Dear Editor, Your use of the word “cowardice” in your Editor’s Comment (IC 27/04/2017) in relation to the Church and the increased likelihood of a referendum on abortion in 2018, certainly struck a chord with me.
It came during a week when Pope Francis had mentioned to us the case of a young mother in Syria who chose to forfeit her life rather than agree to trample on a crucifix as demanded by her two Isis murderers. In that same week, the Irish media quoted the reasons given by two separate religious sisters for not wearing their veils as “a fear of appearing odd” and “not wishing to be spat on”.
My criticism is not at the removal of the veils but rather the reason for removing them – for fear of offending! It called to mind also the silence from many Sunday pulpits during the recent debates on ‘limited’ abortion and gay ‘marriage’. Again, often for fear of offending or in the name of ‘compassion’.
We are, I believe, in danger of replacing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a secular, politically-correct gospel. The secular gospel avoids all reference to repentance and the way we live our lives, for fear of giving offense while dressing it up in the compassionate language of the lamb as God’s mercy and love for all, regardless.
On the other hand, Jesus Christ, who is mercy incarnate, calls us to “Repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15) thus making a direct connection between God’s parental love for us and repentance, that is, the way we live our lives as his children.
This disconnection in our witness and preaching between the Gospel and the need that we all have to repent (by adjusting our lives to the compass of the Gospel), is, I believe, turning our dwindling congregations into passive audiences of entitlement. But it is also killing the Faith and killing the Church in Ireland.
Yours etc.,
Fr Freddy Warner SMA,
Portumna,
Co. Galway.
Don’t support contraception ban review
Dear Editor, I must say I was more than surprised at Mary Kenny’s suggestion that the ban on artificial contraception should be reviewed, and this is after she admits that she has read Humanae Vitae (IC 20/04/2017).
The Church does not teach that women should have unlimited children. Pope Paul VI asked scientists to research and come up with more reliable methods of natural family planning and the result was Natural Procreative Technology (NaPro), which seems to be as much a secret among Catholics as in the wider society and this despite the fact that it is as effective as artificial contraception and, more importantly, not harmful to a woman’s health.
I wonder if Ms Kenny has read much on the side-effects of artificial contraception. I have done some reading on this issue and it certainly should give pause for thought to the very many who employ these methods of birth control. It must be added that in every country in which artificial contraception is available, abortion follows, as stated by the late Fr Marx many years ago.
The Church puts the ideal before us and very few of us can live up to it but we are encouraged to try. Removing the ideal is not the answer, especially when it means a devaluing of women and the necessity for abortion as the ultimate contraception.
It is somewhat ironic that Ms Kenny combines contraception and women’s health as the one thing that contraception does is adversely affect women’s health. We are all aware that pills and potions have side effects and it is strange that women are willing to endure these in order that they do not become pregnant. Motherhood is an immense privilege which no longer seems to enjoy the appreciation it merits, as evidenced by the push for contraception and abortion.
Therefore, I can in no way support Ms Kenny’s call for a review of the ban on artificial contraception, but rather would thoroughly recommend that everyone read Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae and appreciate its wonderful wisdom and foresight.
Yours etc.,
Mary Stewart,
Donegal Town.
There is no necessity for contraceptives
Dear Editor, Mary Kenny (IC 20/04/2017), is unimpressed by Humanae Vitae, she omits mention of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, and calls for new thinking on contraceptives. This is my perspective.
Firstly, it is important to note that with the exception of condoms, the Health Service Executive tells us that all forms of ‘contraceptive’ are abortifacients. In other words while they may be perceived as acting as fertility suppressants, they are designed to prevent implantation, thus leading to the expulsion and death of the newly conceived baby.
The moral argument: it is immoral to reject a God-given gift. Here, the marital-act as designed by God is deliberately frustrated, placing us outside God’s plan doing something entirely different, less worthy, less wholesome, less holy.
The Christian lives by Providence; having come to believe the Good News – that God loves us more than we can imagine – we place our trust in Him. So whether we have six children or 16 children, we no longer live by fear.
There is no necessity for contraceptives; where it is perceived to be unsafe to have a child right now, the couple can opt to engage in fertility monitoring, so as to postpone the possibility of conceiving.
This is every bit as sure as ‘contraceptives’. It is not a repudiation of God’s gift of fertility, unlike temporary or permanent sterilisation which affects the proper workings of the healthy body which God endowed us with.
Finally, while we should never do something that goes against our conscience, nobody is entitled to ‘follow their own conscience’ when to do so flies in the face of the prayerful reflection of our fellow Christians as proclaimed by the Pope.
Yours etc.,
Gearóid Duffy,
Lee Road,
Cork
HSE site choice a tribute to Sisters
Dear Editor, In the determined drive by the Health Service Executive to locate the new maternity hospital at Elm Park lies an unspoken tribute to St Vincent’s Hospital and the much maligned Sisters of Charity. They both must have been doing great medical and efficient services.
Yours etc.,
Fr Con McGillicuddy,
Raheny,
Dublin 5
Issues around national maternity hospital
Dear Editor, Suppose I own a site as well as a building which I have allowed to be built thereon, then, it seems to me that I cannot avoid some responsibility for what happens in that building.
If I know that abortion on demand, embryonic stem cell research, IVF etc. may well, in due course, be legally carried out, then as a Catholic, morally before God, I have a responsibility to take action.
Thus, before construction starts, I must have a binding contract that no such (or similar) practices will take place. I could gift the site without strings, but in that case I do not know what legal and moral problems would then arise.
Yours etc.,
Anthony Mangan,
Milltown, Dublin 6.
Lay-led liturgies could be solution to priest shortage
Dear Editor, The present development and discussion on lay-led liturgies does indeed have to be conducted in line with adequate knowledge of catechesis and Church teaching, as pointed out by Declan Cooney (Letters 20/04/2017).
This awareness is fully appreciated and followed by most dioceses undertaking the task of supplying for the priest-shortage, and is fully endorsed by the Vatican II Council Fathers in the establishment of the permanent diaconate wherein ordained men, even married, are trained and vetted for a new ordination function as an auxiliary service to parishes.
Could this be one solution the Spirit is advising where priest numbers are short?
Yours etc.,
Patrick Morgan,
Wexford
The habit of nuns going around incognito
Dear Editor, Mary Kenny’s comment piece in your issue of April 27 questioning the prevalent habit of nuns going incognito reminds me of the old story of the nun in Rome, who having been accosted by a man rushes over to a policeman. She points a finger in the direction of the man saying “that man has just pinched my bottom” and added “and I’m a nun”, to which the policeman tersely replied, “how did you know I was a policeman?”
Yours etc.,
Roger Garland,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
