks why God set it up in a way which seems to point to evolution rather than creation. But this is to misunderstand the real nature of the fossil record, which actually resulted from the Flood of Noah. This was, as Genesis indicates, a worldwide cataclysm which destroyed the vast majority of life on earth burying it in sediments. That is, in fact, a far more logical explanation for the fossil record than anything that evolutionary theory has come up with.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Castle Donington, Leicestershire

No fairytale vision

From Miss Ruth Yendell

SIR - I feel I must come to the defence of Victoria Gillick (Letters, April 10). Down here in Devon and indeed in most of the south west her vision of cattle and sheep grazing peacefully among the buttercups is not a fairytale and one of the worst effects of the foot-and-mouth epidemic a few years ago for those of us who were not directly involved was seeing empty fields everywhere without an animal in sight. Maybe the buttercups are not so common as they used to be but there are in fact plenty of organic farms and by the nature of the terrain there are few or no large farms given over to intensive farming.

Surely the answer is not to demand that everyone turn vegetarian but to regulate farming so that cruelty to animals is banned. As someone who has not had brilliant health, I know I cannot manage without meat and have sympathy with Nick Thomas's earlier article (Comment, February 6) where he sang the praises of a good steak at times of physical and mental exhaustion. I have no objection to people becoming vegetarian but I do not think they should claim the moral high ground and demand that everyone else follows them.

Yours faithfully,
Ruth Yendell
Exeter, Devon

A faithful servant

From Hedley Perry

SIR - There must be many Catholics who wish Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue a long and enjoyable retirement (Report, April 24). His Fit for Mission? series is a beacon of light and his concern for the weak, the poor and the disadvantaged in our society is an example to us all.

Yours faithfully,
Hedley Perry
Nantwich, Cheshire

Testing the evidence

From Mr John Martyn

SIR - In your report (April 17) about Archbishop Nichols's comments on the advertising of condoms and abortion services you quote remarks by Professor Scarisbrick (whom I understand to be a retired professor of history) claiming that there is overwhelming evidence of a link between breast cancer and abortion.

I strongly suggest you ought to report the statement on the Royal College's website referring back to the remarks of Professor Scarisbrick that you quoted.

Women can then decide whether they should accept the views of Professor Scarisbrick or those of the Royal College.

Yours faithfully,
John Martyn
Bickley, Kent

Applause for Ed Balls

From Mrs Jean Keenan

SIR - Your headline (Report, May 1) announces: "Ed Balls asks Catholics to foot £100m school bill." We then go on to read that £100m is 10 per cent of the amount being spent to upgrade Catholic schools.

If my maths is correct this means that the Government is going to spend £900m on our schools. Should we not be applauding this scheme, especially as many local authorities will be meeting the cost anyway, and not asking the Catholic Church for its contribution?

Yours faithfully,
Jean Keenan
Coventry, West Midlands


From Fr John McCallion CC

SIR - The reported demand upon Catholic schools to pay up to £100m should come as no surprise, given the love-hate relationship that this Government has had with the Church since coming to power.

I feel that there is a genuine hatred towards Catholicism, and towards Christianity in general. One has only to remember the hounding of Ruth Kelly and the voices within the Cabinet that raged against the purported intrusion of the Pope in the cloning debate.

If this is so, then why doesn't the Government just come out and say: "We just don't do Catholicism?" But of course that would be political suicide; and we just have to put up with a Government which on one hand "despises" the moral teaching of Catholicism while at the same time desperately wanting a papal visit in order to win Catholic votes.

Yours faithfully,
John McCallion
Coalisland, Co Tyrone

Celebrating the miracle of human conception

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

SIR - Your reference to the "blastocyst" (Report, April 26) in describing newly created human life might be correct in terms of describing one phase of the process but it comes across like a de-sacramentalised appreciation of the miracle that is human conception. We often speak of a lifespan as a pilgrimage. Why should the very first instant of our totipotent existence be less than fully embraced by the whole of the Incarnation?

It never ceases to strike a chord of awe and wonder when one stops to consider, for example, how through her very gift of fertility, a mother, far from being passive in the creating of a new human life, is very much active in the nurturing, sustaining, protecting of that tiny (albeit invisible to the naked eye) unique human person. Indeed, from the very moment of fertilisation, the mother's body (the fallopian tube) has to gently lead the human embryo to the safety and sanctuary of the womb where it can continue its wondrous growth and development. This is a journey of six to nine days. Imagine the scale of that journey. It is probably for most of us the longest physical journey we ever make in time and space as human beings. Those first six to nine days where we all began is but a microcosm of the whole of life's journey, the lifespan allotted to us by the Creator to share in his creative plan.

We never fail to marvel at the awesome technological power of the microchip; why then should we fail to regard the tiny human embryo with even greater awe? Perhaps that is why the infancy narratives (as they are called) in which the very beginnings of Christ's earthly existence is described to us, are done so by a physician who became the Saint.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
London SW1

The eternal truth

From Mr Patrick J Milner

SIR - It was with great sadness that I read Debra Maria Flint's attempt to undermine the entire teaching authority of the Church, while labelling a large number of practising Catholics as hypocrites (Letters, May 1).

It is profoundly insulting to suggest that when other Catholics attend Holy Mass, for example, they may be merely reciting empty words or performing meaningless actions; as St John reminds us in this week's second reading, our love of (and commitment to) the Church and the Faith is not "just words or mere talk, but something real and active; only by this can we be certain that we are children of the truth".

Furthermore, it is also illogical to call oneself a Catholic, accept the credal belief in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" and yet reject the Church's apostolic teaching on subjects such as artificial contraception, homosexual acts and the reservation of holy orders to men alone. It would seem that the hypocrisy lies with those Catholics who erroneously discard the Magisterial authority of the Church as yet another non-scriptural and politically incorrect hindrance.

The Catholic Church is not to be understood as a religious supermarket where people are free to select teachings that happen to be "in season" or are convenient to live with. This is because the teachings of Christ in Sacred Scripture itself, in which all Church teaching is mirrored, constantly challenge us and are often at odds with the attitudes of society and yet remain eternally true in every age.

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Milner
Keble College,
Oxford

Building our faith

From Mr Ray Knight

SIR - We seldom have a public debate with the potential of that in the correspondence on "the age of miracles" begun by James Hamilton (Letters, April 24). Pursued in the light of Scripture and history, the topic shows the authentic way of reversing the decline but, this time, filling our churches with congregations forming parishes to meet that dream of our Pope, parishes that become "beacons, radiating the light of faith".

As a schoolboy, I asked that same question: "Why do we not see the miracles nowadays since they were commonplace in the early Church?" Our priest-teacher explained: "That was only to get the Church started."

That answer never satisfied me, so I was greatly encouraged when Pope John XXIII wanted Vatican II to "return the Church to its roots". Vatican II could not agree on the changes needed - a result that was probably intended by God, who knew that even the simple changes brought in by the Council would threaten divisions.

Doubtless guided by the Holy Spirit, our hierarchy has not mentioned that omission but has been urging us to work at evangelising. The essential basis of ministry by Jesus, by the 12, the 72 and the early Church, described in Acts, was evangelising supported by miracles. Jesus commanded and authorised each of us, as his co-heirs, to follow that pattern and even do greater works than he had done.

Now that we have slipped back so far, we must form our parishes into teams prayerfully building our faith with the aim of making our groups parish centres of evangelising. Jesus Christ will reward our efforts with miracles that he will prompt us into when he judges that we are ready. We must get established in outreach evangelising first.

Yours faithfully,
Ray Knight
Baldock, Herts

A jaundiced vision of modern parish life

From Mrs Elizabeth Price

SIR - What sad reading was Dominic Scarborough's article on his personal perception of parish life (Comment, April 24). How superficially judgmental is his statement that in the Novus Ordo the congregation "come together once a week to shake each other by the hand in participative in a self-congratulatory meal". Is this a description of the Last Supper relived?

How can he know that "too many parishes replace the call to evangelise with 'worthy' secular activities". How does he know what generosity individual members of the congregation secretly practise that are not necessarily connected to the Church, but nonetheless are deeply Christian in content?

Nor can I understand how he deduces that just because the People of God present, as well as the priest, partake in the Mass they can be compared to "a private family party where everyone who is part of the family takes a role and has to 'perform' ".

I attended the Holy Saturday celebration in St Francis, Maidstone. The laity who read the Prophecies were not performing, but doing something far deeper: proclaiming with huge reverence, care and clarity something they obviously believed from the depth of their hearts - affirmation of which was palpably given in the responses of the congregation.

Then followed the admission of RCIA converts and candidates to full membership of the Church; not some abstract group, but a new family based on brotherhood to the Risen Christ, a family there to support them whatever their need. Speaking of my own neighbouring parish of Holy Family this need has, alas, frequently been tragic and untimely family bereavement. I myself suffered the same and still, a few years later, am grateful for that kindly arm round the shoulder from those who noticed I wept at Mass.

What I suggest is that Mr Scarborough's perception is entirely subjective, and says more about his own inner feelings than actual reality.

Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth Price
Linton, Kent

Mass for the workers

From Mr Peter Littleton

SIR - I would like to put the following question to parish priests who may read this paper. For the last two or three years, while having been a student and then briefly unemployed, I have had the privilege of attending daily Mass. This has been an amazing experience and nothing else has ever more greatly fortified my spiritual life and devotion to the Eucharist.

However, having recently found a training placement I am working office hours. The first thing I did after moving to my new accommodation was to check the local Mass times. I was disappointed to find that like so many parishes, daily Mass is always at 9.30am. The Church is locked the rest of the time, meaning I will not be able to get near the Blessed Sacrament during the week.

This led me to question why so many priests celebrate Mass after 9am, but before lunchtime, when the vast majority of working Catholics cannot attend. I suggest that if the Church truly desires to reverse the tide of lapsation then she must rediscover her love of the Eucharist, and to do this the laity are reliant upon their parish priests offering the Mass and Eucharistic Adoration at realistic times during the working week.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Littleton
By email

A purified Church

From Mr Simon Reynolds

SIR - As an aged cradle Catholic who, like Piers Paul Read, experienced a Benedictine education, I would like to respond to Fr Clovis and Mr Read's spirited letters (April 17). Indeed, one wonders whether, when Mr Blair sought his spiritual home within the Catholic Church, he fully appreciated that he could not transpose the democratic experiences of his political career into his newly chosen religion.

On matters of faith, humanity and morals Catholics need to look to the Magisterium. Was it not Cardinal Newman shortly after his conversion who expressed his relief that he no longer had to exercise his troubled Anglican conscience?

Surely a practical route to out "liberalism" among the faithful would be for the hierarchy worldwide to issue a "reassertion of faith" to all adult churchgoers assembling all dogmatic principles in simple boxes to be marked by parishioners with a tick or cross. All those who do not make the required grade should be asked firmly but politely to leave the Church allowing, of course, a route open for return should there be a subsequent "seeing of the light". A resultant exodus out of Egypt might prove to be of biblical dimension, leaving a numerically reduced but purified Mother Church.

Yours faithfully,
Simon Reynolds
London SW1

Blair has a point: our congregations are full of people who disagree with the Church

From Debra Maria Flint

SIR - As a partially lapsed Catholic who (both reluctantly and gratefully) currently worships at an Anglican cathedral, I welcomed the comments of Tony Blair with regard to the Church's position on homosexuality (Report, April 17).

Mr Blair stated: "If you went into any Catholic church, particularly a well attended one on any Sunday here, and did a poll of the congregation you would be surprised at how liberal-minded they were."

But would we really be surprised? I certainly wouldn't. We all know that when we enter any Catholic church we will be confronted by numerous couples who have one or two children and are sympathetic towards others who may have a homosexual orientation. These people choose to live differently on weekdays to the way they live on a Sunday.

The only problem is that there are millions of other lapsed Catholics like myself who are not prepared to exercise such hypocrisy. We cannot stomach the entrenched views on homosexuality or the ban on contraception or the exclusion of women from holy orders and we are not prepared to pretend otherwise. Most of us, however, do believe strongly not only in God but also in the efficacy of the Mass and the communion of saints. We are true Catholics and we also acknowledge the Creed. I have not noticed any comments on contraception, homosexuality or the female priesthood in the Creed.

Jesus spoke out against hypocrisy in the form of the Pharisees. I would suggest that Tony Blair may be nearer to Him than most people. I hope he will continue with his Faith Foundation. The world is desperately waiting for a new and honest spirituality.

Yours faithfully,
Debra Maria Flint
By email


From Mr Desmond Keohane

SIR - The circumstances of Mr Blair's reception into the Church were at the time a cause of scandal to many Catholics. His support for abortion, research involving the destruction of the human embryo and homosexual adoption (positions utterly opposed to the teaching of the Church) was widely known - not to say notorious.

Yet at Mr Blair's very public "private" reception by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster no attempt was made then or subsequently to allay the understandable concerns of Catholics about the true nature of this conversion.

A very simple statement from Mr Blair, a spokesman, or the Cardinal himself that Mr Blair could not have been received into the Church without accepting its moral teachings would have helped to dispel a very general disquiet.

Mr Blair's reception into the Church had something of the appearance of an "act of state". Maybe it was this that led him to believe that it was his mission to correct and reform the Pope. Had he been received in more ordinary, less public, humbler circumstances his fellow Catholics could have hoped that the process was as unconditional as that of the multitude of others who have been received into the Church fully accepting her teachings.

Yours faithfully,
Desmond Keohane
Shucknall, Herefordshire


From Mrs Margaret Morton

SIR - I read the report "Church should rethink beliefs, says Blair" and my initial reaction was angry amazement at this man's arrogance. This feeling gradually abated into one of amusement and finally into serene gratitude that Tony Blair does not have the power or authority to do for the Church of my faith what he did for the party of my politics. He and his like will never dismantle Catholicism into "New Catholicism" as he did Labour into New Labour.

Mr Blair is correct in his view that "re-thinking is good" and the Church is constantly re-thinking, but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. He accuses people who quote Leviticus as grounds for the condemnation of homosexuality of looking at the Old Testament in too literal a fashion. I would respectfully advise Mr Blair to study the beautiful document Dei Verbum to understand the Church's teaching on interpretation of Sacred Scripture and to appreciate that the pillars of our Faith are Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium - perhaps all three were not fully understood by Mr Blair before he was received into the Church.

Yours faithfully,
Margaret Morton
Thelwall, Cheshire

The Cause is closed

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - Francis Phillips's review of the book Teresa Helena Higginson by Cecil Kerr (Books, April 17) brings to life the remarkable story of Teresa Higginson, who died in 1905. She apparently had private revelations and attempted to promote the Devotion to the Sacred Head of Jesus. But, most remarkable of all, she lived a life that was an example of Christian virtue in a difficult world and as such she is an example to us today.

As Mrs Phillips highlights a Cause for her beatification was indeed introduced. However, readers may wish to know that her Cause was formally closed by the Holy See in 1938. The imprimatur allowing devotion to the Sacred Head was revoked by Archbishop Downy of Liverpool in 1938 and this revocation was confirmed by his successor, Archbishop Godfrey, in 1949 who issued a decree prohibiting the devotion.

Mrs Philips may have a point about the lack of progress in her Cause being down to the lack of a sponsoring religious order to promote and staff the Cause as well as to fund it. However, she was buried in the Franciscan habit so she is likely to have been a Third Order Franciscan. Given that her Cause has been closed one cannot promote her Cause beyond private discussion and private devotion.

As with all Causes, any desire to re-open Teresa's Cause would need the permission of the Church. While I do not wish to publically promote her cause in contravention of Church laws readers may find the following website, which provides information about her life and claims of interest:_www.teresahigginson.com. It should be noted that the site does not appear to mention that the Cause is closed or that the imprimaturs have been withdrawn, but nonetheless it is of interest.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex

Falsifying the Gospel

From the Rev Deacon
Dr Duncan Macpherson

SIR - Your account of Piers Paul Read's new novel Death of a Pope quotes him as saying that "Left-wing social Catholicism falsifies the Gospel and can promote violence" (Report, April 24).

Any attempt to translate Christian values into a political programme runs the risk of falsifying the Gospel but the promotion of violence is not the monopoly of those on the Left.

The Right-wing politics of Franco, Pinochet and countless other "Catholic" dictators led to repression, torture and murder on grand scale. Whatever distortions or failures of vision might be attributed to individual Latin American liberation theologians, it remains true that the majority of the innocent victims of political violence in Latin America in the 20th century were slaughtered by Right-wing death squads, often trained and supported by the CIA, acting on behalf of repressive dictatorships and monopolistic multinationals.

"Right-wing Catholicism twists the Gospel"?

Yours faithfully,
Duncan Macpherson
Hampton, Middlesex

Clearing up doubts about the Motu Proprio

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - I am grateful to the distinguished canonist, Mgr Gordon Read, (Letter, April 17) for intervening in the discussion of the Latin Mass Society's idea of Summorum Pontificum's fundamental purpose. Mgr Read wrongly assumes that I took no advice on Canon Law and that I did not understand the technical sense of "strict interpretation". He rightly deduces that in criticising Dr Alcuin Reid's reasoning, I was using it in a non-technical sense. I should have said so (not my prudent adviser's fault) or used unambiguous language.

However, since he has taken the time and trouble to intervene, we should all, I think, value Mgr Read's expert opinion on our issues:

Was the fundamental purpose of Summorum Pontificum an unqualified liturgical pluralism or only a certain pluralism?

Did the Pope intend to delineate clearly the extent and nature of the exception? Is the Pope's distinction, of an ordinary and an extraordinary use, a real or a nominal distinction?

If it is a real distinction, how, according to Church usage, is it to be understood? Was part of the Pope's purpose an interpretation that could regularly deny the Church's ordinary use to an unwilling majority of parishioners?

These questions refer in part to Cardinal Ratzinger's words recorded in The Ratzinger Report: "I would personally support a certain liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and that there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy."

I hope Mgr Read will agree to answer with his usual rare lucidity.

Yours faithfully,
Tom McIntyre
Frome, Somerset

Championing evil

From Mr Paul Kokoski

SIR - It is wrong to argue that President Obama's invitation to speak at Notre Dame's commencement ceremony should not be rescinded (Letters, April 24). Mr Obama militantly champions a culture of death that includes abortion, homosexuality and embryonic stem-cell research. He plans to legally condemn conscientious objectors who oppose these crimes against humanity.

Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book The Salt of the Earth, had sharp words of condemnation for some of the Church's own bishops who think the same way as those who support Mr Obama's honorary invitation. He referred to them as "shepherds who are like mute dogs; in order to avoid conflict, they let the poison spread. Peace is not the first civic duty and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive."

Mr Obama may be the President of the United States and a talented orator. But I doubt that means much more than a curse to the millions of embryos and babies who are on abortions' death row list.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario

Sound medicine

From Fr Bryan Storey

SIR - We need rapidly to dispel doubts about Pope Benedict's stance on curing Aids (Report, March 27). It's vital to pursue spiritual and physical health, not least for Aids sufferers; the cosmetic needs to be strenuously avoided.

Our Saviour confirms insights of some well-known ethical teachers: superficial outward observances are to be rejected; we need sound medicine. St Augustine's clear vision came after years of painful struggle. Eventually he saw the infinite power of God. It can easily defeat the apparently strong, yet really weaker, power of the sexual urge. The challenge is very great: God's grace is greater, enormous, infinite.

We need not hold back from supporting the Pope's crystal-clear evangelical insight. Curbing desires mysteriously yet truly leads to that Sermon on the Mount promise of spiritual and physical health and joy. Encouraging increasing indulgences by the cosmetic, originates and promotes all sorts of problems, especially sexual ones.

Augustine witnesses that we all need that love even when we're very late responding. How could the Pope possibly preach otherwise?

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

Shocking ignorance

From Dr John Newton

SIR - I was profoundly shocked to read the Herald stating that Spider-Man's first appearance was in Amazing Stories (Report, April 17). Surely it is common knowledge that he first appeared in Amazing Fantasy, issue 15.

Yours faithfully,
John Newton
Cheam, Surrey

A myth of creation

From Dr Peter D Wilson

SIR - David Brower (Letters, April 17), like others before him, has written maintaining that the theory of evolution cannot be true because it is incompatible with infallible declarations by the Magisterium of the Church.

However, the Magisterium has no standing in questions of palaeontological fact, which clearly shows the account of creation in Genesis to be a myth - that is, a fanciful narrative devised to convey an underlying serious point. Its own internal contradictions should be enough to make that evident.

Of course, accepting the gradual emergence of human characteristics may create difficulties with the doctrine of original sin, but resolving them is a problem for theologians to tackle in their own sphere.

I have every confidence in their finding it an easier task than plumping for special creation and then explaining plausibly why the Creator set up the geological record in a way to indicate otherwise.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Wilson
Seascale, Cumbria

Vegetarianism is meek, kind and merciful

From Mr Don Gwillim

SIR - As co-founder of the Christian Vegetarian Association UK I have been following your correspondence on vegetarianism with great interest (Letters, April 24). CVAUK's desire to show compassion and mercy are either ignored or challenged by Christians who use other interpretations of the Bible to discredit our faith in a loving and compassionate God. From my experience the main reason for this is dualism, them and us, an anthropocentric attitude towards the rest of God's creation.

God's perfect love is indivisible, so to say that God loves one part of his creation more than another is to limit and belittle God's love, and deny His perfection. Jesus tells us that even the falling of a sparrow gains God's attention, yet Christ also said that humans are of more value than sparrows. Why? Because our ultimate purpose is a co-rulership with God but first we must learn to rule and discipline ourselves. God wants us to reflect His image of love and compassion towards all of His creation.

The Bible is a living book which contains eternal spiritual truths that cannot be found in any other book. However, if we ignore our faith in a perfect God when interpreting the Bible, we turn the Bible into a cold, lifeless, unethical manual which can then be used to support any action or view we desire. Heathens, agnostics and devil worshippers can all do that. Pope John Paul II tells us that any interpretation of the Bible that contradicts a rational understanding of God's goodness and mercy is incorrect.

Today, more and more people are realising that choosing a plant-based diet is far more than a mere "dietary choice". It is about helping to rescue the planet and preventing human and non-human suffering on a massive scale. It is about creating a sustainable future for our children. Surely as Christians we must act upon the message of Jesus and embrace a lifestyle that perceives the peaceable kingdom of God: a lifestyle that is loving, self-sacrificing, meek, kind and merciful; a peaceful lifestyle that is pleasing to our perfect God.

Yours faithfully,
Don Gwillim
Liphook, West Sussex

Science and the limits of the Magisterium

From Fr Neil Evans

SIR - Peter Wilson (Letters, April 24) points out that the Church has no competence "in questions of paleontological fact". Quite so. The Magisterium has no competence or authority to affirm any of the theories of science. She cannot affirm, nor even "accept", theories of universal gravitation, of electro-magnetism, of nuclear physics or of astronomy. (Though the vast majority of Catholics believe that the earth revolves around the sun, it is not part of the teaching of the Church, and the Church, as the Church, has no means of "accepting" heliocentrism. It is not part of the faith.)

Likewise, the Catholic Church cannot (ever) affirm or accept the theory of evolution, which arose outside of Revelation and is therefore "alien" to the teaching of the Church, as are other theories of science. The Catholic Church, quite simply, does not have a divine "mandate" to affirm the theories of science.

However, the Catholic Church does have a competence, negatively, to deny that any theory of science is true if she judges the theory to be contrary to the faith of the Church. For this, the Church does not require any competence in any particular area of science but makes the judgment from her own divinely given "competence" to infallibly judge matters relating to faith and morals.

Thus the Church does not need to know any of the science involved, or what scientific theories may be contradicted, in affirming that Jesus walked on the water, and that He rose from the dead. Similarly, whereas the Magisterium of the Church cannot affirm that the theory of evolution is true, if she came to believe that the theory of evolution was contrary to Revealed Truth, she has the competence (without any competence in palaeontology) to repudiate the theory of evolution as contrary to the faith.

Yours faithfully,
Neil Evans
St Benedict's church,
Sketty, Swansea

Might the end of Catholic state education actually be a good thing?

From Dr John Fannon

SIR - While I acknowledge the good intentions of Jean Keenan (Letters, April 17), I fear that she is over-optimistic when she predicts that if faith schools were abolished (as called for by the NUT), God-fearing teachers, parents and pupils would act as a leaven in the schools. As a minority they would far more likely be overwhelmed by the secular majority.

I haven't noticed much leaven from Catholics in public life, for example. At best they are regarded by their colleagues as slightly eccentric. And these are the ones who have had a good grounding in Catholic doctrine and managed to keep their faith.

I seem to recall the Left was promising that every child would achieve his or her full potential in those wonderful comprehensive schools that would replace the grammars. We all know what happened there.

So much for the blandishments of the Left, loony or otherwise. The words, spider, parlour and fly come to mind...

Yours faithfully,
John Fannon
By e-mail


From Mr Kevin O'Neill

SIR - Jean Keenan appears to equate the idea of Catholic schools for the children of Catholics with pharisaical sanctimony. She then suggests that the disbanding of Catholic schools would allow a diaspora of teachers and pupils to be "like leaven [in non-Catholic schools], to influence in a way" not possible at present. That seems to me like a mission statement for people who really do think that, in Miss Keenan's words, they are "better than everyone else". Who is to say that the influence would not be in the other direction?

By contrast, Fr Geoffry Riddle (Feature, April 17), presents a well-ordered plan for Catholic tuition that begins with education in the metaphysical and historical truths underpinning Christianity. Knowledge of these truths provides a necessary intellectual defence against the errors of relativism, which can easily undermine the missionary (and self-) confidence of even the most well-intentioned of adolescent souls.

This appears a more rational, and indeed humble, approach to educating in the Faith. The search for God's grace can but be assisted by confidence in the fact that God exists and has revealed Himself to us. And, by the help of that grace, the student has every possibility of becoming better than us.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin O'Neill
London E14

Our own dark past

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR - Since raising the question of Catholic knowledge of the Holocaust as it was actually going on (Letters, March 13), I have received a number of comments, from "don't open up old wounds" to being condemned for attacking Pope Pius XII.

I am very well aware that the Holy Father aided a number of Jews throughout World War Two, so I have no doubt that he detested what was going on. My main area of question is to try to discover to what extent Catholics, religious and laity, knew or even took part in the persecution of the Jews throughout the Nazi-occupied territories. In Croatia to what extent did religious leaders assist in the persecution of not only Jews but of those of the Orthodox faith?

I was once told by a very learned priest that the Church in those days was horrified by the threat of the spread of Soviet Communism and saw the behaviour and threat of Nazism as less of a problem. This questioning is not to stir up the past but to understand it and to acknowledge a dark part of our history.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1

Fearing Obama

From Mr Norman Coles Sir - Can the Word of God - eternal, alive, active and truthful - have anything to fear from President Barack Obama (Report, April 3) giving the commencement address at Notre Dame University? To ask the question is also to answer it.

As the faculty of the students of this university are there precisely to find and explore God's truth and as they will, or have, assiduously worked to this end what have they to fear from a commencement address by a president who disagrees with Catholic views on things such as stem-cell research? Again, nothing.

If President Obama were to raise issues of this kind - which is not a function of a commencement address -_some debates might follow: reasoned, thoughtful, researched. What has any Catholic university or student to fear from that? Nothing.

And Notre Dame University must have many staff members who have expertise in the fields of theology and philosophy of morality whom President Obama would gladly hear.

Yours faithfully,
Norman Coles
Hastings, Sussex

Endangering unity

From Mr Jeremy de Satgé

SIR - Congratulations to Fr Leo Chamberlain OSB on an excellent and well-balanced article on the liturgy (Comment, April 17). Amen to every word he wrote.

If the faithful came to understand that: a) Latin and plainchant are just as relevant to the Ordinary Form of Mass (Novus Ordo) as the Extraordinary (Tridentine); and b) tradition did not cease in 1962; then we would be able to begin the process of healing between those entrenched in their liturgical preferences, which is currently endangering unity between Catholics.

The problems caused by the changes to the calendar and the transference of feasts remain a snare. Perhaps our dear bishops might be persuaded to restore the feasts of Our Lord to their proper place...

