Dear Editor, The national airwaves and dailies have been full of late with references to how, fresh from her victory in the abortion referendum, Minister Josepha Madigan led a Communion service for those gathered for Mass. One aspect of this we must surely grapple with honestly is whether people who flout Church teaching should be permitted to lead Church services.
This goes further than your analysis of how bishops and Popes have engaged with the question of whether politicians who advocate and work for access to abortion ought to be allowed receive Communion (IC 28/07/2018).
For some the line appears that they ought to be denied abortion; for most, it seems, the line instead is that they ought to be discouraged from receiving but not actually stopped. In practice this seems a variation on what Pope Francis says in Amoris Laetitia: that the Church is called to form consciences, not replace them.
So far so good, even if in practice this respect for the maturity of ordinary Catholics means allowing us the freedom to damn ourselves. It is, however, one thing for an individual Catholic to risk his or her eternal soul by receiving Communion while defying Church teaching, but quite another for someone to risk leading whole congregations astray by publicly presenting themselves as Church leaders while publicly defying Church teaching.
Of course, during the referendum campaign the ACP leadership, seemingly much to the dismay of many ordinary members, suggested that it was possible for Catholics to vote in good conscience to remove the right to life from unborn human beings. Ms Madigan, it would seem, is far from alone in her willingness to preside over Church gatherings while parading a disregard for the teachings of the Church.
Yours etc.,
Gabriel Kelly,
Drogheda, Co. Louth.
We can all participate meaningfully in the Church
Dear Editor, Following the recent spat between Culture Minister Josepha Madigan and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin a few points are worth reflecting on.
The heat in this altercation, I believe, is more about the views expressed by Minister Madigan on female ordination and other issues of Church practice. Of course, God in his essence is neither male or female, neither essentially masculine or feminine. However, God, in his relation to his creation, does have a masculine aspect. This is clear in the way God has revealed himself, and is fundamental to the Church’s understanding of priesthood.
The priest represents God who reveals himself as ‘Father’ (Scripture never uses a female pronoun to refer to God). The priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, who became human as a man. The priest is made permanently into a living symbol of God. Thus, who he is matters.
While those who favour women priests often speak in terms of equality and fairness, we see, especially in the Catholic context, that those who agitate for women’s ordination often have further agenda items.
Very often proponents of female ordination discuss the issue not only in terms like equality, but also ‘representation’, in a political sense, that women need to be represented in ‘decision-making’. Dig deeper, and you will find that they want women to become clergy in order to change other teachings. Female ordination advocates also routinely promote abortion, contraception, same-sex relationships, and any other of a number of the ‘usual suspects’ of dissent.
One irony jumps out. Proponents of female clergy often vociferously denounce clericalism, yet their position implies that the clergy are the ‘real Christians’, or the important ones, that one cannot participate meaningfully in the Church unless one is ordained. A cursory look at other religious denominations, who have gone down this path, will demonstrate the even quicker decline in their numbers than the Catholic Church.
Yours etc.,
Don Cahalane,
Beaumont, Co. Cork.
Sisters’ positive sides
Dear Editor, Mary Kenny’s article ‘How about a narrative of the good nuns?’ (IC 21/06/2018) is timely and offers food for thought for all of us who have had the pleasure of knowing religious sisters and appreciating their lifelong commitment to ministry.
Unfortunately within the media, like in advertising if you say the same thing often enough, many non-critically-thinking people will believe it. It is time, as Mary Kenny suggests, for a book chronologically outlining the contribution nuns have made. But we can all play our part too; by engaging with the media about our own positive stories, and I hope that our sisters can have the confidence to realise that most of us still value and respect them.
Yours etc.,
Frank Browne
Templeogue, Dublin 16.
Not so much ‘infant conscripts’ as willing participants
Dear Editor, As a practising Catholic, and one who cherishes their Faith, I am perplexed at former president Mary McAleese’s reference to babies baptised into the Catholic Church as “infant conscripts who are held to lifelong obligations of obedience”.
Parents or guardians make decisions for their respective infants when the infant is not of an age to be able to do so him/herself. Receiving the Sacrament of Baptism to become a member of the Church is one such decision. It is a Sacrament that all Christian denominations share in common, and one parents freely choose for their child should they intend to raise them in the Christian faith.
Contrary to what may be perceived, many parents still desire this sacrament for their infant children.
Perhaps as Ms McAleese states, “we have the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion and of religion”, but there are many of us who are very content to have been brought up in the Catholic faith. We are happy that our parents chose to baptise us as infants, and now as adults with ‘fully formed consciences’, would certainly not think back on ourselves as ‘infant conscripts’ at our induction to the Church. God commanded the importance of baptism for all His believers and that’s good enough for me.
Yours etc.,
Aisling Bastible,
Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Vetting system in dire need of overhaul
Dear Editor, When Pope John Paul II visited Ireland back in 1979, I volunteered to help with the stewarding in Galway; it was a wonderful experience. 39 years on and the country will host another papal visit and I thought I’d also volunteer my services during the event.
One of the criteria listed for volunteers on the World Meeting of Families website reads “must apply for Garda vetting as part of the application process”. I didn’t think that would be an issue as I was vetted in 2017 and given a National Bureau Vetting number for Children and Vulnerable Persons.
When I informed the WMOF organisers that I already had Garda clearance and I would gladly give them my N.V.B. reference number, they told me that I would have to be vetted again. Surely, the Garda vetting procedure either works or it doesn’t work: if it works, then my records are in the Garda data base and can be readily accessed and verified. If it doesn’t work (and I hear of teachers having to be vetted two and three times in the one year), then why do we proceed with a broken system?
It saddens me that having given my life in the service of children and vulnerable adults and having complied with the concomitant rules and regulations that go with such work that I am not considered worthy or safe enough to be allowed help out with some stewarding during the forthcoming papal visit. I’m all for safeguarding and security and the need for appropriate screening, but I draw a line when the sham of the current Garda vetting system requires one to jump through the same hoop again and again before one is deemed safe and clean.
Yours etc.,
Kevin McEvoy,
Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
Acknowledgement would help
Dear Editor, Mary McAleese and Josepha Madigan, and those who agree with them, have quite a number of choices about which other Christian churches to join, but traditional Catholics have nowhere else to go. If we are let down by our bishops and priests, then we are abandoned entirely. At the risk of sounding like the Prodigal Son’s brother, I have to say that it would make a nice change if the bishops acknowledged and affirmed the faithful Catholics who have stayed with the Church through thick and thin.
Church leaders were put to shame during the recent referendum campaign by the commitment of ordinary citizens who prayed and fasted, canvassed and wrote letters to the media, and contributed money in the pro-life cause.
On their behalf, is it too much to ask that our bishops now issue a joint statement, affirming the Church’s teachings on abortion and marriage and priesthood, and insisting that Church ministries should be exercised only by those who accept Church teachings? Many ordinary Catholics showed courage during the referendum campaign (and to be fair, so did individual bishops and priests). The bishops in general should now do the same.
Yours etc.,
Jim Stack,
Lismore, Co. Waterford.