Yours faithfully,
Jeremy de Satgé
By e-mail

Get back to love

SIR - In calling for a rethink on attitudes I believe that Tony Blair (Report, April 17) does reflect the attitudes of some of the laity. Parents will have homosexual children. Do you shut your offspring out of your life because of their sexual orientation? I think not.

In response to Ann Widdecombe, I wasn't aware that homophobia was a prerequisite to being a Catholic. History teaches us that the churches' teachings have not been static. Look for instance at how attitudes to women have changed over time. Ultimately I think the Church gets preoccupied with what people do in bed instead of promoting acceptance of our Lord as Saviour and seeing the sacraments and the message of the Gospels as the way to heaven.

Let's forget about hate and hostility and get back to love and acceptance.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Melia
By e-mail

An exclusive faith

From Miss Ruth Yendell sir - It seems to me that Richard Dodd (Letters, April 10) is rather muddled about what the Catholic Church actually believes.

We do, indeed, believe that we hold "the true faith" and have always done so, since there is no salvation save through Jesus Christ and we are His Church. What the Second Vatican Council emphasised was that:

a) The Spirit of Jesus is not circumscribed and that whatever is found in non-Christian faiths that is true and good and does not oppose Jesus's teachings also comes from the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and from His Church, even though no conscious link may be made.

b) Human conscience is sacred and must not be coerced.

These were the new emphases, but did not in any way contradict former teaching of the Church.

Incidentally, because of our understanding of faith as a gift from God which is totally undeserved, Catholics as a whole did not become religious fanatics or fundamentalist terrorists during the "ages of faith" or even in the period immediately before Vatican II.

Yours faithfully,
Ruth Yendell
Exeter, Devon


From Mr Robert Ian Williams

sir - I am sorry that the Mr and Mrs Dodd found my letter depressing and exclusive. I have been called a few things in my life but never been likened to an Islamic terrorist before.

I find that analogy over the top and uncalled for.

By its very nature the Catholic religion is an exclusive creed. The Lord Jesus Christ who founded it made exclusive claims and his Church as his messenger on earth must reflect that. No doubt our Blessed Lord's affirmation of "I am the way, the truth and the life" would be objectionable to this inclusive theology. Along with the Catholic Church

I reject nothing that is true outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church, having many non-Catholic friends and relatives.

However, I cannot accept the Dodds' central premise, which they so clearly set out in their letter. It is quite simply the philosophy that one religion is much as good as another. That is relativism, and specifically condemned by our present Pope.

Indeed, there is nothing more intolerant than a liberal fundamentalist.

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


From Mr David Brower

sir - The Catholic definition of truth is the "conformity of the mind to what is". Revelation stands prior and exterior to our minds and is to be received with humility and charity.

Richard Dodd (Letters April 10) subscribes to the Modernist definition of truth as the "conformity of the mind to what one desires".

The desire for fraternity and peace among the peoples of the world is entirely laudable, but when it leads us to reject, or explain away, the passages of the Gospels that we dislike then it destroys in us the supernatural virtue of faith. It removes the locus of authority for our beliefs from God's revelation to our own emotions.

This stands the very concept of truth on its head and does our non-Catholic brethren a grave disservice that has eternal consequences for all concerned.

Yours faithfully,
David Brower
Glasgow

The age of miracles

From Mr James Hamilton

SIR - Fr Riddle's article (Feature, April 17) made some very good points, and he speaks with the authority of a lifetime's experience. However, it might be worthwhile to note that the original conversion of England was accompanied by genuine miracles. I can't help feeling that if we are to regain any territory in Europe we should be asking ourselves: "Why are there so few miracles in our time, and what can we do to remedy the situation?"

From this distance in time we may be tempted to sneer at accounts of miracles that accompany the figures of Columba and Augustine; but the specifics of each story suggest there was much more than ignorance of medicine involved, in a great many cases. To paraphrase C S Lewis, who are we to say that the ancients didn't know that the dead don't come back to life?

Perhaps if we are to regain the miraculous we will first have to lose the reasons for not seeking it.

Yours faithfully,
James Hamilton
London NW6

A myth of creation

From Dr Peter D Wilson

SIR - David Brower (Letters, April 17), like others before him, has written maintaining that the theory of evolution cannot be true because it is incompatible with infallible declarations by the Magisterium of the Church.

However, the Magisterium has no standing in questions of palaeontological fact, which clearly shows the account of creation in Genesis to be a myth - that is, a fanciful narrative devised to convey an underlying serious point. Its own internal contradictions should be enough to make that evident.

Of course, accepting the gradual emergence of human characteristics may create difficulties with the doctrine of original sin, but resolving them is a problem for theologians to tackle in their own sphere.

I have every confidence in their finding it an easier task than plumping for special creation and then explaining plausibly why the Creator set up the geological record in a way to indicate otherwise.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Wilson
Seascale, Cumbria

A dystopian vision of a vegetarian Britain

From Mr David John

Sir - The picture of a rural idyll created by Victoria Gillick (Letters, April 10) is false and misleading.

The vast majority of farm animals, particularly chickens and pigs, do not live in farmyards but in vast industrial sheds, deprived of natural light, space and freedom.

To enter such premises is to witness a living hell that does not do justice to the Christian concept of compassion. The buttercupped pastures where cattle and sheep safely graze are largely sprayed with chemicals to produce a monoculture devoid of meadow plants. Vegetarians eat dairy produce, wear woolly hats and even leather sandals (vegans of course do not, on grounds of conscience).

But vegetarians also believe that too much land is used for growing crops to feed animals, a wasteful means of obtaining protein.

Far better to grow organic vegetables, salad and fruit crops on at least some of that land, to preserve the soil quality and offer a more welcoming habitat for wildlife. At least then we might hear more larks rising full-throated from the meadows.

Yours faithfully,
David John
Church Stretton, Shropshire


From the general secretary of the Catholic Concern for Animals, Dr Deborah Jones

sir - Tsk! There was I thinking that Victoria Gillick was pro-life! Has she never visited a slaughterhouse? Never witnessed there the agony of the millions of stressed, sensate animals, or the unborn lambs or calves ripped from their doomed dams to be discarded as junk?

Victoria, dear, try a stint at a chicken processing plant - if your stomach can stand it. What provoked that counter-factual dystopian vision of a "wholly herbivorous Britain"? As one pound of meat protein takes eight pounds of vegetable protein to produce, it is not the vegetarians (who are generally medically healthier) who will cause the final collapse of the traditional countryside. Anyway, where are the animals today? Not in fields and farmyards, but crammed into vast indoor "feeding lots".

Get real, Victoria. The "super-sized arable landscape" is already with us - providing for the unnecessary and wasteful, not to mention cruel and immoral, fashion for meat consumption.

Yours faithfully,
Deborah Jones
By e-mail

Inspiring debate

From Mr Ray Knight

SIR - Regarding Graham Moorhouse's criticism (Letters, April 17) of my letter of April 10, I have to thank him for, doubtless inadvertently, paying me the extraordinary compliment of suggesting that my approach was as bad as some of that of the Second Vatican Council.

I have no wish to take up more of your letter space with a matter that would be better pursued privately between Mr Moorhouse and myself, especially as my letter provided the answers to his continuing confusion between Scriptural inspiration and the Holy Spirit continuing to guide and empower discerning individuals and the Church since its inception.

Yours faithfully,
Ray Knight
Baldock, Herts

The test of time

From Dr Josephine Treloar

SIR - The Pope has reiterated the Church's teaching on the moral issue of the use of condoms, including where there is HIV present. The slanging match from various quarters of the media cannot change the fact that transmission to an uninfected spouse with a condom is only slightly lower than without a condom.

The Church cannot be in the business of giving advice to couples which is linked to flawed scientific evidence, even if it is current, standard medical advice. A doctor's advice is only judged against what is standard medical practice at the time, the advice from the Church will need to stand both the test of time and beyond.

Yours faithfully,
Josephine Treloar
By e-mail

Blair knew the Church's position before becoming a Catholic. Why did he join?

From the spiritual director of Family Life International

SIR - I wish to highlight a few of the many inconsistencies in Tony Blair's reported position, especially concerning his injudicious comments about Pope Benedict XVI, which he made in an interview last week.

First, it is claimed that Mr Blair converted to Catholicism, but with his open and public dissent from the Church's moral teaching, it is evident that he merely entered the Catholic Church without actually becoming a Catholic. As the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium warns a person may indeed be in the bosom of the Church but "in body" not "in heart". In other words, Mr Blair has merely become a Roman Protestant.

Second, presumably when he entered the Catholic Church, having married a Catholic woman, he would have been fully aware of the Church's principled teaching on marriage in general and homosexuality in particular. Why did he leave the Anglican church, the first Christian church to sanction divorce, to approve the use of contraception, and to ordain openly practising homosexuals as bishops (dogmas strongly held by Mr Blair), and join the Catholic Church, which explicitly, consistently and authoritatively repudiates all of these?

He claims that the Pope is out of step with the public. I agree with him and thank God. The Catholic Church was not founded to rubber-stamp public opinion or to canonise worldly wisdom, but to teach what God requires of us. I am surprised that a man of Mr Blair's experience can aspire, to be an "unofficial ambassador for the Catholic Church". He should know that an ambassador is one who speaks on behalf of the authority he represents. What would have been his reaction had the British ambassador to the UN said that he thought that Blair was both out of touch with public opinion and wrong on the invasion of Iraq?

Last, the Church does not reject homosexual people but openly and warmly welcomes, accepts and embraces them as equals. She condemns their behaviour, just as she welcomes, accepts and embraces fornicators, liars and even hypocrites into her fold while condemning their behaviour.

I could go on but will end here with the thought that as Mr Blair "travels the world on behalf of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation", does he claim to have a different Gospel from St Paul?

Yours faithfully,
Fr Linus F Clovis
By e-mail


From Mr Piers Paul Read

SIR - Attending the Easter Vigil at Westminster Cathedral, I heard each candidate for reception into the Church say: "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God."

Tony Blair will have made this profession when he was received into the Church in December, 2007, yet he seems to suggest in his recent interview in the gay magazine Attitude that he does not accept the Church's teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual intercourse: he refers to it as "an entrenched attitude" of Pope Benedict XVI. Has he come to dissent from this ancient and coherent teaching in the past 14 months? Or was his profession at his reception insincere?

Yours faithfully,
Piers Paul Read
By e-mail

In defence of Dr Reid

From Mgr Gordon Read

SIR - Tom McIntyre (Letter, April 3) would have been well advised to seek canonical advice before castigating Dr Alcuin Reid for not doing so. He has clearly misunderstood the technical meaning of a "strict interpretation" of canon law. It means "narrow" or "restrictive" and, contrary to his assertion, is not to be applied to other laws. Canon 18 also has a context - the general rule of law established by Pope Boniface VIII, that it is appropriate for the odious to be restricted, and the favourable to be extended. Odia restringi et favores convenit ampliari - Regula Juris 15.

While there is some debate about the application to a "law that contains exceptions" the general view among canonists is that it is the exception within the law that is to be interpreted narrowly so as not to limit the fundamental purpose of that law.

Yours faithfully,
Gordon Read
Kelvedon, Essex

Meat-eating is hell

From Mr Barry Miles

SIR - Mrs Victoria Gillick's pleasant picture of the English countryside based on an omnivorous diet (Letter, April 10) is that of a child's farm picture book, hiding anything that might be upsetting or disturbing. She ignores the unseen reality of a diet based round meat and dairy.

In the interests of the whole truth, here it is: a culture of death, with 300 animals a second in Britain, including baby calves, lambs and goats, killed out of sight in hidden slaughterhouses; people paid by the rest of us to be desensitised by killing day after day, sometimes for all their working lives, among blood and faeces; ongoing rainforest destruction (70 per cent of this is for grazing or animal feed); appalling factory farms (still the great majority) in contravention of the "righteousness" of Proverbs 12: 10; more scenery-destroying greenhouse gases from the livestock industry than all transport put together.

Mrs Gillick strangely likens a future vegetarian countryside to hell, but a much more hellish reality already exists. There are ways of keeping fewer animals without destining them for early slaughter. Mrs Gillick need not be concerned either about enough protein for the nation. An acre of land used to grow plant protein produces eight to 12 times as much food as one used for animal protein production. What she should be concerned about is the poor of the world deprived of protein because we import it from them to feed livestock in Britain.

As I go now to my church's Good Friday reflection I remember Cardinal Newman's crucifixion sermon in which he likened the suffering of defenceless slaughtered animals to Christ on the Cross. Maybe it's a good time to reflect on the true cost of meat compared with a diet which perhaps carries a bit of a personal cross with it but helps rescue out-of-sight humans, animals and the planet.

Yours faithfully,
Barry Miles
London


From Mr James Conroy

SIR - I wonder if Mrs Gillick has looked outside recently and seen that the dystopia she warns of has already been created - by meat. Until we shake off our addiction to meat, and stop seeing everything - God's creatures included - as just another consumer good, we deserve our future hell.

Yours faithfully,
James Conroy
By e-mail

Evolution is a faith, not a science

From Mr David Brower

SIR - The empirical proof for macroevolution - be it gradual or saltational - is entirely wanting; what masquerades here as "science" is, in fact, a faith that denies the existence of supernatural causes and is heedless of - yet increasingly hostile to - the wealth of evidence that contradicts it.

When examining the claims of evolutionists (both theistic and atheistic) Catholics should take into account the three pillars of our religion: Scripture, tradition, and Magisterial teaching: the Book of Genesis describes, in the genre of true history, the special creation of the first man by God and the creation of the first woman from his side, the latter of which teachings leaves no space for an evolutionary interpretation. If we remain sceptical of the historical nature of Genesis then, since we know that Scripture is inerrant and cannot contradict itself, we can, using the analogy of faith, compare these passages to other, more explicit, passages in Scripture. St Paul, to take only one example, confirms the literal and historical nature of the Genesis account of the creation of the first woman in I Corinthians 11:8 and 11:12.

The overwhelming consensus of the Church Fathers - with the possible exception of Origen - is that Genesis is to be understood literally and not merely allegorically.

Finally, the Magisterium has taught infallibly that the first woman was created from the side of the first man and that this couple is the origin of all humans. In accordance with the four conditions stated in Lumen Gentium, Fr Brian Harrison OS has demonstrated that in Leo XIII's 1880 encyclical letter Arcanum both of these teachings were defined as infallible by the ordinary Magisterium. Even though Arcanum has been largely neglected by subsequent generations, the weight of this definition still holds. Infallible remains infallible.

Yours faithfully,
David Brower
Glasgow

We're not loony Left

From Miss Jean Keenan

SIR - I am a retired teacher but still a member of the National Union of Teachers and I find myself in a dilemma. I can only thank the Catholic sector for employing me and nurturing me when I became a Catholic and yet I once heard a Catholic headteacher say: "Let us keep our good Catholic schools for our good Catholic children," and I went cold. I thought of the Pharisee in the temple, thanking God that he was so much better than everyone else.

If faith schools were disbanded then the true God-fearing teachers, parents and pupils would be in school like leaven, to influence in a way which is not open to them in the present system. Is this too simplistic? I object to Eric Hester saying that the NUT represents the "loony Left" (Report, April 10). Some of us are quite sane.

Yours faithfully,

Jean Keenan

By e-mail

Infallibility

From Mr Graham Moorhouse

SIR - Ray Knight's letter (April 10) appears to be as full of waffle and ambiguity as some of the text of the Council he seeks to defend. If General Councils were inspired by the Holy Ghost, then the Church would not need infallibility. The gift of infallibility prevents the Church from binding us to error in matters of faith and morals - but the Holy Ghost doesn't make errors.

It is precisely because General Councils (and, for that matter, the Holy Father) are not inspired that they need the charism of infallibility. Mr Knight's attempt to arbitrarily limit inspiration to the Scriptures is a Protestant position. The Church holds that the whole of revelation is contained in sacred tradition, and that this is transmitted to us via written and oral tradition. It is revelation that ended with the death of the last Apostle, not Scripture per se.

Yours faithfully, Graham Moorhouse Dartford, Kent

Church of the poor

From Mr Tony Foley

SIR - In an article last week it was argued that refusing pro-abortion politicians is politicising Holy Communion. In effect, the author is arguing that the Church should ignore the manifest injustice being perpetrated on our most vulnerable members of society, namely the unborn.

Those politicians who vote for abortion are active facilitators of the culture of death. The Church, by refusing Communion, is, like Christ, opting for the poor and the downtrodden of our society - it is showing itself to be the Church of the Beatitudes. I only wish that the Bishops of this land could have the courage of their brothers in America. For example, one suspects that the ingratiating and "cat got the cream" way in which Tony Blair was admitted into the Church would have translated into a more cautious and caveat-laden welcome in America.

Politicians, generally speaking, are intelligent and well-educated people - they should know the score. The Church, by refusing Communion to them, is not only hearing the cry of the poor, but is issuing a direct challenge to consciences.

Yours faithfully,
Tony Foley
Billericay, Essex

LA cathedral

From Mr Anthony Hawkins

SIR - Mr Austin wonders where the tabernacle is in Los Angeles new cathedral (Letter, April 3). The place of reservation is required to be suitable for private devotion and prayer, and therefor most cathedrals and other large churches have a Blessed Sacrament Chapel. This is not a new idea, Westminster Cathedral was built like this. St Peter's has a Blessed Sacrament Chapel, and this was not thought inappropriate when the basilica was rebuilt during the counter-reformation.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Hawkins
Ramsey, Isle of Man

Water for the thirsty

From Miss Ann Garrick

SIR - The bishops of Vatican II said: "Remember the saying of the Fathers: 'Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him you have killed him.' " Some people in English hospitals are now being left to die of thirst. Could we not say: "Give water to the man dying of thirst, because if you have not, you have killed him?"

Yours faithfully,
Ann Garrick
By e-mail

Keep the throne

From Mr Alan Whaits SIR - Your editorial (April 3) asserts that: "We want the Act repealed..." Some Catholics don't.

Once the decision was taken in 1534 and again in the reign of Elizabeth I to declare the monarch to be supreme head or supreme governor of the Anglican body it made logical sense to exclude Catholics from the throne. The wonder is that the Act of Settlement was delayed until 1708, and the reasons for it still remain valid. It is odd perhaps that the exclusion has not been extended to all non-Anglicans.

I would like a Catholic to continue to be spared the nonsensical position of simultaneously recognising the Pope as the supreme religious leader on earth and also himself/herself as theologically supreme over a limited part of the planet. Even if the Anglican body was to be disestablished, the monarch could face a crisis of conscience whenever our secular democracy throws up a pernicious Bill requiring the rubber-stamp of royal assent. This would leave signature or abdication as the only options.

The monarch's life is one of a well-paid political paper tiger, lived in a goldfish bowl where every perceived slip is eagerly exploited by the media. I am puzzled why a Catholic would desire it.

Yours faithfully,
ALAN WHAITS
By e-mail

Kathleen Jaffa RIP

From Miss Amanda C Dickie

SIR - Further to your interesting obituary of journalist Kathleen Jaffa (Catholic Life, April 3), readers should note that she was a Lay Carmelite and received into the Third Order in 1954 by the charismatic Fr Malachy Lynch, who rebuilt Aylesford Priory, and professed in 1955 at the priory. Being part of the Carmelite family was a major focus of her life and she was buried in full Carmelite habit.

Katie, as she was known to her many friends, wrote numerous contributions for The Catholic Herald over the years about events at Aylesford and Allington Castle. A close friend of Fr Malachy Lynch, Katie was one of the creative people he gathered about him in restoring Aylesford, and she was married at the priory in 1972. Her wedding reception was at nearby Allington Castle, then owned by the Carmelites. Her requiem Mass was at her parish church, St Josephs, New Malden, and the Provincial of the Order of Carmelites, Fr Wilfrid McGreal, sent a message which was read out saying that "she lived in the presence of God and bought the presence of God to those she encountered".

A tribute was also read out from Mgr Mark Langham, former administrator at Westminster Cathedral, now working at the Vatican in a senior post at the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

Her coffin was taken to Aylesford Priory and placed before the statue of Our Lady of the Assumption at the Shrine. The service was led by Fr Joseph Chalmers, former Prior General of the Order, and now sub-prior at Aylesford, who adapted special prayers written by Fr Malachy. The Carmelite community, dressed in their white cloaks sang the Carmelite anthem "Flos Carmeli" before she was buried at Aylesford Village cemetery.

Yours faithfully,
Amanda C Dickie
By e-mail

Determined single-issue voting could bring an end to abortion

From Mrs Dominica Roberts

SIR - Hugh David (School Board, March 27) is right in saying that abortion is not the only issue in elections. There are, however, some views so contrary to natural human justice that they should disqualify a candidate in the eyes of all, and especially of Catholics. Racism is one such, and support for abortion, human embryo destruction and euthanasia is another.

But the idea of a "wasted vote" is not correct. In a marginal constituency one's vote does help to determine who is elected, and one might reasonably vote for a "less worse" candidate. In many constituencies one party has such a large majority that there is no reasonable likelihood of anyone else being elected. In these places everyone's vote sends a message, either of approval, or of warning that at the next election the seat may be at risk, or of support for a specific policy as in the ProLife Alliance or UKIP or the Green Party. No vote is "wasted".

Mr David speaks slightingly of the late great Cardinal Winning "banging on" about not voting for a party or candidate who supported abortion. If enough voters made pro-life matters the priority they ought to be in this country, we could win for vulnerable unborn human beings the single most basic right, on which all others depend, the right not to be killed. In the south of the United States in the Sixties it was single-issue voting which obtained civil rights for black people. The result in the Glasgow East election was affected by the abstention of Catholics who would normally have voted Labour but were shocked at the anti-life sentiments of the candidate.

The Labour Party is officially pro-abortion, but there are honourable exceptions, as well as the valiant Labour Life Group, which deserve our support. The Lib Dems are pro-euthanasia, and there are both pro-life and anti-life MPs in all parties.

When, in my own constituency in the 1997 election, all the major parties' candidates were strongly pro-abortion, and I was, as Mr David says, effectively disenfranchised, I joined the newly formed ProLife Alliance (PLA) and have since stood as a pro-life candidate in three General Elections and one European election. Perhaps that was an extreme reaction; we must all vote for candidates whose individual voting intentions are as near to good as we can find.

The PLA has since then had to stop being a political party, when the bureaucratic demands of the Electoral Commission became too onerous for our small band of volunteer workers to cope with. We have become an effective human rights group in defence of human lives neglected by many others, for example Amnesty.

Yours faithfully,
Dominica Roberts
Bracknell, Berkshire

Vatican II's spirit

From Mr Ray Knight

SIR - Under the heading "Vatican II: Was it inspired by the Devil?" (Letter, April 3), Graham Moorhouse relied on a mistaken understanding of the Church's teaching on inspiration by the Holy Spirit having ended with the death of the last Apostle.

The actual teaching is to the effect that all Scripture is inspired, so that only Scriptural inspiration might be said to have ended with the death of the last Apostle.

In looking at whether Vatican II was inspired, we have to first go back to Pope John XXIII, who launched it. The objectives that he gave to the Council had all the signs of having been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Those terms showed a need for the Church to, first, return to the basic pattern ordered by Jesus and demonstrated by the early Church in Acts, and, second, to "update" to better relate to today's world.

In the deliberations, more than 2,000 Council Fathers had a fairly human problem in accepting, and acting on, any prompting of the Holy Spirit. Every day of our Christian lives we can fail to discern the prompting of the Holy Spirit, especially if it appears to contradict tradition. Apparently, agreement on the first objective was blocked by a group led by a cardinal whose coat of arms read: "Always the same."

Even so, the hand of God can be seen in the fact that, while the agreed aggiornamento emerged, and is now well established, the disputed part of Pope John XXIII's vision did not emerge. Even that aggiornamento caused divisions and reflects God's wisdom in allowing the main part of the vision, "returning the Church to its roots", to await a time when the Church (at all levels) would be receptive enough to take it in hand and work at implementing it.

Yours faithfully,
Ray Knight
Baldock, Herts


From Fr Bryan Storey


SIR - Graham Moorhouse's researches are surely helped by remembering that the proper interpretation of any Church Council is the one which does not contradict any other. They all need to be studied and understood in that light. Contradictories need to be distinguished from what is contrary as logic demands; differences need not to be confused with emphases.

Wrongful interpretation of Councils is not infrequent, especially with the issues mentioned by Mr Moorhouse. I remember the late Dr Frank Sheed saying that the great problem about Vatican II was that in its aftermath much was being said and done by people who didn't really know or had forgotten what was said before.

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

Going overboard

From Margaret Fitzsimons

SIR - I fear that John Ross Martyn (Letter, March 20) has gone off the diving board too quickly in condemning Cardinal Pell's comments (Report, March 13). What I suspect that the cardinal was saying was that when we are presented with the end of a long-term homosexual relationship as a fait accompli then the Church should not adjudicate against a fair, just and lawful fiscal settlement in the case of the demise of such a partnership.

This does not change the Church's position in her views of such a relationship.

Yours faithfully,
Margaret Fitzsimons
Wirral

A very sorry picture

From Mr Andrew Gray

SIR - Anna Arco (Feature, April 3) paints a very sorry picture of the Church in Austria. The open revolt against Rome, the accepted concubinage of the secular clergy and the episcopal toleration of liturgical abuse seem to indicate a degenerate local Church which is breaking communion with the Holy See.

Please God there will be bishops who are orthodox in faith and Catholic in love appointed to be shepherds over a seemingly wayward flock. If Church tax revenue declines, then so be it: a loss in income is a price worth paying. The price of the true faith is beyond measure and cannot be measured in terms of money.

Yours faithfully,
Andrew Gray
Edinburgh

Life would be hell if we were all vegetarians

From Mrs Victoria Gillick

SIR - Whatever fodder vegetarians believe was eaten "in the beginning", nowadays all creatures great and small have evolved into either herbivores, carnivores or omnivores (Letters, March 6 and March 20).

Indeed, the entire flora and fauna, seen and unseen, of planet earth constitutes one glorious, unified digestive system, each consuming each, their driving force being neither an intellectual nor a moral conviction. Humans alone have a choice in the matter, and most choose to be omnivores, eating anything tasty they can get into their hungry maws.

Consuming too much meat, or nothing but vegetables, or being excessively sensitive to criticism, are not actually sinful things. They are just rather unappealing tendencies of our peculiar human nature. But for argument's sake, try imagining what life would be like in a wholly herbivorous Britain as we strove to produce proteins sufficient for 60 millions.

From coast to coast, nothing but industrialised arable land, full of high-yielding, genetically-modified crops, sown and harvested by armies of gargantuan gas-guzzling machinery.

Gone would be all wasteful woodlands and thickets. No more larks rising full-throated from meadows.

No more leisurely rambles alongside peaceful, butter-cupped pastures where cattle and sheep safely grazed. No more cocks crowing in the morn; no more chickens, pigs and goats in the farmyards, fields and sheds; and no more hay in the barns or cider with Rosie. No more eggs either, nor milk, butter and cheese, and not a woolly hat or leather sandal to be found, even for vegetarians.

We might of course opt to continue breeding farm animals, not for meat but for these useful by-products, and then cull them when they grew old and unproductive, cremating their millions of unwanted carcases in vast, smoke-belching incinerators. Alternatively, we might process the mountains of meat into high-quality tucker for cats and dogs, provided that herbivore fundamentalists haven't insisted on the planned extinction of all carnivorous pets as well.

Wildlife would also pose a bit of a problem in this super-sized arable landscape. Those species not obliterated by pesticides or destroyed as economic and environmental vermin would have to be corralled into unusable wasteland reservations, never again to live in any kind of close symbiotic relationship with mankind.

If this all sounds a bit like hell on earth, then it probably would be.

Yours faithfully,
Victoria Gillick
Wisbech, Cambs

No real complaint

From Fr Gerald Freely

SIR - Robert Ian Williams (Letter, April 3) has raised a valid point, which is avoided by most secular commentators. The Act of Settlement, in a negative way, recognises the fact that there are only two choices: the acceptance of the Universal Church or its rejection.

Equally, the "Defence of the Faith" inscribed on our coins is the Catholic Faith and no other, a fact which will be apparent by reading the book attributed to Henry VIII.

The Act of Settlement has nothing to do with discrimination, and as long as we Catholics are tolerated we can have no real complaint. It represents the majority view in our country.

Yours faithfully,
Gerald Freely
Harrow, Middlesex


From Mr Richard Dodd

SIR - My wife and I help to coordinate an interfaith group in Hemel Hempstead. We both feel that our contacts with people of other faiths here and overseas have given us insights into the nature of God which have helped us in our understanding of our Christian faith. It has become clear to us that there are many different paths to the ultimate reality of God and that sharing our experiences with others searching with equal openness and sincerity helps us to know Him better.

It is therefore depressing to read Robert Ian Williams, where yet again the concept of "the true faith" is asserted. Mr Williams has a certainty shared by many others. Fundamentalist Muslims assert that the Koran is the final word of God and this leads to the dreadful apostasy rules of Sharia Law. Fundamentalist Jews assert that they are the Chosen People and have God's promise of the whole land of Israel, which leads to the tragic recent events in Gaza and elsewhere.

Exclusivity in religion is an evil which inevitably leads to conflict. Genuine religion should surely be an open, sincere search for truth not bound by dogma. When people of different religious backgrounds can do this together, the world's faiths will have something to offer our troubled planet.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Dodd
Hemel Hempstead, Herts

A fruitless search

From Miss E M Bellord

SIR - Could I make a plea to your readers? I am trying to find a copy of a film which, I think, was made in 1950 called Behold the Man, directed by Walter Rilla. Apart from being shown in cinemas, it was for a number of years also shown on television at Easter. It was the first film on British screens to be allowed, by the exceptional permission of the Lord Chancellor, to show the face of Christ.

My mother had the part of Our Lady, and my father, sister, brothers and I also had parts as extras. The part of Christ was played by a Catholic priest. My inquiries to a number of institutions which might have had the film, have been fruitless, hence my appeal to you. If any of your readers know where I could obtain a copy of the film I should be very grateful if they could contact me through your newspaper.

Yours faithfully, E M Bellord London W2

Medical journal picks on a facile target

From Mr Alejandro H Rodriguez-Giovo

SIR - One would think that the editors of such a prestigious scientific journal as the Lancet (Report, April 3) might be endowed with the sufficient lucidity not to interpret Benedict XVI's comment on condoms in the most obtusely literal way. The Catholic Church's doctrine on sexual relationships is doubtless idealistic and difficult to live up to for many, but at least it has the merit of being clear-cut and well-known: fidelity within marriage or abstinence. Do the eminent scientists writing for the Lancet know of a more effective recipe for limiting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)?

The Pope was very obviously not stating that in each discrete instance of sexual intercourse the wearing of a condom actually increases the probability of STD propagation. Clearly, he was attacking the attitude towards sexuality that is disseminated through "condom culture", in which human beings are disposable tools for achieving ephemeral and indiscriminate physical gratification, as long as a latex membrane insulates intimate contact. In fact, juggling short-term desire for someone else's body with the need to keep that body at arm's length, as it were, can scarcely be regarded as a realistic formula for epidemiological success.

Moreover, it is patronising towards Benedict XVI's African audience to assume that they cannot understand the true import of his words, and are so licentious that upon hearing the Pope they would instantly jettison their boxes of freely distributed prophylactics.

The distinguished doctors of the Lancet might kindly credit Africans with the intelligence to understand that it was the general approach to sexual relationships epitomised by systematic condom usage that was being questioned, and not the banal fact that in a given sexual encounter a condom will make infection less likely.

The less direct carnal contact between people there is, the lower the chances of STD contagion will be - there needs no ghost come from the grave to tell us this. The Vatican's conception of the proper context of sex may not be everyone's cup of tea, but as a recipe for avoiding the propagation of Aids it is peerless.

What is most unforgivably disingenuous and cowardly about the Lancet's editors, however, is to focus their attack on Benedict XVI - a facile target - instead of tackling head-on the real and glaringly obvious cause of the catastrophic dissemination of STDs in Africa and elsewhere (starting with chic communities in California and New York, where Aids first became a noteworthy illness, unlike malaria, because it affected affluent, stylish Americans): reckless promiscuity. They can hardly blame the Pope for instigating that.

Yours faithfully,
Alejandro Rodriguez-Giovo
Geneva, Switzerland

Free St Benedict

From Jane Mycock

SIR - The German portable altar which contains the relics of St Benedict, along with 38 other saints (Report, March 28) is currently housed in the British Museum. In the event of a papal visit to Britain, could this sacred object be liberated and presented to the German Pope Benedict XVI?

Yours faithfully,
Jane Mycock
Bradford, West Yorkshire

Where was Welles?

From Frank Gillespie FCA

SIR - May I be permitted to misquote (a) Sam Goldwyn and (b) John McEnroe:

a) a list of 100 greatest films that does not include Citizen Kane isn't worth the paper its written on;
b) The Passion of The Christ - you cannot be serious!

Yours faithfully,
Frank Gillespie
Middlesbrough

Why do we ignore the testimony of the Jews who praised Pius XII?

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - Kevin Greenan (Letters, March 20) calls for the Vatican to open its wartime archives. Mr Greenan and others may wish to note that the Holy See has in fact already published archives in a 12-volume work entitled Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relating to the Second World War.

On the back of Hochhuth's sensationalist work, The Deputy, in 1963 Pope Paul VI - who worked closely with Pope Pius XII during the war and who on November 18 1965 opened the Cause for both his immediate predecessors - delegated the task of scrutinising the Vatican Archives to four Jesuit historians. In 1999 the surviving historian, Fr Pierre Blet SJ, published a single volume by Paulist Press entitled Pius and the Second World War: According to the Archives of the Vatican.

These works have been known for years but ignored by historians and commentators who prefer to follow a more sensationalist approach to Pius and the Catholic Church. A lesson from history demonstrates that negative popular perception persists despite access to the archive. In 1867 Pope Pius IX opened the archive to scholars in respect to the Galileo case. Popular legend had it that he suffered years of imprisonment and torture. However, when scholars studied the archive they discovered that he endured only 22 days house arrest and suffered no torture - yet the myth continues.

We know that six million Jews perished in the Holocaust because records at the Yad Vashem museum in Israel show this. Yet these same records prove (as the Jewish diplomat Pinchas Lapide demonstrates) that Pius XII saved up to 850,000 Jews. Why is it that we ignore the testimony of Jewish leaders such as the chief rabbis of Rome, Denmark and Israel? And what about Golda Meir, who said: "When our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice which expressed the great moral truths about the tumult of daily conflicts. We grieve over the loss of a great defender of peace."

I would suggest readers read the Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David Dalin or review the website set up by Pave the Way Foundation (www.ptwf.org) for original documents and witness testimony from the time.

Instead of judging Pius XII through the lens of a distorted playwright's mind we should read the historical record produced by Fr Blet and the views of Jewish leaders at the time.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
By email

Animals and embryos

From Antonia Mochan of the European Commission Representation to the UK

SIR - Your report of March 20, "EU 'to put animals before embryos'", is erroneous.

The proposal on a directive on animal testing currently before the European Parliament does not directly address the issue of what alternatives there should be to animal testing.

Rather, it aims to improve the welfare of animals used in scientific procedures, reduce to the absolute minimum necessary the number of animals used in scientific procedures, ensure fair competition for industry and research, and provide incentives for the development and validation of alternative methods to replace, reduce and refine the use of experimental animals.

At the moment, there are no Community-approved alternative methods using human embryonic stem cells, and there are certainly no requirements that human embryos are used instead of animals, as you allege. The Commission has not moved from its statement in 2006 which, among other safeguards, stated that no research activity would be funded in a country where that activity was forbidden.

Yours faithfully,
Antonia Mochan
London SW1

Unrestricted use

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - John Medlin (Letters, March 27) rests his claim for unrestricted celebration of the Extraordinary Use as the main or only parish Mass on Dr Alcuin Reid's interpretation of Canon Law.

Dr Reid's argument from Canon 18, however, that Summorum Pontificum need not be interpreted strictly, but is "utterly permissive" errs first of all in logic: that certain laws must be interpreted strictly does not mean other laws should not; and the assumption that the Pope's distinction between the Uses is not restrictive begs the question.

Moreover, a canonist would remind him that the Motu Proprio does not exist in a vacuum. Later laws are to be related to earlier laws and, as far as possible, harmonised with them.

The Holy Father would hardly have specified exemptions if the Ordinary and Extraordinary Uses were on an equal footing. Indeed the Church's distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" in other contexts is precisely that "extraordinary" covers only the specified instances.

My position on the Extraordinary Use is not "intemperate". I consider it ancient, beautiful, valid; to be duly honoured as such; and, within the areas specified by the Pope, to co-exist with that Ordinarius Usus the Church ordains for the greater good of the faithful.

Yours faithfully,
Tom McIntyre
Frome, Somerset

A missing object

From Gabriel Austin

SIR - In the picture of the interior of the Los Angeles cathedral (Feature, March 27), a question came to mind: where's the tabernacle?

Yours faithfully,
Gabriel Austin
By email

Pushing euthanasia

From Mrs E Chowdharay-Best, the Honorary Secretary of ALERT

SIR - ALERT was only one among many groups which warned their members that assisted suicide was due to be debated in the House of Commons on March 23 (Report, March 27). We can all rejoice that Patricia Hewitt's amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill was not reached, not having been given priority.

The Government had been made to see that by pushing euthanasia to the top of the agenda it might be assisting its own suicide. The loss of a previously safe Labour seat in Scotland round the time of the Embryology Bill showed that letter writers mean what they say.

However tired we may be of telling our MPs what we think, we must keep on doing it.

Yours faithfully,
E Chowdharay-Best
London SW3

Evolution is still not officially approved

From Mr Redmond O'Hanlon

SIR - I should like to second Donal Anthony Foley's opinion (Letters, March 27) that theistic evolutionism, as conducted inside the Church today, is a complete break from traditional exegesis and hermeneutics. It is one-sided, and consequently has no place in Catholicism.

The problem however - because of opinions from Cardinal Ratzinger in 1981, Pope John Paul II in 1996, Cardinal Schönborn in 2005 and now L'Osservatore Romano's "there has been no condemnation of evolution" - is that the Catholic world behaves as though there is a "teaching" that says evolutionism is not contrary to the Catholic faith. One can see how theistic evolutionism has found a niche in the Catholic Church.

The above utterances, however, give no such licence in the Church. There has been only one semi-official teaching on the subject, Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis of 1950. This encyclical is very clear and totally complies with tradition. It only allows debate on evolution but carries warnings that evolutionist beliefs must comply with Catholic dogma, not that they do: "If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognised can in no way be admitted."

These doctrines are those on Creation, Adam as the first man from which Eve and the whole human race descended, and the dogma on Original Sin. In other words, Catholic interest in evolutionism will be discussed and decided on theological grounds, not scientific speculation and theories: "provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith". So evolutionists must compile their theology, submit it to the Church, and then we will see if evolutionism is compatible with Catholic teaching. As yet there has been no Church sanction of any theistic evolutionism.

But there are further ignored prohibitions for theistic evolutionism in Humani Generis: "However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favourable and those unfavourable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure."

Now consider the recent conference on evolution held in the Pontifical Gregorian University under the high patronage of the Pontifical Council for Culture and organised by a list of high-ranking clerics at which all were evolutionists. The reception Creationism receives inside the Church these days is bordering on zero. I rest my case.

Yours faithfully,
Redmond O'Hanlon
Dublin

Wooing Catholics

From Mr Robert Ian Williams

SIR - Catholics should treat with complete scepticism the campaign by Dr Evan Harris MP to rescind the discrimination against Catholics enshrined in the Act of Settlement.

As an MP, he has been in the forefront of anti-Catholic legislation such as abortion. embryo research, euthanasia, gay adoption and civil partnerships. This is mere political opportunism on his part, as he clearly has supported this other legislation which discriminates against Catholics and the distinct values of our beliefs.

Catholics should view the Act of Settlement as a witness to the persecution endured by our Catholic ancestors, who placed their loyalty to God above that of the establishment. It stands as a marker that we are a separate and distinct people, with the privilege and consolation of having the true Faith. As our Lord prophesied, for his name's sake we will endure being misunderstood and persecuted.

Furthermore, repeal of the Act will still involve the exclusion of the numerous Catholic descendants of the 17 Catholics passed over to arrive at a Protestant succession. If the legislation does not exclude them, they will all have a legitimate claim to the throne.

Do we really want our lovely Queen so displaced by the Bavarian, King Francis II?

Yours faithfully,
Robert Ian Williams
Wrexham


From Councillor J P Floru

SIR - Gordon Brown and Tony Blair sat on the Act of Settlement for the last 10 years. Electoral defeat looms so the inequity is suddenly raked up.

After bankrupting the economy and printing money, using Queen and Church are but the latest of Mr Brown's desperation measures.

Cynicism having become Labour's house style, are we surprised?

Will Mr Brown also make Prince Charles "Defender of Faith" in order to woo not just the Catholics?

This Catholic won't be fooled.

Yours faithfully,
J P Floru
London SW1

Facing east together

From Mr J B Edwards

SIR - In a recent article (March 6), Mary Kenny, having attended a Mass in the pre-Vatican II rite, says: "I am not sure I like the priest facing away from the people: it makes the celebrant seem distant and divided from the congregation."

In an interview (March 20) Cardinal George Pell is said to be sympathetic to the priest saying the Canon of the Mass with his back to the people.

The priest "facing away from the people" or "with his back to the people" seem to me to be unfortunate expressions, I prefer "priest and people facing the same way". That is how I always thought of it: the priest offering up Mass standing at the head of the congregation, the priest and all of the people facing in the same direction.

Perhaps this is an older perception. I attended Mass in the older rite for 40 years, almost as many years as I have attended attended Mass in the current Ordinary Rite.

Yours faithfully,
J B Edwards
Farnham, Surrey

God bless Jade

From Mr Anthony Redmond

SIR - There have been some who criticised the very public manner in which Jade Goody exposed her terminal cancer. I think she was courageous to the point of heroism.

Here was a feisty, down-to-earth young woman who lived her life to the last second with tremendous passion, zest and good humour. Indeed, she provided us all with a lesson in how to die with courage and dignity. She refused to adopt a morbid tone and continued to radiate joy and love till the very end.

Her deep love for her two little boys and for the rest of her family was profoundly moving and her wish to have herself and the two children christened was admirable. She refused to believe that our life here on earth simply ends in the silence of the grave.

I am sure that our Divine Lord will welcome her with open arms into His eternal kingdom of light, love and peace.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Redmond
Dublin

Condoms and assault

From Dr J D Miller

SIR - Quentin de la Bédoyère made an excellent point in his article (Comment, March ) on the Aids crisis when he suggested that the Church's teaching on contraception applies only to marriage.

The Church has a right and a duty to promote the ideals of Christian marriage. The reality is that many people engage in sexual intercourse outside marriage with the transmission of unwanted sperm and the exchange of sexually transmitted disease to the detriment of the couple. In such circumstances the prophylactic use of a condom (even if only 80 per cent effective) may be seen as a positive good.

The extramarital use of the sexual act is considered to be contrary to God's law, but not to use a prophylactic in these circumstances might be considered negligent and an assault upon one's neighbour.

Has any magisterial document made this clear?

Yours faithfully,
John Miller
London SE9

Vatican II: Was it inspired by the Devil?

From Mr Graham Moorhouse

SIR - Á propos Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, March 27): the present Holy Father, as Cardinal Ratzinger, stated that "some General Councils in the final analysis have been a complete waste of time". This is a statement that is surely inconsistent with the belief that they are inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Indeed, the Church has always taught that inspiration ended with the death of the last Apostle, therefore the statement that the Second Vatican Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost is clearly heretical. Furthermore, given the unprecedented damage done to the Church by this Council, this assertion is not only heretical, but blasphemous.

On the other hand, the statement that the Council was inspired by the Devil, while perhaps being somewhat simplistic and extreme, does at least have the merit of not being clearly heretical. Furthermore, this statement is surely not that far from Pope Paul VI's observation that, following this Council "the smoke of Satan had entered the Church".

Personally, I believe that to state that the Council was inspired by the world, in the guise of the zeitgeist, would be to state no more than the blindingly obvious, and be quite sufficient to explain its devastating fruits.

Yours faithfully,
Graham Moorhouse
Dartford, Kent

27 March 2009

Pope Benedict is not muddled when he pronounces on condoms

From Fr Bryan Storey

SIR - How ridiculous to suggest the Pope is muddling things up over the condom issue (Report, March 20). As with other so-called communication problems there are obvious attempts to promote a problem that's in fact created by his questioners, opponents and those appearing to explain for him. Nobody speaks with greater insight, wisdom and clarity on issues. He does not need any specialised help.

On this particular issue he says what has been ignored and needs highlighting. It's a change of inner attitude on the whole question of sexuality that is called for, rather than a discussion on methods of birth control.

No wonder his opponents thunder, make theatrical protests and call it a confusion. It is they who are confused and create confusion, making up good irresponsible stories.

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


From Mr Paul Kokoski

SIR - While few would compare Pope Benedict XVI to John Lennon, their methods of saving humanity are in some sense similar.

In the Sixties John Lennon pushed for peace with his anti-war sign: "War is over, if you want it." His message was meant to convey the simple fact that peace is merely a matter of the people willing it. Obviously, the fact that most nations and individuals are today at war with one another - both on the battlefields and in the court rooms - indicates that few people really want peace. Posing as peaceniks, what they really want is their own individual "rights" regardless of the consequences this may have for others.

This same kind of selfish freedom that has historically prevented peace also stands in the way of abolishing the Aids virus. Aids can be eradicated tomorrow if, as the Pope suggests, people were simply willing to exercise a little self-constraint and practise abstinence and marital fidelity.

Barring this refusal to submit oneself to the natural law no amount of money or mass influx of condoms to various nations will stop the spread of the deadly virus. On the contrary it will only aggravate the problem just as the fictitious kind of individual "rights" we have all championed since the Sixties has led to a mass proliferation of war and hostility.

Pope Paul VI rightly predicted back in 1968 that failure to follow the dictates of natural law on contraception would lead to a lowering of moral standards, a rise in infidelity and promiscuity, a lessening of respect for women and government-enforced limitations on population.

Ours is a time of continual movement which often leads to restlessness, with the risk of "doing for the sake of doing". We must resist this temptation by trying "to be" before trying "to do".

Yours faithfully,
Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada


From Mrs Maureen Thomas

SIR - Living in the West it is difficult for us to truly appreciate the issues surrounding Aids and condoms in Africa. I was struck by this thought when reading the reflections of Fr Michael Czerny SJ, director of the African Jesuit Aids Network, in America magazine. I hope you will allow me to quote him at some length.

He wrote: "We learn as we go along that Aids is very complex. HIV is a virus that reduces and destroys the immune system. But it's also a cultural, familial, communal and spiritual reality. The fight against Aids has to be carried forward on all those fronts. Westerners feel very strongly that the condom is the minimal responsible thing to do. But this is to make sexuality into a very individual choice: the exercise of sexuality is not embedded in marriage, much less in the larger cultural context...

"In Africa, sexual expression is rarely consensual and often coerced. Also - this is very important and why I feel the condom is not the answer - much of the propagation of HIV is older men giving it to younger girls...

"Aids is part and parcel of a whole syndrome of injustices. Let Africa find its rightful place in the world economy, and Aids will go away. Make international agricultural policy favourable to Africa, for example, and Africa will blossom. Aids will fade away because people will be able to earn their living and feed themselves properly."

Yours faithfully,
Maureen Thomas
Blackpool

Respecting dignity

From Mr B J Toolan

SIR - President Obama speaks for abortion, votes for abortion, and allocates money for abortion. Anyone who says that he is not pro-abortion is clearly confused about the difference between rational arguments and playing word games. When they are properly used, terms such as anti-abortion or pro-life can be used to clarify or generalise your arguments, but your thinking should be based on respect for the dignity and worth of each and every human being from conception to natural death.

This means that you have to refute the arguments of your political opponents rather than calling them war-mongering oppressors of the poor. The crucial difference between war and abortion is that war can sometimes be justified, but abortion can never be justified. Therefore anti-war campaigners are obliged to be anti-abortion, but pro-lifers have a right to choose not to be pacifists.

President Obama's allegedly kinder and gentler social policies are based on "sharing the wealth around", which was condemned by the Church in Rerum Novarum and shown to be impractical by the Soviet Union in 1991. From a pro-life point of view, the Republican policies of low taxation and limited government seem to be compatible with showing respect for the dignity and worth of the people who actually create wealth by allowing them to keep a reasonably high percentage of the fruits of their own labour.

In my opinion there are lots of pro-life issues and the Democrats are wrong about all of them, but Fr Morty O'Shea (Letters, March 20) is absolutely right about the paramount importance of stopping abortion. It would not be irresponsible to vote for an anti-abortion Democrat if you have no other anti-abortion candidates.

Yours faithfully,
B J Toolan
London N14

Darwin's legacy

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR - Regarding Peter Dyson's quotations (Letters, March 20) from Darwin's On the Origin of the Species: they are really immaterial as far as proving that Darwin was actually promoting belief in God via evolution. It's only natural that he would have downplayed the atheism inherent in evolution in order to ensure that his book would be read in the still quite religious mid-19th century.

It's not so much the way he attempted to justify his work by referring to the Deity which matters, but what his legacy in practical terms was. And any objective assessment of that legacy must acknowledge that putting evolutionary ideas into practice, as in Communism, Nazism and modern materialism, has been an absolute disaster for mankind. That is quite apart from the fact that evolutionary theory is completely at odds with the biblical account of the origins of mankind and 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

Quentin de la Bédoyère's says that he hasn't answered my points in an earlier letter because that is what his Second Sight blog is for. But in the nature of things, unless they are very well-known most blogs are marginal. The fact that theistic evolution is a complete break with Catholic tradition is a serious charge, and it should be answered in a serious way, that is in The Catholic Herald itself.

I would argue, though, that it cannot be answered sensibly - but let him prove me wrong. He points to the address by John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in 1996, where the pope said that the theory of evolution was more than a hypothesis. But the pope's words here were far from any sort of authoritative teaching, and actually opposed to previous papal teaching.

Pope Benedict has been trying to promote a "hermeneutic of continuity" of late as regards the correct interpretation of the liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council, but surely, it must be obvious that theistic evolution represents a massive hermeneutic of discontinuity with respect to everything the Church has previously taught regarding creation. This is the point which Quentin de la Bédoyère is not acknowledging.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Castle Donington, Leicestershire


From Fr Aldhelm Cameron-Brown OSB

SIR - In the March 18 edition of the English version of L'Osservatore Romano it is written: "Neither the Catholic Church, nor any of its notable exponents, has ever condemned either Darwinism or the theory of evolution."

Should that not put an end to any more controversies on the subject in your esteemed columns?

Yours faithfully,
Aldhelm Cameron-Brown
Prinknash Abbey,
Cranham, Glos

Cardinal Pell and the meaning of Vatican II

From Mr Kevin O'Neill

SIR - I am grateful to Cardinal Pell for articulating a specific teaching of Vatican II to which traditionalists are required to adhere, namely, that a Catholic state cannot compel belief (News feature, March 20).

The ambiguity of the premises underlying this idea are made manifest by your correspondent's understanding, which I share, that His Eminence, in his recent address at Oxford University, endorsed the concept of "civil partnerships", ie that the state can positively sanction immorality.

Assuming the accuracy of this understanding, the obvious falseness of this moral conclusion leads me to believe that it is in fact the Cardinal's interpretation of Vatican II that is in need of revision.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin O'Neill
London E14


From Mr Freddy Langton

SIR - Cardinal Pell struggled to name more than a couple of Vatican II teachings to which all Catholics must subscribe. Doesn't this suggest that the mainstream leadership of the SSPX has a point when it asks Rome for clarification about the Council?

Yours faithfully,
Freddy Langton
Leeds, West Yorkshire

Using innocents

From the general secretary of Catholic Concern for Animals

SIR - I write concerning your report "EU 'to put animals before embryos' " (March 20).

While members of Catholic Concern for Animals rejoice that our species will, to a limited extent, no longer be torturing other species - a "satanic" practice, according to Cardinal Newman - we regret deeply the continued use of other innocents: human embryos.

Two points on the first issue: first, a moral one - as rational creatures divinely privileged to care for and protect the whole of God's creation, we human beings have no right to abuse others of God's sentient living creatures. Then, practically, there is a mass of documented scientific research (I can direct inquirers to it) showing the useless and even counter-productive nature of toxicology and other pharmaceutical testing on non-human species.

This outdated and immoral practice continues only to give drug companies spurious "testing history" in order to avoid being sued when the drugs fail to work or actually make people more ill.

The second issue can be dealt with similarly: testing on human embryos is both immoral and, as your report shows, ineffective. The thousands of "surplus" embryos created during the in vitro fertilisation process are not, alas, destined to develop but to be destroyed outright or used for testing. The adult stem-cell testing could replace, as your report again shows, the use of embryos in tests - but not their destruction.

So this is really a separate issue, and one that also needs EU legislation, but while infertile couples resort to this means, is one unlikely to succeed.

Yours faithfully,
Deborah Jones
By email

Indisputable greats

From Mr Alan Pavelin

SIR - Most "best film" polls voted by the public consist almost entirely of recent Hollywood blockbusters. It was refreshing, therefore, to see the list of 100 films voted by Catholic Herald readers, in which about a third were non-Hollywood, and a half were made before 1975.

It was particularly refreshing to see the inclusion of at least five indisputable Christian masterpieces: Into Great Silence, Andrei Rublev, The Diary of a Country Priest, The Passion of Joan of Arc and The Gospel According to St Matthew.

At the risk of courting unpopularity, however, the top-rated film (The Passion of The Christ) is one that I regard as little more than a gratuitous gorefest.

Yours faithfully,
Alan Pavelin
Chislehurst, Kent

Utterly permissive

From the general manager of the Latin Mass Society

SIR - Tom McIntyre (Letters, March 20) threw up a smokescreen of vague words to hide his commitment to intemperate positions regarding the extraordinary form. But he should not be allowed to get away with it.

Firstly and importantly his charge that the Holy Father's Motu Proprio was intended to "outlaw" (Mr McIntyre now prefers the word "exclude") anything can not be supported by a reading of Summorum Pontificum - which is a short document, only two sides of an A4 sheet.

Let me quote the wise words of Dr Alcuin Reid, who as a liturgical scholar understands these things: "Let it be said plainly: because Summorum Pontificum gives no faculty to others to establish norms in respect of its ... implementation, 'norms' and 'guidelines' ... given by authorities other than the Holy See that restrict what the Motu Proprio in fact allows, cannot be binding or canonically valid (cf Canon 16.1). Let us also apply the principle of Canon 18 of the Code: Summorum Pontificum is not a restrictive law - it is an utterly permissive one - and so it ought not to be interpreted strictly, but permissively."

However, note that word "law". Summorum Pontificum is not the Pope's opinion or his advice, it is the universal law of the Church. Bishop John Fleming of Killala, Ireland, has just been ordered by the Ecclesia Dei Commission to remove the ban he had placed on Traditional Rite celebrations in his diocese in defiance of the Motu Proprio on the grounds that neither he nor his council of priests can restrict a right approved by the Pope.

Enough! Let me say that I wish to live in amity and mutual regard with all my fellow Catholics regardless of the Form to which they are attached. I only ask for the full freedom given to me under the Motu Proprio which requires that the Traditional Rite "must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage".

Yours faithfully,
John Medlin
By email

Removing choice

From the Revd Richard Martin

SIR - May I, as the former chaplain and head of religious studies at Magdalen College School, Oxford from 1992 to 2002, send my heartiest congratulations and thanks to Nick Thomas for his trenchant column (March 20) about the ill thought out proposal to admit girls to the sixth form?

We are told there is a "consultation period" but also that it is a done deal. The arrogance of this is matched by the cavalier attitude shown to the two excellent independent academic girls' schools in Oxford with whom the school has enjoyed excellent relations and co-operation until now, as well as the large independent co-educational school. The effect of this proposal will be to remove the possible choice of a boys' school, so parents who want one will have to go to Abingdon or the Oratory at Woodcote.

Of course, it is presented as a plan merely to expand the sixth form, but in nearly every case of a school that has done this, the pressure to admit younger girls becomes overwhelming in a few years, so the boys are deprived of the security of a male environment which so many of them desperately need for their formative years in these days of family breakdown. On a very restricted site, it will also mean fewer places for boys in the long run. And they are already heavily over-subscribed.

An indication of the changes the boys (who are strongly opposed to this proposal) face was provided by someone at the recent old boys' dinner, who stridently proclaimed: "Oh, we'll have to do something about that sixth form common room. Too smelly and full of testosterone." The ladies' powder room beckons. Incidentally, following last year's innovation of the admission of "partners" numbers were well down at the dinner this year, many having also stayed away in protest at this proposal. It was all very sad.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Martin
By email

We need a balanced discussion about the merits of Fairtrade

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

SIR - In his very constructive letter (March 6), Paul Chandler, CEO of Traidcraft, suggests that I have not fully grasped the processes involved in granting Fairtrade status. Unfortunately, I have.

As far as coffee is concerned, Fairtrade status can be granted if a cooperative pays the labelling organisation a sum which amounts to about 10 times average income for a country such as Kenya. Wholesalers are then charged about two per cent of turnover - this provides the main source of income for the Fairtrade Foundation. Furthermore, producers have to meet a number of guidelines relating to their production processes and corporate form - which may or may not be appropriate for producers in particular circumstances in under-developed countries. Producers also have to jump through a number of administrative hoops.

Why would producers want to bear these costs? The answer is that they hope to pass them on to consumers who are eager to buy certified products. This is generally possible, of course, and consumers will normally pay other increments to the price to finance social projects, the price floor, additional profits to retailers who benefit from consumers of Fairtrade products being relatively price insensitive etc.

All well and good. But what if the Fairtrade model is not convenient for the producer? It is a matter of what the French Catholic economist Frederic Bastiat, described as the "seen and the unseen". The poor producer will have to bear the costs or lose the trade of the "ethical" consumer. We have all seen the Fairtrade posters showing the benefits we bring to particular communities from buying Fairtrade produce.

But what happens if I, for example, switch out of a non-Fairtrade brand of Ethiopian speciality coffee, for whom the Fairtrade administrative requirements are not appropriate or too expensive, and into a Fairtrade brand? There are no posters showing the dilemma of the farmers for whom demand has fallen.

The fact is that there are many business mechanisms for achieving some of the aims of the fair trade movement that have been used for centuries. There has also never been any serious in-depth study of the general costs and benefits of fair trade. The anecdotes used by its supporters paint pictures that inform one side of the debate. The anecdotes used by its detractors suggest problems with aspects of the model and inform the other side of the debate.

My simple point is that the fair trade movement overstates its case - often dramatically; and it is highly defensive, even under mild criticism. It does not provide the answer, as Paul Chandler implies in his last full paragraph, to the problems caused by the mismanagement of monetary policy, of regulation and of the handling of risk in the banking system; and I am not, as he suggests, perversely attacking the movement. Fairtrade gets more than a fair ride, and it is reasonable to promote a balanced discussion.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Booth
London SW1

Creating a void

From Mr David Townsend

SIR - In commenting on Mr Sainty's robust support for maintaining the established status of the Church of England within our democratic constitution (Letter, March 6), I should at the outset, declare that I am a member of that branch of Christianity, albeit with close family ties with Roman Catholicism.

However, in common with Guy Sainty, I agree that the existence of a religious and spiritual dimension within our system of governance is a precious and beneficent influence on the life our nation. This dimension which happens to be provided by the C of E, with the Monarch as its Supreme Governor, is of course no more than the result of historical serendipity and it is far from being a perfect arrangement.

Nevertheless, disestablishment would create a void which any alternative denomination or religion would be unlikely to fill. The replacement of the Establish Church by some multi- purpose cocktail of sects and secular societies would be doomed to failure and could lead to a rapid and complete secularisation of the state.

Mr Sainty is not alone in recognising this reality. Many adherents of other Christian denominations and other faiths favour of a head of state who acknowledges a higher authority, and possibly even people of good will, without metaphysical beliefs, might feel reassured that legislation cannot be enacted without the assent of the Monarch, whose faith is grounded in the concept of loving one's neighbour as oneself.

With regard to the discriminatory elements in the Act of Settlement and the Royal Marriages Act, however, I can see no justification for their retention nor indeed why their amendment should entail the dismantling of our constitutional establishment. These provisions are not only anachronistic and grossly insulting to a large number of our citizens, but are self-evidently nonsensical.

The obvious assumption, embedded for more than three centuries in our constitution, is that the position of the hereditary Monarch and Supreme Governor of the Church of England should be held by an Anglican. A revised statute would need to merely prescribe this reasonable requirement, without specifically excluding Catholics or any other of the innumerable categories who would not qualify.

In addition, I believe there should be amending legislation to give the Royal Family and its relatives, including the Monarch, the same freedoms as the rest of us to marry the person of their choosing regardless of their beliefs; they should have the same rights as us in the education and upbringing of their children; and the principle of primogeniture with regard to the accession should be abolished.

These long-overdue changes would not only purge an embarrassing blemish from the heart of our constitution, but also remove the pretext of discrimination as cover for a secular agenda which Mr Sainty fears.

Yours faithfully,
David Townsend
Brentwood, Essex

Lions and lambs

SIR - It does not follow that just because Christ was not a vegetarian 2009 years ago that he would not be a vegetarian now (Letters, March 6).

It has in fact been foretold that in the latter and last days as at the beginning the tendency would be, from now carnivores towards herbivores. The lion shall lie down with the lamb and "they shall not hurt or harm in all my holy mountain". This is why at the beginning neither man nor dinosaurs were in danger of being eaten.

Yours faithfully,
James Campbell
Birkenhead

Warmer attitudes

From Mr John Ross Martyn

SIR - I was astounded to read that, in answering questions after his lecture to the Newman Society at Oxford, Cardinal Pell volunteered the information that he was in favour of some legal recognition of homosexual relationships (Report, March 13).

If he, and all other Catholic archbishops and bishops who hold similar views, had said this loudly and clearly when the possibility of such recognition was first raised, I think the attitude of gay men and women, their families and friends, towards the Church would now be much, much warmer than I believe it is.

Moreover, there might well have been a compromise in most or all the states of the United States, along European lines, with no "gay marriage" in the strict sense, but civil partnerships instead.

Yours faithfully,
John Ross Martyn
By email

The Vatican should open its Pius archives

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR - The continued allegations against the Church concerning its behaviour during the Second World War, its stance on the fate of the Jews and the truth about the role of Pope Pius XII, will not go away until we see an opening of all files and honest admission of findings of anti-Semitism, if it existed, being openly examined.

A question not asked often enough is: "Who were the Nazis?" The answer is simple: Nazis came from every walk of life, almost every faith and none, many were also not German. Many "Christians" thought it possible to be a good Nazi too.

I do not believe that the Catholic Church was unaware of the many concentration camps scattered throughout heavily Catholic populated areas of Europe. Someone must have known that camps were taking in tens of thousands of Jews and others yet none were coming out - how could these camps have held such numbers unless the inhabitants were being mass murdered?

You only have to look at the Catholic connection over many decades in Europe and Latin America where so many brutal Fascist regimes were also devout Catholic to realise that our Church has existed side by side with such evil regimes.

The controversy surrounding "Bishop" Richard Williamson has once again ignited the flames. Cries of "unfair" by the Vatican will not silence the suspicion that there is a lot we are hiding.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1

Beautiful forms

From Mr Peter Dyson

SIR - Quentin de la Bédoyere quite rightly points out in his article (March 6) that the Church has nothing to fear from the theory of evolution.

It has been noticeable that in the recent broadcast programmes about Darwin the suggestion has been made more than once that his theory of Natural Selection removed the need for a Creator.

In fact Darwin himself in On the Origin of Species tells us: "I see no reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone ... A celebrated author and divine has written to me that he has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws."

It was unfortunate that other divines, like the then Bishop of Oxford, chose to condemn the new theory.

The final sentence in On the Origin of Species sums up Darwin's views on the matter. Referring to the theory of Natural Selection he says: "There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

The fact that, embittered by the death of his children, Darwin later lost his belief in God does not invalidate the case he made about the relationship between his theory and religion.

Yours faithfully,
Peter Dyson
Cawood, North Yorkshire


From the science editor of The Catholic Herald

SIR - Donal Anthony Foley (Letter, March 13) chides me for not dealing with the points he and others have made on the question of evolution. But that is what www.secondsightblog.com is for. Not everyone uses a computer but I imagine that most can view the blog through the help of a friend. For a view of the papacy on the question, go to http://www. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm and read the late Pope's address to The Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Yours faithfully,
Quentin de la Bedoyere
By email

Positive sentiments

From Mr Christian Copus

SIR - I was pleased to read your comments on Jade Goody's conversion to Christianity (Leading article, March 13). Conspicuous by its absence was any demand to publicly recant for previous misdemeanours or views incompatible with Christian teaching - and rightly so.

What a pity that so many in our community found it impossible to express similarly positive and charitable sentiments when our former Prime Minister converted to Catholicism.

Yours faithfully,
Christian Copus
London SW12

A killing machine

From Fr Morty O'Shea, SOLT

SIR - I beg to differ from the mentality (Letter, March 6) that seeks to differentiate between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Indeed such a mindset exhibits part absorption of - and part deception by - the logic of the greatest killing machine ever assembled in history. It would be patently ridiculous to label as "pro-choice" a national leader that allowed the mass killing of any segment of born humanity - be they babies, blacks, Jews, indigenous people or whosoever.

It should be equally intolerable to label as "pro-choice" those who deprive pre-born humanity of their right to life and allow their mass destruction (50 million in America to date).

Furthermore, I don't accept that complicity in the mass killing of any segment of humanity (born or pre-born) can be offset by other positive policies be they Kyoto, lesser degrees of imperialism and war mongering, care for the poor, etc.

Yours faithfully,
Morty O'Shea
Carmarthen

Paragons of virtue

From Mr Eric Conway

SIR - I have to admit to being on the side of Andrew Cusack in his spat with David Barrett regarding General Franco (Letter, March 13).

It seems to me that Mr Cusack was quite reasonably making the point that while we are up to our necks in books and articles vilifying the nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War their Stalinist opponents are treated as blameless paragons of virtue.

No one would reasonably argue that General Franco was not a very ruthless dictator. Nevertheless, history has surely proven that he was by some considerable distance the lesser of two evils. In the interests of fairness and balance, it is only right that we should be made more (or at least equally) aware of the horrific atrocities committed by the Republicans in that horrible conflict. Given the subsequent history of Eastern Europe it is plausible to argue that Spain was ultimately better for Franco's victory.

Yours faithfully,
Eric Conway
Navan, Co Meath

The Tridentine Mass is out of the Ordinary

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - John Medlin of the Latin Mass Society (LMS) accuses me of astonishing inaccuracy (Letter, March 13). The charge is unjust.

He says first that using "outlaw" of the Holy Father's exclusion of the Tridentine Mass from the Ordinary use is "foreign to Pope Benedict's approach". But inept word-choice does not vitiate the sense. Gentle and kindly the papal manner may be; but the exclusion is a fact.

John Medlin then lists the areas where the Pope does allow the Extraordinary use, adding that these "seem pretty ordinary" to him. But "ordinary" is not "Ordinary". The capital distinguishes "God" from "god". And the Catechism of the Catholic Church distinguishes between "Tradition" - the living, developing doctrine of Popes and Councils - and "tradition" - custom that the Church may abolish or restrict. Or does John Medlin think that the Pope's distinction between "Ordinary" and "Extraordinary" is no more than labelling?

The liturgical momentum of Vatican II stumbled for want of catechesis; and those public dissenters that Cardinal Ratzinger blamed for the stumble - zealots who would only use the potently emotive Tridentine rite and zealots who made up their own Mass texts and invented modishly emotive rituals - erred mostly, I suspect, through ignorance.

Equally the resultant confusion, and the wrong-headed retreat into neo-conservatism that the then cardinal condemned could not have thrived among a well-instructed faithful. Summorum Pontificum is no doubt partly to guarantee Lefebvrists a place in the Church if they stop calling Vatican II a Freemason plot; but it also clears the decks for the Pope's long-planned intitiative - a fresh liturgical start, reviving the bright, confident morning and the spiritual aspirations of the Council he was so much a part of.

The LMS's part can only be to accept the living continuity of the Ordinary Use from the Tridentine and this time to learn - and, one hopes, teach - the reasons for that fresh growth.

Yours faithfully,
TOM McINTYRE
Frome, Somerset

Private papal support for evolution doesn't mean that Catholics have to support the theory

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR - Regarding Quentin de la Bédoyère's latest Science and Faith column (March 6), in which he airily dismisses those people who have criticised his views on evolution, including myself, I note that he has made no coherent attempt to answer the points put forward in my letter (February 27). Just because the Church hasn't condemned evolution, that doesn't make it true, nor does the fact that some recent popes have apparently shown some private support for evolution make it true. That support has to be judged in the light of the whole of the Church's traditional teaching in this area, spanning nearly 2,000 years now.

He states that: "It might be as well to start by saying that biological evolution is simply a matter of well-evidenced fact." In this statement he is confusing tangible facts with a theory which attempts to explain those facts in a particular way. Those facts can be better explained in Creationist terms, and this is what is increasingly happening as the flaws in evolutionary thinking become ever more apparent.

Quentin de la Bédoyère also states, regarding the Genesis account of creation, that "we know that it is both inspired yet cannot be a historical account".

However, in a teaching which it can be strongly argued is infallible, and thus immutable, Pope Leo XIII, in commenting on the origin of marriage, stated in the encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae (1880): "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.

"God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time."

In saying this, Pope Leo was really just reiterating the whole traditional teaching on this subject since the time of Christ, and thus ruling out any form of human evolution.

Quentin de la Bédoyère's statements about what Christ knew about or thought about creation are confused, but it would appear that he is saying that Christ went along with the traditional view of creation, even though he knew it was erroneous. Christ was both God and Man and to say that he was ignorant about such an important, indeed crucial, matter must simply be wrong. In fact, all the statements from him on this subject we have in the gospels clearly indicate that he considered Genesis to be straight-forward history.

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Castle Donington, Leicestershire

From Dr Douglas Darcy

SIR - The controversy over evolution (Letters, February 27) is soluble for Catholics. Darwin's discovery of evolution by natural selection is now part of the scientific canon.

There is a mountain of evidence for it and I know of no biologist who denies it. It explains how God populated the earth with plants and animals and filled every available niche. It does not conflict with Catholic doctrine.

What is debatable and a legitimate subject for controversy is all the extrapolations and speculations on the original discovery, even those made by Darwin himself. Catholics must be careful not to bring the Church into disrepute - we don't want another Galileo debacle on our hands.

Yours faithfully,
Douglas Darcy
Sevenoaks, Kent

A positive approach

From the chief executive and director of the Catholic Education Service

SIR - Your report, "Church is alarmed by new code for teachers" (March 6), failed to give a balanced representation of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales's response to the GTCE Draft Code of Conduct and Practice.

While it is true that we expressed some concern about Principle 4 of the Code in particular, our impressions of the Code were generally positive - something that the article failed to convey. Furthermore, the implication that we had suggested the Code would force large numbers of teachers out of the profession is, at the very least, disingenuous.

The CES remains committed to working in cooperation with the General Teaching Council to design a fair and transparent code that will serve the teaching profession and society as a whole.

Yours faithfully,
Oona Stannard
London SW1

Some or none?

From Mr Alan Bancroft

SIR_- I warmly applaud Archbishop Nichols in one regard but am disturbed by his apparent stance in another. His recently reported comment that "Sex education, as popularly understood... will never alone guide our youngsters", and that "they, like all of us, need clear moral principles", enunciated a truth that greatly needs to be heard (Report, March 6).

Wholly apposite as that is to our Catholic secondary schools, a vital question remains concerning our primary schools. By the tenor of his support for Oona Stannard (Letter, February 27) His Grace appears tacitly to endorse Ms Stannard's acceptance of the principle that by statute some sex education shall be given to Catholic children of primary school age.

But the Vatican's clear and firm guidance is that no sex education should be given to very little ones. "Attempts to impose premature sex information on children ... compromise the spiritual, moral and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence." Parents "should politely but firmly resist" such attempts, the Vatican declares.

Doubtless Ms Stannard won ameliorations of certain of the worst aspects of what this secular Government desires for our schools. Good. But "some" sex education at a tender age is incompatible with the "none" of the Vatican guidance. (Any idea that the information given would be inexplicit seems dispelled by Ms Stannard's acceptance that the very young should be told to "name body parts".)

Do our hierarchy accept the above guidance of the Pontifical Council for the Family? Accepting it, will they not fight to uphold it?

Yours faithfully,
Alan Bancroft
By email

Building unity

From the general manager of the Latin Mass Society

SIR - I continue to be astonished by the inaccurate claims made by those critical of the extraordinary form of the Mass and the Holy Father's Motu Proprio.

Tom McIntyre (Letters, March 6) last week inveighed against "the demand for the Ordinary use for the Tridentine Mass" and claimed that this is "something the Holy Father's settlement outlawed".

First, the use of an aggressive term such as "outlawed" is completely foreign to Pope Benedict's approach.

Second, Article 3 of the Motu Proprio gives entire communities or institutes of consecrated life the right to celebrate the Traditional Mass "often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major". And that's it - there is no other bar to entire religious orders switching permanently to the Traditional Rite - as some communities are now doing, both in Britain and Europe.

Further, in Article 10 we are told: "The ordinary of a particular place ... may erect a personal parish... for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman Rite"; in other words local bishops may designate churches for the exclusive celebration of the Traditional Rite. We are slow to do this in Britain but it is an increasingly common option being followed by bishops in Europe and America.

All the above sounds pretty "ordinary" to me. And that's what Pope Benedict wants: an "ordinary" situation of amity and fraternal regard in which parishes and communities, regardless of the Rite they use, build up the unity of the Church rather than indulge in polemics.

Yours faithfully,
John Medlin
London WC2

In praise of Pius XII

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - It is about time that the record was set straight in respect to the wartime pontificate of Pope Pius XII (Report, February 27). For far too long Pius has been slandered and maligned by people who should know better.

The information presented in your important report has been know for decades and indeed on his death no slander was raised about his actions in favour of Jewish people.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII is arguably the only pope in history who has received so many tributes from Jews, either individually or from organisations. As your report rightly points out, the slander of Pope Pius stems from the Soviet-funded delusional play by Rolf Hochhuth, The Deputy. Sadly his delusions have been picked up by the political correct without and within the Church with renowned theologians such as Hans Küng jumping on the bandwagon.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
West Harrow, Middlesex

Oppressive reign

From Mr David V Barrett

SIR_- I'm afraid that Andrew Cusack (Letter, March 6) has entirely misunderstood my point. I am not criticising those who, at the time, supported the Nationalist cause in the Spanish Civil War. In any civil war friends, even families, are torn apart as people find themselves choosing one side or the other for a host of reasons, which often include religion. It is hardly surprising that many Spanish Catholics should have supported the side which was not opposed to Catholicism. That was not my point.

I am criticising those people who today, not caught up in the immediacy of the civil war, and with the benefit of historical knowledge, still appear to think that Franco was A Good Thing for Spain and the Spanish people. Or is Mr Cusack arguing that because Franco fell asleep in cabinet meetings he was unaware of and bore no responsibility for the thousands who were executed, the thousands who were murdered, the thousands who died in labour camps, the thousands who disappeared, the thousands who were tortured and the thousands who were imprisoned by his oppressive regime long after the civil war was over?

What about the decades of denial of freedom of speech and freedom of choice, whether political democracy or cultural diversity in Spain's regions?

I am afraid that despite all of Mr Cusack's protestations he still gives the impression that all of these evils were excusable, because Franco was pro-Catholic. If I am mistaken in this, I would be delighted to be corrected, by a simple statement from Mr Cusack that Franco was a murdering dictator under whose oppressive reign countless thousands suffered and died.

Yours faithfully,
David V Barrett
London E13

The whole child

SIR - Noticing that you have given a lot of space to independent schools recently, I am sure you will let me say a few words of interest to those readers looking for a school in the state sector.

My school, St Dominic's Catholic Primary in north London, has a limited number of places immediately available in Years 1 to 6. The school's ethos is nurtured by our vibrant, Dominican-led parish, which straddles Hampstead and Kentish Town. We offer the national curriculum, enriched by our strong tradition of music, dance and drama, aiming to educate the whole child (girls and boys).

Any interested parents should contact our head: head@stdominics.camden.sch.uk.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Pellegrinetti
London NW5

Humane statement

From J Bensall

SIR - In your report (February 27) it was good to read the humane statement of Dr Philip Howard that he will never allow one of his patients to die of thirst. This must be a terrible way to die.

It amazes me that some people are prepared to sign a "living will" which may condemn them to such a death.

Yours faithfully,
J Bensall
Dartford, Kent

St Bede is the pride of Sunderland

From Mr John Watson

SIR - There were two mistakes in your report (February 27) on St Bede.

First, Bede was placed in the monastery of St Peter at Wearmouth, which is now the city of Sunderland. I found the statement that the monastery was near Newcastle upon Tyne inaccurate and insulting to the people of Sunderland.

Second, Bede was not a Benedictine. The twin monastery of Wearmouth / Jarrow was founded by Benedict Biscop - the patron saint of Sunderland - who composed the Rule himself and who was influenced by a variety of sources.

It is doubtful that Bede is buried in Durham Cathedral.

Yours faithfully,
John Watson
Sunderland

From Mr Russell Sparkes

SIR - I was pleased to see the recent article about St Bede, the only Englishman to become a Doctor of the Church (Report, February 27).

On his death bed Bede composed a poem which was widely influential both in his time and for centuries thereafter. This is shown below in modern translation, taken from my anthology Sound of Heaven - an Anthology of Catholic Verse.

SAINT BEDE c670-735

Death Song
Before this forced journey,
That none may escape,
The wise man feels the need
To consider, before
His going hence,
The state of his soul.
Is it pure with good,
Or stained with evil?
On the death-day,
Will it be judged worthy?

Yours faithfully,
Russell Sparkes
London SW14

No place for denial

From Mr Kevin Greenan

SIR - Thirty years ago I was honoured to be the only Christian guest at a Jewish home in North London. Among the many guests I was introduced to was an elderly lady who had survived the concentration camps and had the numbers tattooed on her wrist to prove it. When the frail old lady was told I was a Christian she pulled away showing both fear and anger. I did not understand what she said. My host apologised to me. I insisted no apology was needed and wanted to know what had been said. I was told that the lady said "too many of the camp guards wore the Christian cross".

That "Bishop" Richard Williamson, who has publicly denied the Holocaust, should return to these shores is his business, that our Church should consider accepting him back into our flock is ours. No apology forced out of him by the Vatican will ever convince me that he is sincere. We are a broad Church and for this we should be grateful; the day we become so broad that we accept anti-Semites and those who deny the Holocaust is a day many of us will no longer be able to stay.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Greenan
London SW1

The real St David

From Dr R I Daniel

SIR - Regarding the article on St David (February 27), please allow me the following comments.

First, the title David Aquaticus ("David the Waterman"). To quote the late Canon J B Davies, an authority on the Welsh saints: "David seems to have acquired his nickname ... not for total abstinence, which would be taken for granted in such a strict order, but for his daily practice of immersing himself in cold water for long periods of prayer, a severe form of penance which had not died out in Bede's time." Instances of this practice are specifically cited in some accounts of the early British / Welsh saints (eg St Illtud).

Second, much of early hagiography is admittedly a mixture of fact and fiction, and Rhygyfarch's Life of David is no exception. A sympathetic and intelligent reading of it can none the less discern some likelihoods. I am thinking in particular of the words of his last sermon: "Lords, brothers and sisters, be joyful and keep your faith and belief, and do the little things which you heard from and saw in me."

Yours faithfully,
R I Daniel
By email

Fairtrade helps consumers make a real difference to the lives of poor producers

From the chief executive of Traidcraft

SIR - Prof Philip Booth is right in saying Christians should not be obliged to, or bullied into buying Fairtrade products (Comment, February 20). But he is also right when he says we all must take the Church's social teaching very seriously.

We are all consumers and consumption involves moral choices. For Christians, of whatever denomination, those choices will be informed by their understanding of the Gospel imperatives to love and serve the world, preferring self-sacrifice to self-interest, generosity of spirit to hardness of heart.

He is also right when he says Fairtrade does not have a monopoly of virtue. We have never claimed it. Unfortunately, in his critique of the way in which the Fairtrade Mark is awarded to products, Prof Booth hasn't fully grasped the processes involved, but we'll leave that aside for now. The process is rigorous, lengthy and, yes, costly - as it needs to be if the consumer is to have any confidence in the guarantees of fair reward, working conditions and social benefit which attach to it.

An accreditation which is freely bestowed and lacks robust standards is likely to fail at the first challenge.

Rather unfairly, Prof Booth goes on to dismiss the entire Fairtrade School initiative on the basis of one piece of homework which he finds questionable - but then excuses the behaviour of multinationals by accusing the fair trade movement of "generalising from particular examples of abuse".

And he makes the case for us when he acknowledges that "fair trade's strongest card is that it goes into markets where there is little information, where primary producers can be, and often are, exploited and makes sure that they get a just market price. It also provides sources of credit and forward pricing agreements that might not be available." Precisely.

He is equally correct in his assertion that "ultimately poor producers of primary products need wider and better economic opportunities that can only come from development based on the rule of law, secure property rights and a free economy". Which is why Traidcraft, through its trading company and its charity, is working hard to provide those opportunities, to defend the property rights of indigenous artisans, and to keep the economies of developing countries free from the devastating consequences of trade agreements engineered to allow unfettered access to their markets for the hugely subsidised industries and agriculture of the EU and US.

Prof Booth is, of course, entitled to his view - but he must accept that it is rejected by increasing numbers of consumers, inside and outside the Church, who see their everyday purchases making a real difference to the lives of people they will never know and never meet on the other side of the planet.

And, at a time when the deficiencies of the prevailing economic model have never been more apparent, it seems curious, if not perverse, of Prof Booth to attack an approach to trade which is delivering clear and identifiable benefits to hundreds of thousands of poor producers, defending their livelihoods, extending their opportunities and modelling an approach to business and the conduct of trade founded on solid Christian principles.

Buying fair trade has never been a matter of coercion - it's a matter of conscience.

Your faithfully,
Paul Chandler
By email

We should be antidisestablishmentarianists

From Mr Guy Stair Sainty

SIR - The frequent reports of Christians suffering from discrimination because of their faith marks an increasingly strident campaign by militant secularists. Unfortunately, some Catholic leaders have unwittingly espoused policies that strengthen these extremists. Will a peerage for Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor give him a platform to campaign forcefully for Catholic religious freedom or lead to political compromise? If canon law allows him a seat in the legislature will he inspire those Anglican bishops to take a strong stands on moral issues on which they have been generally silent?

Demands for repeal of the discriminatory clauses of the Act of Settlement have been echoed by columnists on this paper and readers on its letters pages. This plays straight into the hands of militant secularists - it is hardly surprising that the latest advocate in Parliament is a strident opponent of Catholic moral teaching. Royal princes and princesses have always known that in their choice of spouse they must avoid romance with Catholics; is that really such a terrible burden for them to bear? Will the Cardinal support such a reform or recognise its consequences?

The most obvious result of repeal will be the accelerated disestablishment of the Church of England. Some Catholics may believe this is a desirable end - after all it gives a privileged position to one branch of the Christian faith. Most of those calling for this publicly, however, hope to undermine Christianity and the constitutional monarchy. How will the new Lord Murphy-O'Connor, a temporal and not a spiritual peer under present law, react when faced with strongly opposing views within the Anglican Church itself? Unless he abstains he is bound to offend one or other side.

Disestablishment will make it legitimate to either exclude Christianity from every public or official celebration and ceremony or insist that Catholics and Calvinists, Muslims and Jews, Mormons and Scientologists, atheists and Druids be given equal standing at such occasions. How easy it will be for Richard Dawkins and his like to mock religions when together they compose such a bizarre fellowship.

With more practising Muslims in Great Britain than Anglicans, why should the views of Church of England bishops be given any more credit than those of extremist imams? Why should England's great cathedrals, which benefit from local tax exemptions and heritage grants, be preserved for the exclusive use of the Church of England? How long before atheists demand access to them to celebrate "winterval" or other even more bizarre commemorations? Questions as to the "public benefit" of religious institutions will surely lead to a loss or diminution of charitable status, as it has for independent schools.

Over the last 40 years Catholic bishops have participated in most of the great religious ceremonies of the state; if Great Britain ceases to be in law a Christian country all the churches may be excluded. The abolition of faith schools will follow along with the extension of discrimination laws to force every Christian institution to subscribe to the values of the secular state. If we want to preserve this country's Christian ethos and culture Catholics should subscribe enthusiastically to the antidisestablishmentarianist cause and accept that the discrimination inherent in the Protestant Settlement carries with it benefits which vastly outweigh the penalties. I hope that a future Lord Murphy-O'Connor, even sitting as an ordinary Life Baron, will recognise this.

Yours faithfully,
Guy Stair Sainty
Le Vésinet, France

A devoted bishop

From Patrick and Pauline Haynes

SIR - We were very disappointed in your correspondent's report on his interview (February 13) with Bishop John Hine, who chairs the bishops' marriage and family life committee.

Those of us who have been working on marriage and family life matters over many years have found in him a bishop who really understands the realities of marriage and who has put in endless hours year on year in promoting the welfare of the married couple and the Catholic family.

He is approachable and knowledgable and the last thing we would say of him is that he is unsure of what he should say on this vitally important area for the future of our Church.

Pope John Paul II himself said that the future of our Church depends on the family. We all know that marriage is constantly under attack by the media and that the family has been let down by successive governments.

If our marriages and families do not receive the help and support they need and deserve from our Church leaders, the future is bleak. Bishop Hine has constantly stood up for marriage and the family.

We need many more bishops like him.

Yours faithfully,
Patrick and Pauline Haynes
Bishop's Stortford, Herts

Praying by the rules

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - Philip Goddard asks why (Letters, February 27), when the Pope has signalled an end to liturgical strife in the Church, I "seem so anxious to continue it"?

If he re-reads the correspondence he will see that I was actually warning against continuing it: in particular by the demand for the Ordinary use for the Tridentine Mass - something the Holy Father's settlement outlawed.

I was not accusing the Latin Mass Society of wilful disregard for the Pope's generous concessions, but pointing out that if the Society did not observe them exactly they risked encouraging the irreconcilables - those, for instance, who despite Summorum Pontificum still reject the Ordinary use, claiming that it is not what the Magisterium intended; I might have added priests who neglect their bishops' liturgical provision even though the Pope stressed in his covering letter that his Motu Proprio was not to be interpreted in that way.

I share the Pope's and Philip Goddard's concern for the peace of Jerusalem. But its terms must be observed if the peace is to hold.

Yours faithfully,
TOM McINTYRE
Frome, Somerset

Fussing over food

From Mr Graham Moorhouse

SIR - If vegetarianism is so self-evidently moral and right (Letters, February 20), one can only wonder why Christ wasn't a vegetarian. Indeed, I seem to remember that Christ was somewhat critical of those who fussed about what went into their bellies.

Yours faithfully,
Graham Moorhouse
Dartford, Kent

Untenable nature

From Mr A R Horner

SIR - Regarding the recent correspondence concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution (Letters, February 20 and 27), I would like to say that this theory, even though it may be valid in respect of variations within a particular species, has never been more than a working hypothesis.

In Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves Dr James Le Fanu sets out, in non-technical language, the incontrovertible evidence that has too long been ignored and that proves the untenable nature of the Darwinian hypothesis of gradual evolution by the "survival of the fittest".

He refers to "the shocking inadequacy of biology's foundational evolutionary doctrine" which can only account for variations within species. As Dr Le Fanu shows in his book, the doctrine is not simply flawed and incomplete, but the idea that natural selection could be the cause of the diversity of life is actually contradicted by a huge amount of scientific evidence.

Darwinists and neo-Darwinists believe in evolution by natural selection, despite the many difficulties of the theory, because it avoids the need to accept anything non-material or supernatural such as a Creator God. I suggest that one of the main reasons for the rejection of such an entity is because that God has often been portrayed in the past in a simplistic and inappropriate manner. Also, as James Le Fanu suggests, the hostility towards religion expressed by some proponents of evolutionary theory can be interpreted as a rhetorical device to divert attention from the weaknesses inherent in that theory.

Yours faithfully,
A R Horner
Northampton

Kinder policies

From Mr Frank Beswick

SIR - Abortion is not the only life issue (Letters, February 20). President Obama is pro-choice (note, not pro-abortion) but not keen on war and imperialistic domination of the planet. He also supports Kyoto, which is the best option for alleviating environmental chaos and the mass human suffering and death that would follow. He adopts generous social policies that do something for America's gravely neglected poor.

The Republicans claimed to be anti-abortion, but they opposed these humane policies. As some women turn to abortion out of despair and poverty I think that Obama's kinder social policies may well do more to save lives than the anti-abortion but socially neglectful stance that the Republican party takes.

A pro-life stance arises from the Catholic spirit and one cannot be a Catholic without it, but our political judgments must be thoughtful and measured. Supporting a warmonger and oppressor of the poor (as some Catholics did with Bush) merely because he says that he is anti-abortion is simply irresponsible.

Yours faithfully,
Francis Beswick
Stretford, Manchester

The limits of love

From Mrs Felicity Crow

SIR - Paul Waddington (Letters, February 27) is very quick to champion Christian love towards members of the SSPX. How about those priests excommunicated for marrying and raising God-fearing Christian families?

Yours faithfully,
Felicity Crow
Stroud, Gloucestershire

Standard package

From Mr Richard Ashton

SIR - Sol Oyuela of Cafod (Letter, February 20) surely shoots himself in the foot. While denying any ideological preconceptions, he helpfully summarises key tenets of the green-Left manifesto: that the world's poor should continue tilling the soil rather than producing what is most likely to raise them out of poverty; that we know what the climate is going to do for the next century, who is responsible, and what to do about it; that the poor could consume more if we consumed less; that free market economics is responsible for third world poverty.

All these claims may be self-evident truths to the folks at Cafod, but there is a serious intellectual case against each of them. They belong precisely to green-Left ideology, and most definitely form no part of the Catholic social teaching tradition.

Being concerned about the desperate plight of the world's poor is not the same as knowing how to improve matters. Cafod has formulated its own view, and it is not one which Catholics should feel obliged to support. There are many organisations working selflessly to bring to the poor the Gospel of hope combined with practical help, while remaining faithful to Catholic teaching and tradition, and without adopting the standard package of politically correct views on climate change and economic development.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Ashton
By email

Thought policeman

From Mr Andrew Cusack

SIR - David V Barrett (Letter, February 20) apparently longs for there to have been a liberal democratic option during the Spanish Civil War, but the historical reality is that no such option existed. The only choices available were the Nationalists and the Communists.

We have laid out plentiful arguments that the Nationalist cause, while not ideal, was nonetheless much more preferable (especially from the Catholic perspective) than the Communist alternative. Mr Barrett has not offered us a single counter-argument, but has instead resorted to name-calling and given us a series of curt, broad misrepresentations of the carefully considered objections to his way of thinking.

Perhaps Mr Barrett, in his role as thought policeman, could enlighten us as to precisely what views "belong" in the "liberal, democratic 21st century"? Does he seriously contend that Catholics should have supported the Communist regime in Spain, bent on the complete destruction of the Church and oppressive of not only its opponents but also of its supporters, when the Nationalist side offered the Church freedom, and a dictator so uninterested in government that he often fell asleep in cabinet meetings? We await his justifications; they have been non-existent up to this point.

Yours faithfully,
ANDREW CUSACK
University of Stellenbosch,
South Africa

A genuine debate about creation and evolution is developing among Catholics

From Mr Donal Anthony Foley

SIR - Regarding Quentin de la Bédoyère's article (February 6) supportive of evolution and the critical response this generated on your letters page (February 13), I would like to make a few comments. First, this critical response wouldn't have happened 10 years ago, or even five, so it is a sign that a real debate about creation and evolution is developing among Catholics.

Indeed, here are signs that many Catholics are increasingly suspicious of the whole idea of evolution, particularly as hard evidence for it is lacking, and the cosmos as we know it can be much better explained in terms of creation. For example, it is clear now that the idea that a very simple life-form could have evolved in some sort of "primeval soup" is a non-starter - even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and just could not have been assembled by chance, let alone reproduce itself. This is clear from books such as molecular biologist Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Ironically, for Christians the only way the theory can only be rescued is by recourse to the idea that God somehow initiated the process and intervenes when necessary. This is the principle of theistic evolution, an idea that secular evolutionists dismiss with scorn - and why shouldn't they given that the whole purpose of the theory of evolution is to do away with the need for God?

The big problem with theistic evolution is that Christianity is a revealed religion, and God has told us how the world and mankind were created in the early chapters of the Bible, with further important teachings in the Wisdom literature and the Psalms.

Apart from that, the whole weight of the tradition of the Church has been solidly in favour of believing that the earth and mankind were specially created, and this is also the teaching we find in the New Testament, as coming from Christ and St Paul. It was also the virtually unanimous position of the Church Fathers. In short, there is nothing in the Bible as a divine revelation, or Church tradition, which can really be equated with theistic evolution. (More information on this topic can be found at: www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/creation.html)

As Catholics, shouldn't we be putting our faith in the Word of God rather than in the totally unproven myth of evolution, even in its theistic guise, particularly since the practical results of believing in evolution - Communism, Nazism, and modern materialism - have proved to be so disastrous for the Church and the world?

Yours faithfully,
Donal Anthony Foley
Castle Donington, Leicestershire


From Count Quentin de la Bédoyère

SIR - A number of criticisms of my article on evolution were published from correspondents in your issue of February 13. Some of these will be answered by reading the article more carefully, and I will write about others in due course. But a couple of factual points should to be made to avoid confusion.

Mr Mason suggests that chromosomes must be lost or gained for evolution to operate. Not true. The change in species relates mainly to mutations in replication of DNA. Number of chromosomes do change, although rarely, and they are not all damaging. For example, the hominid line lost a pair of chromosomes, compared with the ape, somewhere along the way. The process, which relates to meiosis, is not Darwinian.

Mr Moore casts doubt on the "peppered moth fallacy". He will find an authoritative description in the latest Encyclopedia Britannica, to which I refer him.

Yours faithfully,
Quentin de la Bedoyere
London SW19

Taking up the cudgels for poor producers

From Mr George Gelber, Cafod's senior policy adviser

SIR - Philip Booth is right to point out that not all fair trade is Fairtrade with the familiar FairTrade logo. It is a tribute to the success of the Fairtrade Foundation since it was founded in 1992, by Cafod among others, that so many other organisations and companies have also taken up the cudgels for a fairer deal for third world producers.

Coffee producers, like other producers of primary commodities, are subject to the vagaries of the market. We have known for many years that farm products can be subject to wild swings in price and that is one reason why in the UK, in years past, we had marketing boards to even out the ups and downs of the market.

The Fairtrade Foundation seeks to do the same for coffee, protecting growers by providing a minimum price which is above the cost of production. The Fairtrade Foundation sources its coffee from small producers and cooperatives, not large plantations. This does not mean that large plantations cannot have exemplary conditions for their workers. Some surely do - but in general large producers are much more able to cushion themselves from adverse market conditions than small producers.

The Fairtrade Foundation provides this protection for small farmers by guaranteeing a minimum price for their coffee. For nine years, from 1998 to 2007, the average international coffee price was below this floor price, and only rose above it in December 2007. In 2002 the average price of just under US 65 cents was less than half what it is now. The Fairtrade Foundation was a lifeline to thousands of small coffee producers.

And it's not just aid agencies and their supporters who worry about unfair trade: in 2003 the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) pointed out that, according World Bank estimates, "between 1975 and 1993, producers of seven basic commodities worldwide were underpaid as much as US$96 billion. Ten years ago the world coffee economy was worth US$30 billion, of which producers received US$12 billion. In 2002 it was worth US$50 billion, yet producers received just $8 billion of that total."

The Fairtrade Foundation cannot solve all the problems of the coffee market. Not all small farmers who would qualify as Fairtrade producers can be accommodated - but this should not be held against the Fairtrade Foundation which has worked hard, and successfully, to grow the market for fairly traded produce. These efforts and the awareness raising work of the Fairtrade Foundation have helped to create the space for other companies, such as Union Coffee, founded in 2001 and praised by Philip Booth, to come to the market with their own version of fair trade.

Yours faithfully,
George Gelber
London SW9

The SSPX and France's extreme Right

From Fr Julian G Shurgold

SIR - I concede to Kevin Morton (Letter, February 13) that my letter (February 6) may have sounded rather like the elder son in the Prodigal Son parable - I've always felt he had something of a raw deal - and I'm also prepared to concede that I was less than charitable in my remarks about SSPX members and Williamson in particular.

If I caused offence to those who are concerned solely with traditional liturgy then I apologise unreservedly, but there is one point where I am taken to task by Mr Morton which does need clarification. I am accused of alleging that the remarks made by Williamson were "completely in character" with the SSPX, and that this is an "utter fallacy [doing] damage to the Church". I would agree, but the whole sentence actually reads "completely in character with a movement having its origin in the extreme Right of the French Catholic Church".

The nuance is important, for ultra-conservatives in the French Church were responsible (along with the army) for hounding the Jewish Captain Alfred Dreyfus at the end of the 19th century (he was sentenced to imprisonment on Devil's Island for spying, but later found to be innocent when the guilty man finally confessed).

Lefebvre was strongly influenced by Charles Maurras, whose fascist and anti-Semitic Action Française was condemned by Pope Pius XI in 1926; Maurrasians were active in promoting the collapse of civilian and military morale in 1940, welcomed the Nazis and helped to form the collaborationist Vichy government of Marshal Pétain. These are just a few examples.

Of course, I do not believe that all members of the SSPX are tainted in this way, but equally I do not believe that Williamson is untypical. I hope this clarifies my position.

Yours faithfully,
Julian Shurgold
Holy Family,
Sutton, Surrey


From Mr Paul Waddington

SIR - In his letter published in your February 13 edition Fr Frank Downs states: "I cannot understand why the Holy Father is making such strenuous efforts to smooth relations with the SSPX."

Does Fr Downs understand the meaning of Christian charity? It seems not.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Waddington
By email

A steadfast role

From Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, chairman of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales

SIR - Ed West's report (February 20) on the Review of Sex and Relationships Education is unfortunately incomplete. It fails to include the Government Response to the Review Report. In that Response the key issues raised by Oona Stannard were positively addressed, ie the role of parents in sex education and the scope for Catholic schools to teach SRE in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Church.

The correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act illustrates both the difficulties faced in these matters and the steadfast part played by Oona Stannard on behalf of the Catholic community. She has my full support.

Yours faithfully,
+Vincent Nichols
Birmingham

Treading lightly

From Mr Nick Chan SIR - Your report (February 6) on global warming and the Church does an injustice to the many Catholics passionate and driven to action by the changes that human activity is bringing to our planet.

As on any social issue, there is a diversity of opinion as to how we go about addressing climate change, and it would be wrong and lazy to conflate environmentalism with Communism as the report's headline suggests. Indeed, we should be unsurprised that there are many types of environmentalists, of which Jonathan Porritt, whom your report cites, is just one type and one type only.

As part of the student network People & Planet I campaign alongside others who hold a wide variety of views, but the important thing is that we can find common ground on issues of shared concern to work towards: pressing banks such as NatWest to stop funding fossil fuels and start taking renewables seriously; lobbying politicians to reach a global climate agreement in Copenhagen in December; and pressuring our own schools and universities to tread more lightly upon the earth.

Indeed, much environmental campaigning is driven by concern for the marginalised and poor, who, already living on the fringes of society, are especially vulnerable to the slightest environmental change that pushes them over the edge. This is why so many charities and groups which have built their work around helping the needy across the world are increasingly having to incorporate climate change into their programmes and efforts.

The last thing we all want is to have years of painstaking development work undermined by rising sea levels, changing rainfall patterns and destabilised ecosystems.

Just as the Church articulates an economic philosophy that steers between an atheistic Marxism and an unfettered capitalism, there is a profound need to articulate a distinct philosophy that finds a middle way between an ecocentrism that fails to respect human dignity, and an unfettered libertarianism that abdicates our responsibilities to each other - or indeed future generations.

Yours faithfully,
Nick Chan
By email

Reason and climate

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

SIR - Stratford Caldecott's statement (Letters, February 20) that "neo-conservatives" are so committed to the free market that they deny the evidence of climate change is simply unreasonable. It manages to caricature, incorrectly, neo-conservatives, people who believe in the free market, and people who deny the scientific consensus on climate change simultaneously.

Neo-conservatives, as the description suggests, are not committed to the free market but to a particular type of government intervention that achieves conservative objectives. The size of government grew more quickly under George W Bush than under any other US President apart from Lyndon B Johnson. His education reforms centralised more power in the federal government. As part of their philosophy, however, it is true that neo-conservatives tend to either deny climate change or promote technological solutions to it which involve providing "corporate welfare" to business interests, again contrary to the free market.

Those who believe in the free market should apply reason to the problem of climate change, in the tradition of 19th-century classical liberal thinking. Some may not believe the scientific consensus. Others may believe the consensus but accept that the evidence suggests that government action may make the situation worse.

Still others will be comfortable with government intervention but only if it is firmly based on what Catholics would see as the principle of subsidiarity - that is, government measures that provide incentives or assistance for action by individuals, firms and communities.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Booth
London SW1

Liturgical strife

From Mr Philip Goddard

SIR - I am sure we are all much obliged to Tom McIntyre (Letters, February 20) for his account of the deficiencies in the average medieval man's grasp of Eucharistic theology. One day no doubt he will explain what relevance this possesses for the 21st century traditionalist, whose understanding of it is at least as acute as that of his reformist counterpart.

In the meantime he might care to address my original question; why, when the Pope has signalled his desire for an end to liturgical strife in the Church, does he seem so anxious to continue it?

Yours faithfully,
Philip Goddard
London SE19

Tasteful religious art

From Mr Antony Dowling

SIR - I was fascinated to read that the beautiful 14th-century image which illustrated Archbishop Kelly's Lenten Reflection (February 20) was painted in tempura, which I understand is a crispy batter of flour and water, traditionally mixed using chopsticks according to Japanese custom and deep fried.

This was a commendably innovative and experimental method for the artist to adopt, at a time when other craftsmen were playing safe and sticking to the tried-and-tested method of tempera.

Yours faithfully, Antony Dowling Newcastle upon Tyne

We are willed into existence by God

From Fr Aldhelm Cameron-Brown OSB

SIR - Since both L'Osservatore Romano and Pope Benedict himself have referred to evolution as if it were something we could accept, provided we do not leave God out of it, I shall continue to accept it (not necessarily in a strictly Darwinian form).

After all, my own parents probably first met by accident, but that doesn't mean that I was not willed into existence by God.

Yours faithfully,
Aldhelm Cameron-Brown
Prinknash Abbey,
Cranham, Gloucester

The Church must meet the demand for Catholic schools in London

From Mr Michael Thompson

SIR - I write to ask if I am the only Catholic in London who regrets the scarcity of school places for Catholic children. So far some of my own children have managed to attend the local Catholic primary, and then excellent secondary schools where they had the benefit of teachers and ancillary staff who believed the Gospel and helped them to grow in their faith.

Alas, I am all too aware that their peers, starting from the same primary school, were unable to attend Catholic secondary schools, because there are simply not enough places. I keep waiting to hear that the Catholic Education Service (CES) has opened a new secondary school, given the great need, but no. In my recent communications with the CES I have had very little joy, in one case no reply at all, and in the other, a standard letter with no attempt to answer my questions.

When the Catholic children from eastern Europe, now also in our primary schools, need secondary places, what shall we tell them? No room at the inn? At a time of expansion in the numbers of Catholic children I see no evidence of even an intention to provide more Catholic school places, neither at primary nor at secondary level. What do your readers advise me to do?

Yours faithfully,
Michael Thompson
London W3


From the headmaster of The Oratory School

SIR - Hugh David states: "The economic crisis is triggering record applications to state schools from parents forced by the downturn to revise plans to send their children to fee-paying alternatives" (Schoolboard, January 30). However, it may be that Catholic independent schools are bucking the trend.

At my own school, The Oratory School, Berkshire, we have just had twice the number of boys sit their 11-plus exams for entry in September than we had two years ago. I find that more parents who are sending their children to fee-paying schools are deciding that it is a Catholic ethos that provides the path for life they want for their children.

This year The Oratory School celebrates 150 years since it was founded by John Henry Newman. Our ethos follows his founding vision for a holistic approach to education, focusing on the intellectual and spiritual nourishment of each pupil. Today, as The Oratory School has more pupils than at any other time in living memory, Newman's vision must indeed be fulfilling the desires that an increasing number of parents have for their children within a Catholic environment.

Mr David says that a positive side to the credit crunch is that more pupils will experience the state sector (albeit it suffers from a lack of real choice), but I add that we should be glad that the Catholic ethos is shining out from all the choice that remains in the private sector.

Yours faithfully,
CLIVE DYTOR
Woodcote, Berkshire

Luther's rebellion

From Fr Antony Conlon

SIR - One can admire Ann Widdecombe's brave attempt to do justice to the Protestant Reformation on Channel 4 (Feature, February 6). The original tenets of that movement have informed much of the thinking of communities of believers ever since. It should also be borne in mind that, from the outset, far from correcting abuses (both real and presumed) in the Church Luther and those like him set out to coerce it with the force of secular powers into accepting personal insights that were alien to its own divinely mandated Magisterium. This, with a Bible translated and annotated specifically for that purpose.

It was nothing less than a rebellion and disobedience which - like that described in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis - sowed not growth and knowledge but the seeds of disorder, death and destruction. Hence was derived its terrible consequences of violence and civil war.

Revolts of that kind can never succeed in bringing peace, concord and unity. The true reform of the Church - the beginnings of which in Italy, Spain and even to some extent in England long pre-dated the arrival of Luther and those who similarly rebelled - was achieved not by radical dissent but by education and the obedient application of laws and directives organically derived from the wisdom and spirituality of the orthodoxy of the past.

Such great figures as St Bernadine of Sienna, St John Fisher, St Ignatius Loyola, St Philip Neri, St Teresa of Avila and Pope St Pius V contributed vastly to this great enterprise and their legacies of fidelity to the truth and to the integrity and unity of the Church bore fruit in their time and have done ever since.

Yours faithfully,
Antony Conlon
Woodcote, Berkshire

Dark Age views

SIR - I find the comments on Franco's Fascism (Letters, January 30 and February 6) very disturbing. To paraphrase:
1) Franco may have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, but they weren't priests, so it doesn't matter.
2) Franco may have been a repressive, murdering dictator, but he was our repressive, murdering dictator.
The attitude appears to be "my religion, right or wrong". And let's not forget the Vietnam War cliché: "The only good Commie is a dead Commie."

I'm exaggerating the views stated by your correspondents only very slightly. They belong in the Dark Ages, not the liberal, democratic 21st century. What frightens me the most is that these views are held by people responsible for the education of the young.

Yours faithfully,
David V Barrett
London E13

Abortion atrocities

From Fr Morty O'Shea, SOLT

SIR - The letter entitled "Harsh criticism" of January 30 slates Catholics who draw attention to President Obama's pro-abortion stance. Such, it states, is "Catholicism at its worst: harsh, judgmental and unable to acknowledge the good in people who are sadly at odds with Church teaching on life issues". We should rather "set aside [such] childish things".

Remembering that President Obama is one of the leading pro-abortion politicans in the US, would the letter writer overlook his complicity if those killed were 50 million born babies rather than 50 million pre-born babies; or if it was a matter of 50 million Jews, blacks or any other category of humanity? After all, we are talking about an abortion death toll that is approximately equal to the population of England.

The letter acclaims President Obama for banning torture. If I had to choose between a CIA waterboarding experience or any of the procedures used to abort pre-born babies (particularly the partial-birth one which Obama supports) I would definitively choose the former; at least I would be alive afterwards.

The "harsh, judgmental" Catholicism which highlights President Obama's complicity in the mass killing of pre-born babies is flawed by orders of magnitude less than the variety which tacitly glosses over such atrocities.

Yours faithfully,
Morty O'Shea
St Mary's,
Carmarthen

How vegetarians are saving the planet

From Mr Tony Bond

SIR - I worry that Nick Thomas may be at risk of "mad cow disease", judging from his unbalanced rant against vegetarians and his enthusiasm for red meat, including offal (Comment, February 6).

His theory that "vegetarians cannot survive" is easily disproved: communities which enjoy greatest longevity and lower than average incidence of age-related diseases, cancer, heart disease, diabetes - eg the inhabitants of Okinawa in Japan and of Campomele in Italy - subsist on a fruit and vegetable-rich diet which includes very little red meat. And, among animals, the biggest and strongest, the elephant, is vegetarian and has an average lifespan of 65 years in the wild, whereas the pre-eminent carnivore, the lion, has a lifespan of 15 years.

Brains count for more than brawn in matters of survival and most vegetarians avoid red meat for well-thought-out reasons - as a matter of principle and for better health and longevity, not as a fad, as Mr Thomas supposes. The intellectual and principled argument against eating meat goes further: Livestock's Long Shadow, a 2006 report by the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation, shows that livestock emissions are responsible for more global warming gases than cars, planes and other forms of transport put together.

Eating meat, as opposed to its constituent sources of cereals and so forth, is also wasteful: some 40 per cent of the world's grain goes towards feeding animals and it takes 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk and 15,000 litres of water to produce a kilo of beef. It's a selfish waste of land and other resources when nearly a billion people are malnourished and over a billion have no access to safe drinking water.

Far from being something to be disparaged, vegetarianism is the responsible choice for anyone interested in their health and longevity, easing world hunger and thirst and even "saving the planet".

Yours faithfully,
Tony Bond
Kesgrave, Suffolk

Acting for change

From Sol Oyuela, Cafod's climate change policy analyst

SIR - Russell Sparkes is wrong when he argues that "environmental campaigners (...) ignore the plight of humanity or any spiritual values" (Report, February 6).

It's exactly because agencies such as Cafod understand the plight of humanity that we work both in industrialised and developing countries to tackle environmental problems.

Take Cafod's work on climate change. We don't campaign for climate justice out of "green ideology" but because we know, for example, how important it is for the world's poorest people to be able to produce their own food. We also understand that our high consumption lifestyles mean that the earth's natural resources are being exploited beyond their capacity - and this inevitably affects the poor most of all. For example, 62 per cent of the water needed to produce the commodities that we consume in Britain comes from elsewhere. We are also the biggest importer of illegally logged wood. Water and timber used to satisfy our consumption demands is therefore not available for local people.

Climate change - mainly caused by industrialised countries' overconsumption of fossil-fuel energy - provides the most striking example of how we need to take care of the environment if we are serious about a world without poverty.

For Cafod this is matter of social justice and not green ideology. This is about recognising that our lifestyles are having a devastating impact on the planet and the ability of poor people in developing countries to overcome poverty - and acting for change.

Pope Benedict himself said that our "insatiable consumption" is exacerbating environmental degradation. Thousands of Catholics in Britain have already accepted the Live Simply challenge to live simply, sustainably and in solidarity with the poor. And they don't act on these issues out of "green ideology". They act out of a genuine concern for the planet that their children will inherit and out of a moral responsibility towards the world's poorest citizens.

Yours faithfully,
Sol Oyuela



From Mr Stratford Caldecott, member of the CTS editorial board

SIR - Your report (February 6)_presents our new booklet, Global Warming, as a "scathing attack on the Green movement" when, in reality, it offers a measured and forceful argument for Catholic ecology.

In the booklet Russell Sparkes argues that climate change is an urgent issue that the Church needs to address, but that this can only be done in a way consistent with the Magisterium. He criticises two extreme positions: that of the "deep greens", who think the environment is a more important issue than any other, including justice; and that of the "neo-conservatives", who are so committed to a free market that they deny the evidence of climate change altogether. Both ideological positions must be distinguished from that of the Church. Starting with John Paul II, the Magisterium has consistently reaffirmed the need for responsible stewardship of the natural world.

The booklet as a whole is informative and balanced, and should stimulate the constructive engagement of Catholics with one of the most urgent and difficult questions of our time.

Yours faithfully,
Stratford Caldecott
By email

Biological machines

From Mr Ian White

SIR - I think it worth pointing out to John Courtney that Ringo Starr did not "evolve" into a rock star by chance but as a result of people making choices, ie, Ringo, himself, in choosing to take up drumming, the Beatles in choosing to ask him to join their number and the fans who chose to buy Beatles' records and attend their concerts in large numbers.

Nature, on the other hand, is not a person and does not, according to neo-Darwinism, "select", in the human sense of favouring one thing over another, as more likely to lead to a particular end. Speciating mutations necessarily occur randomly and unpreferentially, because Nature does not have "ends".

Remember, under the scientific materialism of neo-Darwinism, all living things are merely biological machines, ticking over without meaning or purpose, in a universe itself without meaning or purpose. How, therefore, On the Origin of Species can be thought to explain anything in a universe which, being without meaning, cannot be susceptible of explanation, is surely a moot point. By contrast, the Genesis account of creation, whether taken literally or metaphorically, would seem to be a model of rational coherence.

But then, in a meaningless universe, what possible meaning can such words have? - if that isn't a meaningless question.

Yours faithfully,
Ian White
By email

Distanced by Latin

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - May I ward off Philip Goddard's blows (Letters, February 6)? Not his "irreconcilable", of course (O sancta simplicitas!), but "abusive characterisation" of the extraordinary form as a " 'fog of late medieval subjectivism' ".

My point was that the Pope has not given the form the status of Ordinary Rite, and I was suggesting why. "Fog"of course referred not to the whole extraordinary form, but aspects that obscure the meaning of the liturgy and historically masked the growth of subjectivism that exploded into heresy at the Reformation.

Nor was I blaming Trent for battening down the liturgical hatches in the 16th-century tempest. But both High Mass and Low Mass implied that the liturgical part of the layfolk - the royal priesthood, Christ's Mystical Body - was private prayer and passive worship. Modern Catholics, if asked the meaning of the Mystery of Faith, would answer "when we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we proclaim Christ's death until he comes". What would a late medieval or Thirties Catholic say?

The medieval faithful, once consciously participating in Christ's sacrificial action as his Mystical Body, were gradually distanced by Latin and silence and came to see themselves as unworthy individuals, passively adoring his presence, and some in the end, the reformers, as onlookers at a mere commemoration.

Yours faithfully,
TOM McINTYRE
Frome, Somerset

Prayer for the dying should not cause offence

From Mr John McArthur

SIR - My mother was admitted to hospital in December last year. Within a day of her admission her condition deteriorated rapidly and I was advised by medical staff that her death was a very real possibility. The hospital chaplain was phoned and attended promptly and administered the final sacrament to her. I was in attendance, together with other family members, as he did so. One of the nurses on duty also stood by my mothers bedside and prayed with us, as she too was a Catholic.

I didn't take any offence at her attendance and I fail to see how any act like this could cause offence. To my mind it reinforces the view that there is a Catholic / Christian ethos and that, while it encompasses the physical well-being of patients, it also recognises the need for support in the spiritual aspect of care.

My mother did not recover, alas, dying on the day of her 87th birthday, but I am grateful to Fr Dunn, the chaplain, and also to the nurse who stood with us giving visible spiritual as well as medical support.

Yours faithfully,
John McArthur
Glasgow

Darwin's theory reduces humanity to a by-product of blind forces

From Mr Christian Copus

SIR - Quentin de la Bédoyère (Evolution is God's work, February 6), makes a brave attempt to reconcile Darwin's theory with Church teaching, but I am afraid that it is simply not possible to square this particular circle.

He states: "The outcome of evolution was known and intended in every detail from the beginning" - presumably in order to accommodate traditional Christian teaching on creation. However, this is quite incompatible with the Darwinian view that evolution is entirely purposeless, and that we are the wholly unintended and unforeseen consequence of natural selection acting on chance mutations.

The dichotomy, then, between Darwin's theory and Intelligent Design is far from being a false one; rather, it is the difference between reducing humanity to the status of an accidental by-product of blind forces, and restoring us to our rightful position as creatures deliberately created in the image and likeness of God. Indeed, Intelligent Design theorists have already gone a long way towards achieving the latter by highlighting the considerable evidence for specified, complex design in nature.

There have been encouraging signs recently that the Church is beginning to recognise this (see recent articles by Cardinal Schönborn), and this year of Darwinian anniversaries provides us with the ideal opportunity to reinforce that message.

Yours faithfully,
Christian Copus
London, SW12


From Dr Stephen Milne

SIR - The idea that "there should be no contradiction between Christianity and Darwinism" is untenable. Darwinism takes several contemporary forms, but they all share several important characteristics: for example, a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism, anti-supernaturalism and materialism.

Darwin's account of evolution does not need God; it makes it possible, as Richard Dawkins once put it, "to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". There is - literally - nothing for God to do in the Darwinian account of evolution. Darwin's Descent of Man, less well-known than his Origin of Species, put forward the consequences of his theory in terms no reader could mistake.

First, they include the idea that certain races, because of the struggle for survival, must claim superiority due to sheer strength. Second, the idea that within races, the strong will conquer, indeed must conquer to eliminate the weak. Third, the idea that what he termed "monogamy" had outgrown its usefulness in ensuring the survival of the fittest and would have to be surpassed, preferably by its elimination. Finally, moral norms could, and should, vary according to the circumstances of survival of different races or groups.

Darwin's theory leads directly to moral relativism and is opposed to the idea that there is a natural law against which all moral standards must be measured. Most of these beliefs characterise contemporary man - elimination of the weak or unwanted through euthanasia or abortion, unlimited sexual freedom, the destruction of marriage, the extinction of moral conscience formed against transcendent standards, nihilism about life's purpose and a rejection of the body as a visible sign of an invisible reality.

Darwin is one of the architects of the culture of death. I fail to see how this can be "reconciled" to orthodox Catholicism.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen Milne
By e-mail


From Mr Chris Mason

SIR - In response to your articles and correspondence on evolution (Letters January 30, February 6), I would like to show that evolution does not stand up to modern scientific scrutiny. Darwin's theory of evolution claims that over time one animal can change into another animal by natural selection and by survival of the fittest - while the "unfit" die off. However, for this change to take place one animal has to gain or lose chromosomes. The gaining or losing of chromosomes produces genetic disorders. For instance, a human being with an extra chromosome (Chromosome 21) has Down's Syndrome. Darwin's theory would class such humans as unfit and worthy of being eliminated.

According to Darwin's theory, someone with an extra chromosome has evolved, or is beginning to evolve, into another organism. So why do many evolutionists call for "newly evolving" people with Down's Syndrome to be aborted?

In Quentin de la Bédoyère's article he states: "In the process of reproduction many mutations occur. The great majority are harmful and so disappear. But a tiny number prove useful and give the species a small additional chance of survival... Those with this advantage are likely to breed more than those without, and so the advantage tends to accumulate." It is, in fact, an assumption that "those with this advantage are likely to breed more", and not science, because it ignores the need to gain or lose chromosomes for one species to become another species.

Evolutionary theory is clearly not based on God's creative love, nor does it take account of the Fall and the fallen nature of the world, but assumes that original creation was always out for its own survival rather than being like the "lamb lying down with the lion".

Yours faithfully,
Chris Mason
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire


From Mr Ralph Moore

SIR - While I applaud Quentin de la Bédoyère's attempt to reconcile Christianity and Darwinism, I am dismayed that he should so discredit his argument by using the old "peppered moth" fallacy as a proof of minor adaptation.

I refer you to Jonathan Wells's Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, which summarises the evidence that "moths do not normally rest on tree trunks" and that the photographs used as proof of "industrial melanism" were staged in the daytime when the moths are torpid.

Almost every biology textbook perpetuates the myth by reproducing those photographs, despite the widespread knowledge that they were staged. They do so on the dubious grounds that the photographs provide "symbolic, visual truth" which makes the "fact" accessible to a simple-minded audience (ie children). Meanwhile, the search for indisputable scientific evidence for natural selection goes on and on. Yours faithfully,
Ralph Moore
Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire

Charity should be shown towards the SSPX

From Mr Nicholas Richardson

SIR - In your leading article (January 30) about the SSPX bishops you describe Bishop Williamson as "a deeply unpleasant, cold and sarcastic man". I do not know whether this is based on personal acquaintance, or rather the fact that some of his views are unpalatable.

I simply wish to comment that I have known him for over 55 years and I cannot recognise this as a description of the person whom I know.

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas Richardson
Abingdon, Oxfordshire


From Mr Kevin Morton

SIR - The letter from Fr Julian Shurgold (February 6) reads rather like the attitude of the second son who "was angry and would not go in" (Lk 15:28).

It's worth pointing out that neither did Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council (Vatican II), authorise the council to treat dogma nor did Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of the council, intend them to be part of the essential Magisterium of the Church. Both these popes regarded the council to be pastoral, not dogmatic, in nature.

Keeping that in mind, it would seem that the SSPX are well within their rights as faithful Catholics to hold to the traditional faith and to the traditional Mass.

The allegation made by Fr Shurgold that the remarks of Bishop Williamson are "completely in character" with the SSPX is utter fallacy. How very uncharitable to write such a thing - such sentiments do damage to the Church. It has been very well covered in the media that the SSPX are completely opposed to Bishop Williamson's remarks and that Bishop Bernard Fellay (superior of the SSPX) acted swiftly to condemn the remarks and to reinforce the SSPX's solidarity with our "elder brothers".

As a traditional Catholic who enjoys the generous provision made by His Holiness for the traditional Mass, I take issue with the idea that we are in some way "liturgically challenged". Such a crude statement lacks any sense of Christian charity and openness - two excellent qualities that seem to be applied in all directions except toward traditionalist Catholics.

I would hope to see some of the charitable openness that Fr Shurgold calls for in the SSPX to be extended to himself and the comments he makes about the SSPX and the people who attend their Masses (none of whom have I ever heard say anything remotely anti-Semitic). It seems that there are some people who do not like the truth of a matter to get in the way of a good story.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Morton,
Edinburgh


From Fr Frank Downs

SIR - The Society of St Pius X is a small group which rejected Vatican II including, it is now clear, how the Church regards Judaism, as well as the authority of previous popes. I cannot understand why the Holy Father is making such strenuous efforts to smooth relations with the SSPX, at such great cost to the Church and its reputation.

Rome seems to have been eager to end this schism with no evidence of repentance on the part of SSPX. Indeed, the SSPX was born of an arrogant rejection of the Second Vatican Council and remains stuck in that mode. I feel only dismay at the folly of what Rome has done, especially as the SSPX has apparently given no sign that it regrets anything of what it has said and done since its break with the Church and the authority of previous successors of St Peter.

The Church's reputation and our relations with Judaism are damaged, and for what? How much time and pain will the Holy Father and those around him have to go through because of this inexplicable decision? The lifting of excommunication for the SSPX, especially considering its view of the Church and its apparent refusal to even consider any change or accommodation to the modern Church strikes me as a very one-sided deal.

Yours faithfully,
Frank Downs
Freshfield, Liverpool

Heroines of 2009

From Mrs Joanna Bogle

SIR - We are seeking nominations for the 2009 Catholic Women of the Year. The closing date for the nominations is April 25.

The annual Catholic Women of the Year Luncheon honours the "unsung heroines" of the Church. Any Catholic woman can be nominated: all that is necessary is to send a letter to us with some brief details. We are looking for women who serve the Church and the community in homes and schools and parishes, in prison visiting, or in fund-raising for charity, in public life or in commerce and industry, in teaching children or caring for the elderly or sick, or being active with some community enterprise. There is no financial or other award - the four chosen as Catholic Women of the Year simply come to the Luncheon and are honoured as representing the service given by women to the Church in Britain. It is always a wonderful occasion, which last year marked its 40th anniversary.

Nominations - accompanied by brief supporting information as indicated above - should be sent to the Chairman, CWYL, 22 Milton Road, Ware, Herts SG12 0PZ.

Yours faithfully,
Joanna Bogle
By e-mail

Uselessness of hybrids

From Mr Quentin de la Bédoyère, science editor of The Catholic Herald

SIR - Every silver lining has a cloud. Your brief report (News, February 6) that a high-grade study (Lanza et al) has shown that human-animal cells cannot be re-programmed into pluripotent stem cells was gratifying. The result contrasts strongly with the claims of some scientists that this was a promising way forward. Nevertheless some important issues remain.

The study was carried out with mice, rabbits and cows. But it is possible that other species closer to us, such as chimpanzees, may yield better results. Fortunately for them, chimpanzees seem dearer to the hearts of the public than humans. Other studies (Hui Sheng 2003 and 2008), using rabbit and cow cells, purport to provide marginally better results. But these have not been reproduced elsewhere. We can be sure that there will be further attempts to create such hybrids using other species or different techniques.

Meanwhile, we can expect a strong drive to make more extensive use of human embryos as reservoirs for spare parts. Your report (January 23) that good progress was being made with reprogramming adult cells was also gratifying. You were right to welcome the potential to use such cells for the control of disease without the danger of immune rejection. But here, too, we must be careful. It may eventually be possible to use the technology to create sperm and egg cells (from, say, skin cells), leading directly to human cloning in the laboratory. Currently this is more promising with embryonic stem cells.

It would seem that some biological scientists (with courageous exceptions) are guided only by what they believe science can do. Lady Warnock, who once suggested that pre-14-day embryos should be treated with respect, withdrew this "foolish" notion in 2002.

Yours faithfully,
Quentin de la Bedoyere
By e-mail

Unselfish vegetarian

From Miss Theresa Collins

SIR - I was dismayed to read Nick Thomas's article (February 6) which insinuates that most vegetarians are motivated by selfish reasons, "just to make themselves the centre of attention". I have been a vegetarian since I was very young and have never tried to force others to follow my example. I respect God's creatures and do not want to feel responsible for killing anything He has made.

May I suggest Mr Thomas reads Evangelium Vitae, which says: "As one called to till and look after the garden of the world, man has a specific responsibility towards the environment in which he lives, towards the creation which God has put at the service of his personal dignity ... We are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity."

We are all responsible for our moral conscience, and at least I know I have thought long and hard about the reasons why vegetarianism is right for me - rather than simply living in blissful ignorance as Mr Thomas appears to be doing.

Yours faithfully,
Theresa Collins
Whickham, Newcastle Upon Tyne

A brave bishop

From Mrs Daphne McLeod

SIR - It was a real joy to read the report "Bishop urges Catholics to return to fundamentals" (February 6). Bishop O'Donoghue is to be congratulated on the goodness and charity he shows in defending Catholic truth, the traditional devotions of the Church and the essential supernatural aspect of our faith.

He also insisted we must challenge anything which contradicts the teaching of the Church, whoever voices it, recognising that correcting error is an essential part of preserving truth.

Here is a bishop who is a true successor to the Apostles, a good shepherd giving the flock the care they need if they are to find the way to their eternal home in Heaven.

This stand must have required courage as the bishop knew it would not be well received by every Catholic; so we should all be grateful to a bishop who loves us enough to put our spiritual well-being before his popularity. Perhaps we should show our gratitude to Bishop O'Donoghue by praying for him and by putting him under the protection of another brave bishop, St John Fisher.

Yours faithfully,
Daphne McLeod
Great Bookham, Surrey


From Fr Frank Maguire

SIR - I totally agree with the principle put forward by Bishop O'Donoghue, but there is one practical difficulty: if you have a bishop who expresses unorthodox views, little is going to dissuade such a bishop by members of the local Church challenging him.

The reality is you cannot successfully "fight" a bishop: it takes another bishop to do that. And, in the end, it takes Rome to rectify the matter.

Anyone can take the problem to Rome - I know of two cases where this was done. Why such drastic action? Because the bishop would not countenance any discussion on the complaints. The reaction from the Vatican was swift. So do not despair if your bishop refuses to abandon unorthodoxy - there is further recourse.

Yours faithfully,
Frank Maguire
Wellington, New Zealand

Bishop Williamson: Will he provoke a new wave of anti-Semitism?

From Mr Bernard Ellis

SIR - As a Jewish convert to the Catholic faith I write with concern about the decree of January 21 by Pope Benedict XVI to lift the automatic excommunication of the bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated.

One of these bishops, Richard Williamson, is a known anti-Semite and this action has caused the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to break off all official ties with the Vatican indefinitely in protest over the Vatican's decision. Bishop Williamson said on Swedish television, when speaking of the Holocaust: "I believe there were no gas chambers... I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers." This caused great offence to the Jewish people who still mourn the death of six million Jews.

When my Jewish relatives heard I had decided to become a Catholic they were appalled that I would follow a faith which they believed was fundamentally anti-Semitic, especially in light of the fact that some of my close relatives had perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz which Bishop Williamson says never existed. They considered that I was disloyal to the memory of those who had died.

The late Pope John Paul II did much to help to heal these deep wounds by publicly apologising to the Jewish people for what had taken place during the Holocaust. Now Pope Benedict XVI seems to be putting the clock back, which could create a new wave of anti-Jewish feelings and, in so doing, could lead to all Catholics being branded as anti-Semitic.

Yours faithfully,
Bernard Ellis
Bletchingley, Surrey


From Mr Kevin Atkinson

SIR - As a British Catholic I am appalled at the comments that Bishop Williamson made about the Holocaust.

I have offered my apologies to the Chief Rabbi and the Jewish community in England and worldwide, something I believe the Pope himself should do, publicly and as soon as possible.

I reject utterly the ministry of such a man in my Church and I am ashamed and outraged that the Pope has seen fit to include a man with such unbelievable and utterly untruthful thoughts and beliefs into a position of importance in the Church that I hold in such respect.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Atkinson
Jarrow, Tyne and Wear


From Professor John Rist

SIR - Most unfortunately, Dr Alcuin Reid misuses Scripture (Comment, January 30) in castigating those who "wish to cast out the SSPX". As far as I know, no one wishes to cast out the SSPX, least of all our recent two popes; the leaders of the Society cast themselves out and were always able to return if they clearly signalled their willingness to obey the Pope (and Catholic tradition) in recognising the authority of Vatican II-including its statements about Jews.

Dr Reid compares those who are unhappy with the Pope's decision to the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son. But the parallel is flawed. In the parable the younger son repented and returned to his father; there is so far no sign that SSPX has any wish to repent on the basic issues (Vatican II and Jews) over which its leaders cast themselves out.

Not only that, but traditionally the elder son of the parable has been seen as representing the Old Covenant with the Jews. Of him it is said by the Father: "My son, you are always with me and all that I have is yours." Those are the words of God Himself.

The whole episode is particularly unfortunate at the present time in that Williamson (whose views have still not been repudiated by either him or the others), in denying the Holocaust and even maintaining the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is echoing the daily spewing out of the same anti-Semitic rhetoric by Islamist fanatics.

Dr Reid's misrepresentation of Scripture is in a perverse tradition. We frequently hear also in the case of the Woman taken in Adultery that Jesus forgave her sins; we hear less often his further admonition: sin no more. If Williamson and the other leaders of SSPX would come clean, renouncing their pick-and-mix acceptance of Catholic teaching, all of us should be delighted to welcome them back. That would be in the genuine Catholic tradition going back at least to the fourth century and Athanasius. There would have been no cause not to welcome back the Arian bishops had they renounced their unorthodox views on the divinity of Christ.

Yours faithfully,
John Rist
By e-mail


From Fr Julian Shurgold

SIR - The point about the Prodigal Son is that he came to a recognition, through unpleasant and avoidable experience, of his error, and returned to his father expressing penitence.

I take issue, therefore, with Dr Alcuin Reid using this parable in the context of Williamson et al. The SSPX and similar bodies split from the Church, not the other way round. The door has always been open: for almost 20 years Lefebvre and his cronies defied popes and encouraged divisiveness, so the excommunications in 1988 hardly came as a surprise. Their posture for almost 40 years has been one of arrogance, intemperate remarks and an almost complete absence of Christian charity.

The evil, mad and inaccurate statements about the Holocaust made by "Bishop" Williamson are completely in character with a movement having its origin in the extreme Right of the French Catholic Church and comes as no surprise to me. Has he apologised for this? Are any of them penitent? I read elsewhere in your paper that they will have to acknowledge Vatican II but their clergy will not have to celebrate the normal rite of Mass. What is the point of that? What use will they be in our parishes where there is little concern for ecclesiastical flummery and posturing?

Where, in heaven's name, will Williamson go? Auxiliary in Westminster, with especial remit for the liturgically challenged? If the SSPX sincerely wish to work with the rest of the Church-clergy and people-in building up the Body of Christ then they must be welcomed with open arms. If, as I suspect, their wish is only to be retrograde and they can now see a chance to exploit Pope Benedict's generosity, then we need to proceed with the utmost caution.

Yours faithfully,
Julian Shurgold
Holy Family
Sutton, Surrey

Overstating the case

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - Much as the outsider admires the Association for Latin Liturgy - no "insolent and aggressive faction", but dedicated to preserving the Latin Mass and its music exactly as Vatican II required - does Edward Barrett (Letter, January 23) not overstate the case for the "ritual east"?

True, as he says, "turned away from the people" gives a false slant to the Pope's celebration in the Sistine Chapel, and, true, Josef Jungmann, the historian of the Mass and (at least in private conversation) Louis Bouyer, the liturgical theologian of Vatican II, held that celebration versus populum was not essential to the rite. And Newman warns us against "treating ritual opinions as doctrinal errors".

But if the Church thinks a practice desirable, that is a "compelling reason" for adopting it where possible. Moreover the "time-honoured" notion of a sacred east was in fact a late growth. It is the later, not the ancient, churches in Rome that are aligned east-west (the exception, the west-facing St Peter's, probably took its alignment from Gaius and Nero's Circus where the first Pope was martyred, unless Constantine adopted the pagan orientation from syncretic principle).

Isidore, around 600, still refers to the eastward alignment as a pagan practice. Early Irish churches like Columba's Regles Dubh lay north-south, and Muirchu around 700 in his life of St Patrick has the awkwardness of quoting a Druidic prophecy that Patrick's altar would be "at the east end of his house" while explaining that his Armagh church looked north. I doubt if Patrick or Columba assured their congregations that they were really facing "liturgical east".

Yours faithfully,
Tom McIntyre
Frome, Somerset

Loss of the sacred

From Mr Christopher Keeffe

SIR - Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster must be congratulated in being able to hold two apparently inconsistent premises at once in his defence of the Second Vatican Council (Feature, January 23) where he argues: "Catholics would not mock the Mass of Paul VI if they accepted that Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 teaches that 'the use of the vernacular... may frequently be of great advantage to the people'.

"Catholics would not say that Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum went against Vatican II if they knew that Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 teaches that 'the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite'."

Having been born in 1967, I have been effectively denied the rich treasures of the pre-conciliar Church to be replaced by bland liturgies and the canonisation of the spirit of man over the divine mysteries of faith where the presidents of the liturgy often indulgences in personal peccadilloes over maintaining the rubric of the Mass. This often results in the Mass becoming an act of religious theatre where everyone must be doing something rather than an act which brings us closer to our Heavenly Father.

The Mass of Pope Paul VI would have been better if it was in Latin, with the readings in the vernacular. Regretably, the loss of the sense of the sacred at Mass has in my view led to the loss of the sacred in every other part of Catholic life. Gone are the great processions of Corpus Christi, gone the May march to honour Our Lady, gone Benediction, gone public novenas, rosaries or the 40 hours.

As George Orwell teaches in 1984, the doctrine of Doublethink is alive and well in our Church and is adequately summed up by the Bishop of Lancaster in trying to hold the schizophrenic tension contained in para 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Yours faithfully,
Christopher Keeffe
By e-mail

Halting the strife

From Mr Philip Goddard

SIR - By removing the remaining restrictions on the celebration of the usus antiquior and confirming its equality of status with the Novus Ordo Pope Benedict has tried to put an end to liturgical strife in the Church.

What a pity that there are still some irreconcilables, like your correspondent Tom McIntyre, (Letters, January 30) with his abusive characterisation of the old Mass as a "fog of late mediaeval subjectivism", who seem to be determined to keep it going.

Yours faithfully,
Philip Goddard
London SE19

Communist scourge

From Mrs Agnes Ainsworth

SIR - There's history, interpretation of history, and there's truth. Popular interpretation is secular humanism orientated, following rules of political correctness, formed by Left-leaning intellectuals.

It is arguable that Communism is a far greater evil than Fascism, given that it was/is far more widespread, slaughtered many more millions and more importantly, seen through spiritual eyes, more dangerous to Christians because it specifically targets the Church and its mission in spreading the Gospel.

An American professor of history, Warren Carroll, a convert to Catholicism, interprets the Spanish Civil War in very different fashion. In his book The Last Crusade, he writes: "In just six months of the year 1936, 13 bishops, nearly 7,000 priests, seminarians, monks and nuns were martyred in Spain by enemies of Christianity. It was the greatest clerical bloodletting in so short a span of time since the persecution of the Church by the ancient Roman Emperors.

"Most people who know of the Spanish Civil War do not understand why it was fought or how it was really won. Most accounts of the War in English are tainted with Leftist historiographical bias and concentrate on the political and social aspects to the exclusion of the religious issues that animated both sides."

Satanic attacks against the Church have always taken place, including the French and Russian Revolutions. Franco would no doubt have been cognisant of the Fatima prophecies of Our Lady in 1917, foretelling the spread of errors from Russia throughout the world.

In Spain as in the rest of the West, the battle is ongoing but there appears to be only a remnant recognising the nature of the cosmic battle.

Perhaps the real issue is whether it is morally legitimate to take up arms in defence of the Church as opposed to fighting the battle by spiritual means. Yours faithfully,
Agnes Ainsworth
By e-mail

Ringo Starr, the Bible and evolution

From Mr John Courtney

SIR - Your correspondent Isabel Vaughan-Spruce (Letters, January 30) is correct to defend the Bible. However, this does not deny the benefits of considering (neo-)Darwinism. It can explain part of the way the world works, for example, Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, January 23) asks how natural selection explains Ringo Starr becoming a rock hero. The answer is clear - he was (and is) a great drummer and he was in the right place at the right time- exactly what natural selection requires for success.

Similarly, by extension of Bryan Syles's argument in The Seven Daughters of Eve, in which he traces the genetics of most Europeans back to seven individual females using maternal (mitochondrial) DNA, we might arrive at Eve and Adam. The time in which they lived may be in conflict with a scientific view of the evolution of man but there are gaps in both the scientific record and the Bible with which to fix dates. The point of their story in Genesis is to explain where we started to go wrong.

Science sometimes argues that life is all but inevitable, because the universe is so large, but I would argue that science itself argues very strongly against us being here. The vast array of illnesses, diseases, natural disasters, as well as the unhelpful laws of thermodynamics, are all out to stop us in our tracks. Thanks be to God we exist at all.

Yours faithfully,
John Courtney
Birmingham, West Midlands


From Mr Brendan Vaughan-Spruce

SIR - I was surprised to read in a Catholic newspaper a defence of the literal interpretation of Genesis 3, in a letter by Isabel Vaughan-Spruce. She quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 402), but if she looks again at CCC 390, it states: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

Hence Catholics are not obliged to interpret the story of the Fall literally, only that it is to be understood as an historical event. The Bible is true but it contains many different literary forms, as stated in Dei Verbum: "To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to 'literary forms'. For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse."

The quotation from the encyclical of Pius XII, Humani Generis, also needs to be read together with another text from that same encyclical: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter-for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

In the address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) he said: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical (Humani Generis), new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

Yours faithfully,
Brendan Vaughan-Spruce
Hucclecote, Gloucester


From Mr Vincent Milner

SIR - Miss Vaughan-Spruce quotes both the Catechism and Pope Pius XII in her case for the literal interpretation of scripture. She will, in fact, have to choose between them.

Her quote from the latter, stating that some have "fictitious opinions [that] the literal sense of Holy Scripture... should yield now to a new exegesis which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual" is incompatible with paragraph 115 of the former: "According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two 'senses' of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual."

Yours faithfully,
Vincent Milner
By e-mail

Franco came to the defence of a Church threatened with extinction

From Mr Andrew Cusack

SIR - David Barrett (Letter, January 23) is certainly right that atrocities were committed by both sides in the Spanish Civil War, but is wrong to deny the Church's debt to Franco. Mr Barrett claims that the presence of Communists in local government in France is proof that they were no threat to civilisation, but he must certainly recognise a vast difference between being in control of rubbish collection and street naming and being in control of the entire vast apparatus of a nation.

According to Mr Barrett, Franco "was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini" but while these two leaders did give the Nationalist forces tremendous aid and support during the Civil War, they received very little in return for their trouble. At the end of the traumatic struggle, Franco held a Te Deum at the Church of St Barbara in Madrid, giving thanks to God for the victory. He laid his sword upon the altar and vowed never to take it up again unless Spain was threatened with invasion. Thus Franco refused to declare war on France and Britain (the two countries whose arms embargo against him during the Civil War in fact forced him to accept Hitler and Mussolini's help) because the two powers obviously bore no warlike intent against neutral Spain. Mr Barrett rightly asks: "How was an actual Fascist dictatorship any better than a possible Communist dictatorship?"

To begin, Franco's dictatorship was not actually Fascist, but rather of an authoritarian reactionary sentiment. Franco only ever attended a single national mass meeting of the Falange and many of the proper Spanish Fascists (such as the Forza Nueva) thought very poorly of Franco's regime.

Secondly, the Communist dictatorship was not merely possible, but very real. The areas of Spain which fell under Communist control were places of brutal repression, not only of the Catholics who rightly opposed Communist power, but even of the Communists' fellow travellers: the anarchists, Marxists, Trotskyites and other Leftists. Under the Communists 12 per cent of Spain's clergy were martyred - the Diocese of Barbastro alone lost 85 per cent of its priests. Over 20,000 churches and chapels were damaged or destroyed, and in Barcelona every single Catholic altar was desecrated. Compare this with the quite broad freedom (and patronage) the Church enjoyed under Franco - one archbishop repeatedly attacked him from the pulpit with no interference.

Given the choice between the total physical destruction of the Church in Spain and a dictatorial regime in which the Church's freedom was guaranteed, I am sure we must join with Mr Dytor in admitting that "we all owe Franco a huge debt of gratitude".

Yours faithfully,
Andrew Cusack
University of Stellenbosch,
South Africa


From Mr Clive Dytor

SIR - Mr Barrett misses the point completely: Franco may or may not have been a nice man, or a Fascist, but he was defending the Catholic Church from the dark forces of the anti-God Communists. Atrocities were indeed committed on both sides, but no Catholic could support the Republican pro-Soviet agenda to destroy the faith in Spain first, and then in Europe.

Yes, there are Communists everywhere, and their evil ideology should be resisted at all times by Christians of all traditions.

Yours faithfully,
Clive Dytor
By e-mail

Divide and rule

From Mr Larry Connor

SIR - On reflection, I suppose it was entirely foreseeable that the sustained assaults on the Catholic Church over the last generation would lead to various different Catholic institutions ending up fighting with each other.

Your front-page report (January 16) on the disagreement between Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School and the Archdiocese of Westminster over schools' admission policy, continued by the article by Hugh David, must have made pleasant reading for the members of the Government ministry which appears to have adopted the tactic of "divide and rule" to achieve its aim. "Threatened to report to the Government" indeed!

According to the front-page report "the bishops' definition of Catholic practice is attendance at Mass on Sunday. Schools must use the bishops' definition of Catholic practice, not a definition they decide upon independently". Hugh David's contribution discusses this essential point.

It appears that the bishops' definition expects attendance "on Sunday" while the school seems to expect regular attendance, ie "on Sundays". "On Sunday" is hopelessly vague and suggests a whiff of deliberate sophistry designed to ward off the Government.

Anyone, individual or institution, who is required to make a decision in the public arena has to be able to justify it. If the school is oversubscribed it has to make a decision about who to admit and can exercise a reasonable policy to achieve this. As long as they show that they have exercised the policy in each and every case according to its own circumstances that decision cannot in law be impugned. Here, the policies of the school and the diocese appear to conflict: the next question is: who has the right and authority to draft the policy?

Yours faithfully,

Larry Connor
By e-mail

Fog of subjectivism

From Mr Tom McIntyre

SIR - Is John Medlin (Letters, January 16) of the Latin Mass Society not missing the Holy Father's point as well as Bishop Conry's when he suggests that the extraordinary form could be a main parish Mass? That would be to treat it as the ordinary form, something that Summorum Pontificum specifically excludes.

No one doubts the devotion and sincerity of the LMS, or that they are sound enough Latinists and theologians to achieve at least a minimal actuosa participatio, to realise that there is only one Sacrifice in space and time, to distinguish the action and mystery of the Mass from the long accretion of private priestly prayers and the fog of late medieval subjectivism and to endorse the protest, which Louis Bouyer finds implicit in the form, against the idea of an impersonal action in which the people do not take part.

But most of us need the ordinary form the Church has given us, with these things made explicit. I have no doubt that John Medlin deplores the crude blogs that mock or condemn the outward forms of participatio ("I always put my hands in my pockets at the Peace") or proclaim that the ordinary form was not what Vatican II intended or suggest that the extraordinary form has a monopoly of beauty and reverence. Would the extraordinary form as a main parish Mass not fertilise such misapprehensions?

Yours faithfully,
Tom McIntyre
Frome, Somerset

The Wright way

From Miss Hilary McKean

SIR - I was delighted by N T Wright's challenge (Features, January 16) to form ecumenical scripture study groups.

Although a Protestant, I started to attend the scripture group at my local Roman Catholic church some three years ago. I was very warmly welcomed and since then we have shared analysis, interpretation, viewpoints, prayers and devotion. I continue to find this time together a most enriching experience.

Therefore I wholeheartedly endorse the pleading of Dr Wright. In my experience we have much to gain from the study of Scripture in the company of others from different traditions. Indeed, they may challenge us to reconsider our own understanding and prejudice and so discover there is more that unites us than will ever divide.

Yours faithfully,
Hilary McKean
Southport, Merseyside

The spirit of Darwin

From Miss Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

SIR - Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, January 23) reminds us we are nearing Darwin Day. This is an opportunity to reflect on not just the scientific but also the spiritual problems with Darwinian evolution.

The Catechism, paragraph 402, helps to explain how we all descend from one man and woman, Adam and Eve, affirming St Paul's words: "Sin came into the world through one man." This is difficult to reconcile with the evolutionists' theory of humans coming into being very gradually over many tens of thousands of years. Pope Pius Xll wrote words for our times in his encyclical Humani Generis: "The faithful cannot embrace the opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him ... or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents."

Pope Pius XII also helps abolish the erroneous idea that Genesis cannot be taken literally when he states that some have "fictitious opinions [that] the literal sense of Holy Scripture ... should yield now to a new exegesis which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual". Presumably this would include Psalm 33:9: "For He spoke and it was created. He commanded and there it stood."

After all, once we have said that Adam and the creation story are not to be taken literally, where do we draw the line? How about the story of Noah and the Flood, Jonah and the Whale, Moses and the Ten Commandments - or even Jesus and the Resurrection? Does the individual just pick and choose?

Can we be surprised if non-Christians have trouble believing the Bible when we have such trouble believing it ourselves? We complain that less respect is shown nowadays to our faith; maybe it's because there's so little of it.

Yours faithfully,
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce
Malvern Link, Worcs


From Mr Patrick Alborough

SIR_- The argument about mankind's origin is bedevilled by simplistic definitions of the various protagonists.

All Creationists are assumed to believe quite literally the Book of Genesis. All proponents of Intelligent Design are assumed to believe that God's guiding hand caused every development. And evolutionists are assumed to believe the Darwinian theory of random mutations and natural selection.

It seems to me almost certain that none of these definitions is correct.

I am a Creationist in that I believe that God created the universe. I am an Intelligent Design supporter in that I believe that He organised the universe in such a way that mankind would inevitably appear. And I am an evolutionist in that I believe that life on Earth has progressed from single cell organisms to man, although not by random mutation (randomness is assumed but not proven by Darwinians). For Catholics surely this is the most reasonable stance.

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Alborough
Aynho, Northants

Better understanding

From Anita de Lacey

SIR - I write following Edward Barrett's letter (January 23) about using the high altar rather than a forward-facing altar.

Here at St Paul's Catholic church in Haywards Heath Fr Martin has moved the altar into the main body of the church. I think this is a good idea as many people can better view the altar instead of before, when the altar was in its original area at the back of the church, just a few people on the front benches could see and hear clearly.

Now more people can see the ministers of Communion, the young or old altar servers, the readers (and what they are wearing), and how they proclaim the readings, as well as the different lectionaries that are used from the altar and the ambo. The readers' voices can be heard more clearly and therefore you get a better understanding of the Gospels. The different coloured vestments that the priests wear throughout the year can be observed more clearly.

With an ageing population and the altar in the central body of the church, the Banquet of the Lord is brought closer to the congregation. Previously the elderly who were seated further back in the church (and who were more likely to have hearing and sight difficulty) had a poor reception of the readings.

Yours faithfully,
Anita de Lacey
Burgess Hill, West Sussex

Our brokenness

From Mr Peter Chadwick

SIR - I write concerning the letter headlined "Beyond the norm" (January 16). Jean Vanier, in his book The Broken Body, suggests that it is our uniqueness and brokenness that are part of our unity as members of Christ's Body. Continuity is found in fellowship - this is essential for all of us. It is only human to feel doubts from time to time about our relationship with one another.

Furthermore, we should not be surprised to be challenged about our own particular journey, even when in communion with others. Finding myself in these situations from time to time I am reminded of the "Serenity Prayer": "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference."

Yours faithfully,
Peter Chadwick
Northwich. Cheshire

A charming man

From Dr Tony Hall

SIR - You reported (January 23) the death of the Mexican-born film and television actor Ricardo Montalban in Los Angeles at the age of 88.

I met Ricardo in 1969 when he visited the US Army Hospital in Vietnam where I was the chief physician, having been drafted into the US Army as an immigrant. Many of the soldiers were Hispanic and he was very popular with the patients and staff. He was very charming and told me that his career in America was hindered by the fact that he was still married to his original wife.

Yours faithfully,
Tony Hall
Harpenden, Herts

Luck of the devil

From Mr Michael Petekr

SIR - Readers who read Ed West's review (January 25)_of the motion picture Valkyrie may be interested to learn that probably about 150 different attempts were made on Hitler's life.

My mother was born and raised 55 miles from Hitler's headquarters at Rastenburg in East Prussia. Well before von Stauffenberg's attempt there, my grandfather, Adolf Mscichowski, had set out with 10 other people to assassinate Hitler while he was driving by car to Goering's hunting lodge.

Hitler had the luck of the devil as usual, and it was only because he changed his route that he never drove near my grandfather and his team.

Had history been kinder, no one would have heard of von Stauffenberg. The Hungarian Jews would have been spared deportation to Auschwitz.

And Hitler's last words might well have been: "Oh, that's very interesting, my name's Adolf too!"

Yours faithfully,
Michael Petek
Brighton, East Sussex

Harsh criticism

From Mrs June Thomas

SIR - I second your appeal (Leading article, January 23) to Catholics to "set aside childish things" as they engage with the new Obama adminstration.

Some of the faithful appear to have a barely concealed contempt for the new President and do not hide their hope that he will quickly prove a failure. They are right, of course, to denounce his position on abortion, which is completely unacceptable to any faithful Catholic. But they do not give due credit to those policies which are in line with Catholic teaching, such as his swift executive order banning the use of torture.

We need to take a step back from the furious struggles of the "culture wars" and recognise that many non-Catholics are bewildered by some Catholics' indiscriminately anti-Obama rhetoric. They see this as Catholicism at its worst: harsh, judgmental and unable to acknowledge the good in people who are sadly at odds with Church teaching on life issues.

Yours faithfully,
June Thomas
Bristol, Somerset


From Mr Stuart Pollard

SIR - I'm surprised you were taken in by Barack Obama's shrewd and calculating reference to Scripture in his presidential auguration address.

I follow a general rule: never trust a politician quoting the Bible. They only quote from it to serve their own purposes.

Mr Obama alluded to 1 Corinthians 13:11: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." He used this to imply divine approval of his quest to raise the tone of politics. St Paul, of course, meant nothing of the sort. He was writing instead about becoming a mature follower of Jesus. Would St Paul have recognised Mr Obama as a mature disciple of Christ?

Yours faithfully,
Stuart Pollard
By e-mail

Ronald Knox foresaw the present crisis in the Church and the world

From Fr Michael G Murphy

SIR - On October 24 last year you kindly published a letter of mine in which I quoted at length words of Mgr Ronald Knox that shed light on the looming worldwide financial crisis in our time. Knox was preaching as the Great Depression took hold in the Thirties. Each passing day reveals Knox, in that sermon, to have been a prophet in the true sense of the word, namely an interpreter of the will of God, for us as well for the congregation he was addressing. But perhaps he is a forgotten one.

There is a notion abroad that Vatican II was the Church's Enlightenment, and that spiritual teaching from pre-Vatican II days is out-of-date and out-of-touch. But Knox proves that to be untrue. Ecumenical Councils are called to enhance what has gone before, as well as giving a sense of direction for the future. Towards the end of the sermon from which I quoted, Knox throws light not only on the reasons for the financial crisis in our time, but also on the crisis of faith in the Church today.

Knox notes that the standard by which we judge the value of anything is "the standard of rarity. We confuse value with price; we think that because a thing is difficult to come by it is worth a great deal, that because the opportunities of enjoying a thing are rare, no such opportunity should be lost. God forgive us, we despise his graces because he has made them so cheap for us; the heavenly bread which is offered us without money and without price we put down, for that reason, as not worth having!"

Knox concludes his sermon by telling us: "We are all paupers in his sight, all slaves, all creatures of earth, and he will make no distinctions between us. He only asks that we should purge our consciences of mortal sin, and so come to him, asking him to bring just what he wants to give us, just what he knows that we need." How lucidly he explains God's ways. Not for him the modern insipid soundbite.

For Knox, as for John Henry Newman before him, as Anglicans and as Catholics, this world is a world of shadows. Both of them would agree with François Mauriac when he said: "The Eucharist is what is most real in the world."

Knox and Newman not only witnessed through all the crises in their lifetimes to where the real world is to be found. They stood firmly upon its ground, which is: "Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and the same forever" (Heb 13:8).

Yours faithfully,
Michael Murphy
St Michael's
Bishopstown, Co Cork

Flight from reality

From Mr Anthony Birney

SIR - I was a young teacher in the Fifties and early Sixties in London, Birmingham and Newcastle with a chequered career in Catholic and state grammar and primary schools. In addition to my main subjects, a small part of my timetable at various times consisted of religious instruction from Form Six level down to primary school level, in Catholic and also in state schools. As a part-time, non-specialist RE teacher, my most difficult task was undoubtedly in primary school religious instruction and I shudder to think how I might have coped without the foolproof Penny Catechism. Have teachers' priorities, weaknesses and workloads changed so much, I wonder.

Since then, we have endured a flight from reality. The outcome of this is that after all the synods, the words, the atrocious school RE programmes since 1969 and money wasted on moving tabernacles behind pillars, we see we have fallen from a 65 per cent practising Church (in the Sixties) to a 20 per cent practising Church in 2009. An intolerable thought.

While I admire Bishop O'Donoghue's Fit for Mission? Schools, a plan of action to haul the English Church back from the brink, I do not believe it can be done so effectively long-term without a modernised primary school children's catechism (an upgraded Penny Catechism, if you wish). This would have a changed content but use the same method of question and answer and memorisation. This method seemed to work for 200 years, from the 1700s to 1969: if it wasn't broken, why fix it?

So as a top priority a modernised children's catechism should be formulated by a small, expert group of theologians and teachers. The lack of this is very probably the main cause of our decline over the past 40 years.

An adult catechism/compendium used as a sort of reference book is not, in my view, adequate. After all, most teachers are fairly average and some (especially non-specialists) much lower than average. Think of the parable of the sower and the seed in which poor RE is targeted by Jesus. Surely we have been warned.

Yours faithfully,
Anthony Birney
Newcastle upon Tyne

A serious matter

From Mr Gerard Eaton

SIR - I refer to Hugh and Marguerite's letter of the January 9. Dissent implies opposition to the Church's teaching. It is a serious matter because it is not just withholding assent, it means substituting one's own views in place of the Church's teaching.

To imply that Bishop Conroy agrees with dissent is offensive, as he is a teacher and guardian of the Faith.

Yours faithfully,
Gerard Eaton
Hove, East Sussex

A vanishing Church

From Mr B J Eason

SIR - Your report (January 9) that possible names for the next Archbishop of Westminster have only now been forwarded to the Vatican is disturbing. Common sense would suggest a permanent list, regularly updated, of people ready for appointment to senior Church positions. It should then be a simple matter to select those deemed most suitable. Even allowing for consultation, it should normally be possible to name the appointee within three months, and never more than six months.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor submitted his resignation 17 months ago. This is unfair to him, Westminster diocese, and the Church in general. A review of procedures seems called for.

I have read many views on the attributes required by the next archbishop. Most have ignored the most important, which is the ability to tackle the current dire state of the Church. In 1999 the Tablet reported an analysis that showed that between 1964 and 1997 the number attending Mass in England and Wales had almost halved, baptisms more than halved, and marriages fallen by two thirds.

Our new archbishop must be capable of clear analysis of the reasons for this catastrophic decline, and to know what radical steps must be taken to reverse it, particularly in the fields of religious education (of children and adults) and increasing the sense of the sacred in our churches.

Great determination and resilience will be needed in the face of opposition, from both inside and outside the Church. The alternative will be, within a generation, the disappearance in England and Wales of the Catholic Church as we know it.

Yours faithfully,
B J Eason
Barnet, Herts

Misguided notion

From the vice-chairman of the Association for Latin Liturgy

SIR - It was good to find on your front-page the report (January 16) of the Holy Father baptising 13 children in the Sistine Chapel on the feast of the Lord's Baptism, accompanied by a delightful photograph of the ceremony. But the reporter rather spoils things when noting that the high altar was used rather than a forward-facing altar, with the remark: "That meant that during parts of the Mass the Pope turned away from the people." Surely it would have been better to say: "The Pope celebrated the central Liturgy of the Eucharist facing the Lord, together with the people, exactly as intended when that beautiful altar was designed."

To suggest otherwise is to pander to the misguided, though sadly common, notion that the celebrant is a stand-up entertainer who needs to face his "audience". It is perfectly good practice, and entirely legitimate, to celebrate Mass facing the ritual east. In the Novus Ordo, with the introductory rites and Liturgy of the Word conducted away from the altar, there is no longer a compelling reason for not using the time-honoured direction for celebrating the Sacrifice itself, where the arrangement of the sanctuary is appropriate. It is certainly so in the Sistine Chapel as it is in the Pope's private chapel.

Yours faithfully,
EDWARD BARRETT
By e-mail

A great witness

From Mr Neville Wheelan

SIR - In regard to the clash (Report, January 16) between Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School and the Archdiocese of Westminster, a spokesman for this diocese, on the subject of Catholic admissions requirements, has stated that "schools must use the bishops' definition of Catholic practice, not a definition they decide on independently..."

The point is that many of our Catholic bishops have been acting independently of Rome since Vatican II, for they have ignored successive popes' exhortations to uphold family life and teach the Faith fully without watering it down. The fact that most bishops have not proclaimed the truth of Humanae Vitae, and so much more, including the recent snubbing of the Pope's recommendations in his Summorum Pontificum, shows their dissent.

Instead of congratulating this school for standing up for Catholicism, the Archdiocese of Westminster prefers to threaten to report it to the Government, which has trampled all over Catholic values on the family. Three cheers for the governors, staff and parents of Cardinal Vaughan School, for their great witness to Catholic education and their refusal to be bullied.

Yours faithfully,
Neville Wheelan
Chittlehampton, Devon

Male and female

From Mr John Kearney

SIR_- I cannot understand the letter written by "name and address supplied" (January 16). What the Pope was saying is that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. That is who I am and who the writer is. I am not a heterosexual, I am a human being.

She or he is not a transsexual, bisexual, homosexual or lesbian, but a human being. Our sexual preference does not define us. We are men and women. If the writer is insisting on being defined by her sexual preference then he or she has no complaint against the Pope. His teaching, the teaching of the Church for 2,000 years, is that God made us men and women. He also gave us free will. However great our attraction to same-sex partners we have the choice to act or not to act.

If indeed we deny we have free will in the matter we are descending to the animal state, whether our acts are homosexual or heterosexual. Whatever professionals may say, this choice remains.

The writer will be welcome in any Catholic church as a man or a woman. He or she will not or should not expect to be welcomed as a homosexual, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual.

Yours faithfully,
John Kearney
Basingstoke, Hants

Greek creativity

From Mr Charles McBride

SIR - It is disheartening to hear again (Letters, January 9) that "our modern theatre basically started in Catholic ritual". Do such writers know nothing about of the wonderful Greek Theban plays of Sophocles and others written centuries before the foundation of the Church?

Yours faithfully,
Charles McBride
Crosby, Merseyside

Why has the CES backed the Government?

From Mr Eric Hester

SIR - You report (January 16) that the National Association of Catholic Families has written an open letter to the Catholic Education Service (CES) about that body's support for the Government's plan to introduce compulsory sex education for all children in schools from the age of four as part of the National Curriculum.

The Government's proposal has been rightly described by Gerald Warner of the Daily Telegraph as "child abuse".

Those who think that what the Government has in mind is something mild that can be incorporated into Catholic teaching about chastity should realise that the material that is already used and recommended is obscenity of the worst kind. Those with strong stomachs can see for themselves by looking at the websites of the Government-recommended agencies, such as the Terence Higgins Trust, the Teenage Pregnancy Unit, Marie Stopes International, the Family Planning Association, and Connexions.

The Government proposals are opposed by almost everyone, including the association that represents headteachers and the National Union of Teachers, as well as, according to opinion polls, 75 per cent of parents.

It is therefore astonishing that the CES is supporting the Government rather than Catholic parents. Catholic teaching could not be clearer on two important points: that the rights of parents are "inalienable" and that there should be no sex education at all in what John Paul II called the "years of innocence" -_that is, before puberty.

Yours faithfully,
Eric Hester
Bolton, Lancs

New mothers should not rush back to work

From Mrs Catherine Volante

SIR - Mary Kenny (January 16) is right in saying that rushing back to work is not "progressive", but a more appropriate word for "leisure" to recover from childbirth is "need". (I never went back and stayed at home.) Breastfeeding is best for both child and mother as this may help the uterus to recover and may lessen the chances of breast cancer while giving the child the perfect food and helping bonding. It may also help indirectly with natural family planning.

It is a pity Rachida Dati and other working mothers are not given enough support by fathers so that feeding as nature intended - as Our Lady fed Our Lord - can be done a lot more, as well as other good mothering. It is sad that mothers in underdeveloped countries have such a hard time.

The World Health Organisation recommends that a child is fed this way exclusively for at least six months (followed by slow weaning). Many mothers do this for much longer - and this is good, weaning by the end of the second year or later. How can a mother work while doing this? Each child of mine woke me twice a night, every night, for the first year for feeds. Babies want night feeds and their needs must be met. But what employer wants a tired mother who is making important decisions, operating dangerous machinery or running a country?

Pregnant women and mothers need support so they can do what they should properly. This is the purpose of husbands and fathers. A child should not be cheated by having vicarious mothers and women should not rush back to work in a "defiant effort to compete equally with men". God had His reasons for making man and woman different - to complete each other, not to compete with each other. We are not rivals.

St Joseph looked after Our Lady so she could care for Our Lord as God wished. Men should copy St Joseph who is also the patron saint of workers. Yours faithfully,

Catherine Volante

Birmingham

Whiter than white?

From Mr David V Barrett

SIR - I find it deeply disturbing that even with the benefit of decades of hindsight, a Herald reader praises Franco (Letters, January 16) - and on the utterly facile grounds that he "kicked the Communists out of Spain and thereby out of western Europe". (Communists have remained in western Europe - they have often been in local government in France, for example - without any sign of the collapse of civilisation.) And then he details some of the atrocities of the Republicans. In any civil war there are atrocities on both sides.

Does Clive Dytor really believe that the Fascists were whiter than white? Mr Dytor says of Franco, "we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude". How was an actual Fascist dictatorship any better than a possible Communist dictatorship? Franco was a dictator. He was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini.

Fascism was the antithesis of all the values of liberal democracy. Under Franco's regime there were mass executions and human rights were routinely violated. Just because Franco defended Catholicism it does not mean that we should be blind to the evils that he and his regime committed.

Yours faithfully,
David V Barrett
London E13

Bishop Kieran Conry: Did he interpret Summorum Pontificum correctly?

From the general manager of the Latin Mass Society

SIR - Bishop Kieran Conry is quite wrong in his interpretation of Summorum Pontificum (Christmastide Supplement, December 19). He states that the extraordinary form cannot become a regular Sunday Mass. But it can (and has). Summorum Pontificum states: "on Sundays ... one such celebration may ... be held." It places no further restrictions on whether that Mass is a regular Mass or the main Sunday celebration. It is left to the pastoral judgment of the priest (not the bishop).

Bishop Conry then says that a "stable group" (better translated as a "continuing group") must, in effect, be parish-based and cannot constitute itself over parish boundaries. But Summorum Pontificum does not say this. It leaves open how the group constitutes itself and from where. Hence, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, who looks after extraordinary form affairs for the Pope, said in June last year: "It is not possible to give two persons a Mass, but two here, two there, two elsewhere - they can have it. They are a stable group." He was asked, "From different parishes?" He replied: "No problem!" That is the common-sense approach which fully expresses the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and I commend it to Bishop Conry.

Yours faithfully,
John Medlin
London WC2


From the chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice

SIR_- It was reassuring to read most of the letters about Bishop Conry's interview but disappointing that there are two Catholics who really believe that "you can be a Catholic and dissent".

By whose authority can Catholics dissent? Is it really wise to follow our own inclinations even when they are contrary to Church teaching?After all, Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and He is with it always, protecting it from officially teaching error on any important issue. As Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue makes clear in his Fit for Mission? Church document if you don't believe this you are not a Catholic.

Even more worrying was Fr Julian Shurgold's letter (January 9) saying he agreed "with most" of Bishop Conry's astonishing statements. Let's hope he is not representative of the parish priests in Southwark archdiocese. There is obviously need for prayers - of thanksgiving for the solid faith shown by six of your readers and of intercession for Bishop Conry and his three supporters.

Yours faithfully,
Daphne McLeod
Great Bookham, Surrey


Beyond the norm

Name and address supplied

SIR - As a practising Catholic who also happens to be a transsexual woman I was deeply disturbed and saddened by Pope Benedict XVI's comments (Report, January 2) in his address to the Curia in Rome on December 22.

Once more I find myself under attack not for what I do but for who I am. The Pontiff's comments have only served to provide a moral fig leaf for those who bully and abuse us.

The Holy Father and I are both expatriate Germans, though for very different reasons, he having left his native land to reach the very pinnacle of his Church career, whereas I left Germany many years ago and subsequently felt compelled to leave Ireland after more than 30 years there to protect my family from the prejudice of small-town Catholic Ireland, which resulted in the collapse of my career and much else.

Ever since I have called Salford Cathedral my spiritual home, but how is it that, while the congregation have shown me all the Christian compassion, care and kindness, this appears to be beyond the Church leadership? Faith has been a cornerstone of my life and yet I must now decide whether I can stay in a Church whose leadership appears to want to exclude people like me.

The Holy Father speaks about the natural order and yet nature is constantly challenging us with deviations from the norm. What about any child born with a deformity, say a cleft lip, or the albino tribesman I met in the heart of Africa or, indeed, transsexuals born with a brain not compatible with their genetic bodies?

Are all of the above, and the countless others who do not fit the "norm", deviants who challenge the natural order? Nature and God's creation is endlessly diverse and we should accept that diversity; it is not for us to define the order of nature or we end up with the horrific and discredited concept of eugenics.

All reputable professionals in the field now accept that transsexualism stems from a physiological cause and is in no way a mental illness, perversion or lifestyle choice. The consensus is that gender identity is determined before birth and is unchangeable thereafter. The vast majority of people who are born "normal" without any mental, physical or physiological disability should daily count their blessings and show compassion and tolerance, without prejudice to those who have not been so fortunate.

Name and address supplied


An invalid rite

From Mr Simon Reilly

SIR - T H M Fawcett (Letters, January 9) was right when he speculated that the correspondents who criticised Apostolicae Curae had not read it. For instance, Richard Martin (Letter, December 19) would not have attempted to quote Pius XII's apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis against Apostolicae Curae, if he had read either document.

Pius XII did decree that the imposition of hands was the only matter required for the validity of holy orders but he also stated that his decree was not "retro-active" and that the Church had the authority to require the "receiving of the instruments" for valid orders at any time, before or after his decree. Therefore, since the Church required the two conditions at the time the Anglican ordinal was introduced the omission of the receiving of the instruments in the Anglican ordinal would have rendered the rite invalid.

However, in addition, Pius XII confirmed in the same constitution that the minimum words required in the form should include explicit mention of the ministry being conferred. Since the judgment of Leo XIII against the validity of Anglican orders was that the Anglican ordinal (as used from 1559 to 1662) omitted mention of the office conferred, Pius XII furthered rather than refuted Leo XIII's case against Anglican orders.

In light of the above, it is rather ironic that Richard Martin should back the imputation of Leo XIII with "suspect scholarship".

Yours faithfully,
Simon Reilly
London SW2


Mapping persecution

From Mrs Alison Cassidy

SIR - Stuart Reid refers to the World Terrorism Wall Map available to the readers of the American monthly Commentary (Charterhouse,
January 9).

Far better than that is Release International's free Persecuted Christians World Wall Map. No BBC newsdesk is complete without one.

Yours faithfully,
Alison Cassidy
Armagh


Heaven and earth

From Jane Campbell

SIR - Just as an addendum to Tim Heywood's article (Comment, January 2) I'd like to make the observation that the Word of God informs us that God does nothing without first making it known to His prophets (Amos 3:7), so the Second Coming will be announced by His prophets and that announcement will be made principally by the Church and specifically by "Peter". Pope Benedict, himself, in a recent Wednesday audience, quoted St Paul, saying that we were not to expect a specific announcement of a date for the Second Coming but that when the son of perdition had appeared we were to be ready, for Christ's Second Coming was close at hand. Rationally this would suggest to us that "Peter" will be the one to unmask the son of perdition.

However, picking up Pope John Paul II's favourite mantra, we must not be afraid, for when the Second Coming does occur it will in fact be rather "nice", and is something that we should look forward to and truly desire with all our hearts. For rather than an annihilation of earth occurring, heaven and earth will become one, in doing so they will pass away as separate entities and become one entity, in other words a marriage of the two will take place.

In the physical realm this occurrence will mirror the spiritual realm, as it does already in the sacramental life of the Church, which can be readily experienced through the activity of a lively faith, and then we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as he really is. Body and soul will be deified. However, if you have not paid the price of the temporal punishment due for your sins, sins that have been confessed and forgiven, then you will experience the pain of love's cleansing and purifying fires, faced as you will be with the loving mercy and justice of God itself. But this is not something to fear. Rather, it is something to be thankful for. We are people of faith, who look forward in hope to what God's love can do for us. Let us be ready to receive that love and to desire it.

Yours faithfully,
Jane Campbell
Ballina, Co Mayo


Light on scripture

From Mr John Canning

SIR - In recent weeks you have introduced a weekly calendar giving details of the readings for the coming week which includes those for the extraordinary form of Mass. These alternative readings indicate the key element of what was in need of reform in the Church in my childhood; there was virtually no knowledge of Sacred Scripture among Catholics. This is particularly evident in your January 2 edition which showed that that the same readings were used for five days of the week, and that those on the remaining two days were readings already repeatedly used in the time from Christmas.

The extraordinary form of Mass is undoubtedly popular, but I feel this is more because it is now celebrated in reverence, has well-prepared sermons and religiously appropriately music than for much else. But it does not expose the faithful to the revelation of Scripture. Advent has, remarkably, no structured scriptural preparation for both the Second Coming or the celebration of Christmas; the Easter season fails to teach about either the Gospel of St John or the life of the Early Church.

Yours faithfully,
John Canning
Middlesbrough


Protecting children

From Mr Stephan Jenkins

SIR - Again we read reported cases of abuse in the Church in Ireland (January 9). The press states that there are 400 complaints to date but there may be more. For some this may give good cause to criticise the Church as a whole, not realising, as Cardinal Brady said, "that there are thousands of trained volunteers and personnel who are fully committed to implementing statutory guidelines and agreed Church policies on safeguarding children". For others, these complaints are used to attack the celibacy of the priesthood or religious.

One case of child abuse of any kind is a terrible thing and the "covering up" of child abuse is beyond contempt. Let us not forget the excellent child care by those who feel it is necessary to take the risk to care and obey Our Lord's words: "Let the little children come unto me."

Yours faithfully,
Stephan Jenkins
Rochester, Kent


Harassing Orthodoxy

From Louise Buchanan

SIR_- Unlike Mr Medwig in his letter of December 19, I was not astonished by the ignorance of Patrick Reyntiens (Arts, December 5) as to the provenance of treasures seen in Venice.

I do, however, feel great shame, for the harassment of Orthodoxy continues until this day. Whereas the word "plunder" brings to mind "Crusade", the word "oil" brings to mind "Kosovo".

Catholics wishing to learn something of the history, beliefs and practice of Orthodoxy will find them explained in Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church (Penguin).

Should we not pray for Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew? He reciprocated the friendship offered by our Pope, bravely defying great anger expressed by major elements in the Russian and Serbian churches especially.

Yours faithfully,
Louise Buchanan
Norwich, Norfolk


Affinity with animals

From Mr Justin Gowers

SIR - My article (January 9) on Penelope Chetwode contained two factual errors that I thought had been corrected.

Chetwode's conversion to Catholicism caused considerable heartache for John Betjeman, but the couple never separated. Despite their theological differences, the Betjemans continued to spend weekends together.

Chetwode didn't prefer the company of animals to humans. It is truer to say that she had a special affinity with animals. I apologise for any distress and embarrassment this may have caused.

Chetwode's Two Middle-aged Ladies in Andalusia and Kulu will be reissued by Faber Finds at the end of this year.

Yours faithfully,
Justin Gowers
By e-mail


A far greater enemy

From Mr Clive Dytor

SIR - John Hinton's review (January 9) of Paul Preston's latest book on the Spanish Civil War was not worthy of an informed Catholic publication like the Herald. Franco kicked the Communists out of Spain and thereby out of western Europe, and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude. The Republicans burned churches, killed priests and raped nuns. They hated the True Faith and Franco knew that he was fighting for not only his country but also our religion. He used the Fascists to defeat a far greater enemy.

What a pity the soft Left have fooled so many in this country. Those who fought for the Republic were naïve and romantically myopic. The Communists knew this and exploited them ruthlessly.

Yours faithfully,
Clive Dytor
By e-mail


An ecology of man

From Mr Edmund Adamus

SIR - The claim that the "contraceptive pill is polluting the environment" (Report, January 9) is not new.

Recall the shocking evidence of the scientists from the University of Denver, Colorado, in 2005 and again was highlighted in July 2007, who studied mutant "intersex" fish in Boulder Creek and concluded that the main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city's sewage system. Since their findings, stories have been emerging everywhere in America.

This, coupled with the rise in human male infertility, makes it evident why the Holy Father calls for an "ecology of man". Cherishing fertility naturally is the hallmark of marriage, "the sacrament of creation".

More and more evidence points to the negative moral and physical impact of contraception for, as Pope Benedict has said, "our earth, speaks to us and we must listen if we want to survive and to decipher this message of the earth. And if we must be obedient to the voice of the earth, this is even truer for the voice of human life".

This surely is the inconvenient truth.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
London SW1


Saving matrimony

From Mr Michael Richards

SIR - In contemporary Christian endeavour there can hardly be any need more pressing than the commending and explaining of Christian marriage. To Joanna Bogle (Comment, December 5) in her own particular endeavours I should like to offer one very specific means. It assumes only two things: that her groups meet more than just once or twice; and that there is always promise of at least 40 minutes without interruption.

Obtain the publishers' permission and have a limited number of photocopies made of two poems, namely Philip Larkin's "The Whitsun Weddings" and David Lightfoot's "The Pentecost Partnerships". These two fine pieces, which I think might be better distributed separately, seem to me to make clear, as forcefully as any novel, let alone official report, what terrible losses there have been among the great gains in British society between the post-austerity marriages of my own generation and those, or their substitutes, of the decade of our grandchildren. But such things would be for Joanna Bogle's young people themselves to remark upon - and then to challenge her to commend the covenant of matrimony.

Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL RICHARDS
Edinburgh

Bishop Kieran Conry: Was he right about the difficulty of talking about salvation?

From Hugh and Marguerite Pointer

SIR_- A big thank-you to Bishop Kieran for the interview he gave to Andrew Brown (Christmastide Supplement, December 19). How heart-warming to hear affirmation of so many of our views. We sometimes worry about our doubts and questionings and it was a real Christmas present to read the encouraging lack of dogmatism and rigidity in his words and the emphasis on loving God and loving your neighbour.

Can you be a Catholic and dissent? Yes, we say - and the bishop didn't actually disagree. We were two of the three or four people at West Hoathly, in Worth parish, who asked him about the Latin Mass and were so cheered by his reply. Do you remember the old Bing Crosby song "Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative..." Now there's a rallying cry for the present day Catholic Church.

Yours faithfully,
Hugh and Marguerite Pointer
East Grinstead, West Sussex


From Miss Catherine Donner

SIR - Bishop Conry, in his interview, says that you cannot talk to young people about salvation, because it does not mean anything to them.

Bishops have "as their first task to preach the Gospel of God to all men" and are "authentic teachers of the apostolic faith" (Catechism of the Catholic Church §889). In his role as an "authentic teacher" perhaps Bishop Conry should explain and instruct young people so that they do understand the meaning of salvation.

Bishop Conry also criticises frequent Confession on the grounds that the penitent repeats the same sins without any real conversion. Would the bishop rather that the penitent came each week with new, and perhaps more serious, sins?

Yours faithfully,
Catherine Donner
London SW7


From Mr E Eaton

SIR - It is extremely sad that Bishop Conry, a successor to the Apostles and with a mandate to go and teach all nations, is not able to talk to young people about something as basic as their salvation. It looks like there is a problem with their religious education in school - something perhaps he could look into.

Yours faithfully,
E Eaton
Hove, East Sussex


From Mrs Jocelyn Rowe

SIR - In these difficult times it is more important than ever to focus on what really matters - the Good News of salvation and the promise of eternal life. Surprising then, to read the words of Bishop Kieran Conry: "You can't talk to young people about salvation."

Surely God's plan for our salvation should be taught to young people and discussed with them from their earliest days so that they may grow in the knowledge and understanding of God's loving plan for them as they go through life.

Yours faithfully,
JOCELYN ROWE
Rye, East Sussex


From Fr John McCallion

SIR - It was hard to take on board the views with which Bishop Conry spoke of in your Christmas Supplement. However, the irony is that on the same page that contained Kevin Morton's letter (January 2) also lamenting these comments, Fr Finigan spoke of the benefit of frequent Confession and illustrated this by referral to the fact that the Holy Father goes weekly.

Also, that the good bishop's episcopal coat of arms contains the motto: "Prepare the way of the Lord", and, as every Catholic knows, how close these words were to the ministry of St John the Baptist: a ministry of urgent repentance.

It would be great for the New Year that all our bishops, who need our prayers daily, should take a leaf out of the book of Bishop O'Donoghue and produce comments akin to those found in Fit for Mission, rather than continue with those that smack more of relativism than revelation.

Yours faithfully,
John McCallion
Clonoe, Co Tyrone


From Fr Michael Kelly

SIR - Andrew M Brown's interview with Bishop Conry, together with Bishop O'Donoghue's recent Fit for Mission documents, reveals an honest divergence of opinion between at least two of our bishops, which is never reflected in the directives from the national conference of bishops.

The concern for consensus and diplomacy needs always result in compromise, and therefore weak leadership within the national Church. The true order of the Church is surely the Pope and each bishop responsible for his own diocese, without the intersecting between them of a national conference.

Admittedly ad limina visitations would of numerical necessity be made together, but with each bishop able to be there in his own right, and to answer to the Pope (and, of course, God too), and sometimes to visit alone.

While personally I am on the side of Lancaster, especially as regards Humanae Vitae (and deplore the diplomatic silence at the opportune moment of the 40th anniversary), Arundel and Brighton has done us the service of revealing some of the irrelevance of the national conferences and their expensive bureaucracies.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Kelly
St Augustine's of Canterbury,
Leeds, West Yorkshire


From Mr Ray Knight

SIR - I read with interest Kevin Morton's letter. His comments were prompted by the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. We would all agree that, in such off-the-cuff exchanges, the deeper issues cannot be fully explored. For instance, in discussing some changes in worship introduced by Vatican II, it was pointed out that they should not be resisted as if they were innovations since they were to be found in the early Church.

When the discussion moved to the reaction of the young to salvation, the bishop apparently said: "You can't talk to young people about salvation."

In so far as that remark is true, it surely applies also to adults outside the Church and the many who have left the Church.

When Pope John XXIII launched Vatican II with the desire to return the Church to its roots, he must surely have had in mind any changes needed to improve the Church's work in evangelising.

After all, that was the main purpose of ministry by Jesus, by the 12 and the 72 that he sent out, and by the early Church as described in Acts. He promised to make his first followers "fishers of men", and finally instructed them (and us) to "make disciples of all nations and heal their sick".

Looking at how seriously the early Church obeyed, we read in Acts that, unlike in our day, their evangelising was supported by miracles, as Jesus had promised: "Those who believe in me will do the works that I do, and even greater."

That pattern, evangelising supported by miracles, was only possible once the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples. Pope John XXIII saw this as he publicly prayed for a second Pentecost. Almighty God answered that prayer with the growth of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal which sadly does not make evangelising with miracles its first priority.

We laity must continue where Vatican II left off; we can extend and multiply our prayer groups to study Acts, and the letters, to eventually transform our groups and parishes into that same pattern of Christianity that alone will return the Church into full obedience to Jesus Christ.

Yours faithfully,
Ray Knight
Baldock, Herts


Wonderful hymns

From Fr Julian G Shurgold

SIR - I am very surprised that James MacMillan, in his caustic article (Christmastide Supplement, December 19) on certain types of church music, approves of "O come, O come, Emmanuel" being sung as early as the First Sunday of Advent.

I'm sure he knows that this wonderful hymn is based on the Great O's, the seven Magnificat antiphons for the last week of Advent. The first part of Advent (up to December 16) stresses the future Second Coming of Christ, the last part (December 17-24) stresses the background to the First Coming 2,000 years ago. In this parish of Holy Family, the hymn is restricted to those days, which may or may not include Gaudete (the Third) Sunday, but always includes the Fourth.

On a separate note, I look forward eagerly to the splutterings and fulminations of the Catholic Right on your letters page in response to Bishop Conry's interview with Andrew Brown (Christmastide Supplement, December 19). I don't agree with everything the bishop said in response to the leading questions but I agree with most of it, and it's a refreshing and most welcome change from the "right box-ticking" that normally characterises interviews with the hierarchy.

Yours faithfully,
Julian Shurgold
Holy Family,
Sutton Green, Surrey


Don't just attend

From Mrs Mary Lord

SIR - Stuart Reid (Charterhouse, January 2) suggests a New Year resolution to do more to support the extraordinary form of the Mass. I agree that we should do all we can to support to those, clergy and others, who are doing their bit to make the "'old" Mass available more widely, in accordance with the Holy Father's wishes.

Perhaps, though, the best resolution for our own spiritual welfare would be to allow the traditional Mass, with its extraordinary spiritual richness, more opportunity to support us. Don't just attend it, but learn a bit more about it... and in so doing become more receptive to the graces that flow from the Holy Sacrifice.

Yours faithfully,
Mary Lord
Abingdon, Oxfordshire


Out of synch

From Mr Michael Smith

SIR - Yet again we in the Catholic Church in England and Wales have celebrated the Solemnity of the Epiphany on the nearest Sunday. I always felt that to celebrate this Solemnity, together with others, such as the Assumption, that fell on week-days sanctified the week and made the point that ours is a faith for every day, not just for Sundays.

Also, if to be Catholic is to be in communion with the Holy Father, then I feel it is vitally important for the whole Church to celebrate these Solemnities on the same day as the Holy Father himself. To me, they are diminished by becoming another Sunday celebration, without in any way diminishing the importance and significance of the Sunday celebration, and I feel cheated.

Is it too much to hope that the bishops of England and Wales might think again?

Yours faithfully,
Michael Smith
By e-mail


A Catholic gentleman

From Mr John Owen

SIR - It is most unfortunate that Ed Stourton has been sacked from his post as presenter of the BBC Today programme (Report, December 19). Ed Stourton is an English, Catholic, gentleman - all three characteristics which are anathema to the trendy secularists at the BBC. He has been sacked for what he is rather than for anything that he has done or not done.

I will miss his polite and incisive interviews and his informative presentation of the day's news. Once again we must brace ourselves to listen to the rude, aggressive and biased interviewing techniques with their continual interruptions which have become the hallmark of BBC news programmes. No doubt Mr Stourton's talents will be recognised and made good use of by other more worthy employers. I am sure we all wish him well in his future career.

Yours faithfully,
John Owen
Sittingbourne, Kent


A gruesome empire

From Miss Martha Swanson

SIR - M Medwig's letter (December 19) about the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade was very interesting. While I found myself agreeing with his general point, namely that much of Venice's architectural glory and the richness of its collection of Byzantine artefacts is owed to this inglorious moment in western history - including the presence of the four horses from the hippodrome which adorn St Mark's Basilica - let us not forget the city's own history as a city of the eastern Roman empire before its independence from Ravenna and the East.

Eastern Rite Christians are quick to accuse the Crusaders of cultural vandalism and general barbarity, some of which is undeniable, but much of which is unfair.

If your correspondent took some time to gaze at his own omphalos for some time rather than gazing at the navels of others, he might find that the Byzantines were pretty gruesome, vandalous and barbaric themselves.

We spend too much time apologising for the Fourth Crusade. Isn't it time to move on and make friends with our Eastern brethren?

Yours faithfully,
Martha Swanson
Cardiff


Definitive teaching

From Mr T M H Fawcett

SIR - You have now published three letters in response to Major Michael Robertson Young's beautifully clear and helpful summary (December 12) of the conclusions of Apostolicae Curae which all show the same defective understanding of the status of Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical letter.

I wonder how many other readers fail to understand that it is a decree. It is not affected in the least by changing fashions. It is not subject to qualification by the opinions of popular historians, academics, clergymen or others. Unless it is invalidated by another encyclical letter which redefines the mind of the Church on this matter, it will continue to stand as the definitive teaching.

It would appear that your correspondents have not read the encyclical. It almost overflows with the qualities they seem to want. Indeed, it is a sublime combination of charity, wisdom, humility, discretion, understanding and authority all informed by an affectionate zeal for souls.

That this inspired decree should be thought of as a "dead letter" by most English Catholics is a sad comment indeed on our impoverished and ignorant times.

Yours faithfully,
T M H Fawcett
Churchstoke, Montgomeryshire


The drama of faith

From Mr Edmund Matyjaszek

SIR - Charlotte Green's letter in the January 2 issue castigating Meryl Streep's claim (Christmastide Supplement, December 19) that "our modern theatre basically started in Catholic ritual" as "rather simplistic" cannot in fairness be allowed to stand.

Meryl Streep is in fact entirely correct. Western theatre emerged, as all histories of its theatre will tell you, from the performances at the Easter ceremonies of the arrival of the women at the empty tomb.

A French text in front of me on the religious theatre of the 11th to 13th centuries outlines how theatre was "exclusively religious in origin ... about the year 1000 in a great number of churches in France, Germany, England and perhaps other countries..." and continues in a scholarly way to outline the exact details of these "mise-en-scenes" of our faith.

There is no doubt that at times the Church has grown concerned about theatre's vigorous and sometimes unlicensed life. Mrs Green's note on Spanish theatre in the 16th century may well be true.

But it was from the Easter story acted out, at first in church, that there grew the magnificent Mystery and Miracle cycles of plays that are the bedrock of our English theatre. Shakespeare and the great Elizabethans drew directly from them; and the Jesuit order in the 16th century saw theatre as one of the main methods of teaching and indeed evangelising and encouraged the writing of plays. There are indeed records of a recusant theatre company in the north of England putting on performances of Shakespeare's King Lear and Pericles in 1610 for a Catholic manor house. What is also worth bearing in mind is how this tradition has continued to communicate, through the plays of Shakespeare above all, the elements and truths of our faith. One recent example may suffice.

Harold Pinter we are told specified that his funeral was "entirely secular". But the final words spoken by his wife of 30 years, Antonia Fraser, over his grave came from Horatio's farewell to Hamlet: "Now cracks a noble heart: good night, sweet Prince, / And flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest."

At a time when churches are being closed for lack of priests (and parishioners, come to that) it would perhaps be wise to keep our theatres open and in rude health, for at least as long as Shakespeare is acted the words and images of our faith will not so easily be eradicated from our culture.

Yours faithfully,
Edmund Matyjaszek
Ryde, Isle of Wight

An ill-considered experiment with Northern Ireland's schools

From Fr Patrick Delargy ADM

SIR - My support for Catholic schools and my understanding of the worldwide significance of such education is inevitably influenced by my calling as a parish priest. I see the parish as a missionary community that witnesses to the Gospel and seeks to influence society for the greater good especially through education.

As an Irish parish we learn from the experiences of Catholic communities in other countries too. In Bosnia Bishop Pero Sudar has argued that Catholic schools provide the best means of helping the Church survive in that war-torn region.

We learn from the vigorous discussion in the English Church about the irreplaceable role of Catholic education there. Maintaining schools is seen as the privileged way to preserve a Catholic culture, strengthen faith and promote the common good.

Strangely, here in Northern Ireland it is being proposed that the Catholic Church should consider surrendering the control of its schools in the interests of state-controlled curricular change, economies of scale and a shared future. A state-controlled Education and Skills Authority would then delegate subordinate powers for staff employment and management to the boards of governors in all schools.

The Minister of Education, supposedly on the grounds of socialist doctrine and concern for equality, is supporting the plans to replace Catholic trustees with this new centralised body and she will invite local politicians to manage the system at all levels.

The Department of Education expects the hierarchy to cede power to a politicised command and control system. At best that will provide education on the cheap.

The attendant plan to abolish all forms of academic selection and the danger of following the British proposals to free the curriculum from established subjects like History and Religious Education is best characterised as a philistine move from traditional education to an anarchical free-for-all without the intervening stage of sensible reflection and consolidation.

Catholic teachers should reject the dog-in-the-manger distortion of Christian social teaching which proclaims that nobody shall be seen to be different from or more talented than anyone else. It is unwise to risk losing Catholic institutions of learning to satisfy the clamour for experimentation and ill-considered forms of egalitarianism.

Will politicians be pleased to close schools in their own constituencies just to facilitate box-ticking bureaucrats and their centralised education system? Why not preserve a Catholic tradition of solidarity with the needy within a diverse system of local control and management for the common good?

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Delargy
St Colmcilles,
Belfast

Times have changed

From Fr Michael Galloway SSC

SIR - I write with reference to Major Michael Robertson-Young's letter (December 12) on the subject of sacrificing priests. He says that he hopes what he has said will be of help to Anglican priests who are considering transferring their allegiance to Rome. By its tone I would venture to suggest that it is likely to achieve the opposite, plus he does not seem to realise that since Pope Leo's Bull Apostolicae Curae the situation has changed.

A few weeks before I was ordained I attended the consecration of Bishop Eric Kemp where there were two Old Catholic co-consecrators. Their orders are regarded by Rome as irregular but this does not equate with invalidity. Bishop Kemp was very prelatical and regarded as a great prince bishop and admired by all. Before my ordination I was subjected to a long interview with him and I was left in no doubt that he intended to raise me to the sacred priesthood. The usual response to the above is: "Yes, but you cannot have Catholicism without the Pope."

Rome regards the Eastern Orthodox Churches as possessing valid sacerdotal orders and Catholics may, in an emergency, receive the sacraments from them. As for Catholicism without the Pope, they are a case in point.

When talking with a highly placed cleric in the Diocese of Westminster a few years ago he told me that I was a Catholic priest exactly the same as him but I had obtained my orders illegally. Again, illegality does not denote invalidity.

Yours faithfully,
Michael Galloway
Chard, Somerset

Opposing theatre

From Mrs Charlotte Green

SIR - Meryl Streep (Interview, December 19) says "our modern theatre basically started in Catholic ritual". This is rather simplistic. In many ways modern theatre was born in reaction to the Church. In 16th-century Spain, for example, the Church opposed the theatre and fiercely condemned female actors.

Yours faithfully,
Charlotte Green
Hale, Cheshire

Pro-abortion slant

From Mr Micheál Ó Fearghail

SIR - Thank you for the article by Mary O'Regan (Comment, December 15). It provides a salutary warning for any inclined to be complacent about the pro-life position in Ireland - not to mention Lithuania - as well as an excellent overview of the "hard cases" of the past two decades in Ireland that were manipulated by the pro-abortion lobby. Those with only a general knowledge of these things might well have been misled by some of the slant with which these were reported in the mainstream media.

I hope the advice of the last paragraph, asking for active support for the pro-life movement in Ireland, is widely heeded.

Experience shows that once abortion is allowed to infiltrate a country - no matter how deceitful the pretext - it is the very devil of a job to get it back out again.

Yours faithfully,
Micheál Ó Fearghail
Glanmire, Co Cork

Quest for salvation

From Mr Kevin Morton

SIR - I was disappointed to read the comments made recently by the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton (Christmastide Supplement, December 19), though sadly not surprised.

I have to agree with the bishop's words when he says "you can't talk to young people about salvation". It isn't because personal salvation doesn't make sense to young people today. It makes as much sense as it's always done; as a young, practising Catholic I regard it as the quest at the centre of my life, the reason why I persevere when I sin and keep asking God for His forgiveness.

The bottom line is that young people don't need to be patronised. They don't need the faith watered down to attract them. They don't need to replace theology with ecology to get bums on pews. What we want and what is good for our souls is to be taught the true faith by bishops who aren't afraid to preach it.

Yours faithfully,
Kevin Morton
Edinburgh

External forms

From Mr James Hamilton

SIR - I'm afraid I don't agree at all with Alcuin Reid that reception of Communion on the tongue will reverse disbelief in the Real Presence (Arts & Books, December 19). The scandalous decline of faith on the part of lay Catholics has little if anything to do with reception on the hand, and everything to do with the atrocious catechesis current in the Church.

I was taught at age seven by a wonderful De La Salle Brother that we could receive on the tongue or in the hand, and my belief in the Real Presence kept me in the Church during my teenage years and is a continuing source of renewal and consolation. If we were to insist on Communion on the tongue while kneeling I doubt very much it will make one whit of difference to the "loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, [...] profanation, [and] adulterating the true doctrine". Our troubles go too deep to be solved merely by an external observance of form.

Yours faithfully,
James Hamilton
London NW6