Sir, I am writing to you about your most extraordinary editorial (September 4th) on Dr Connell. You seem to crave "a Constitution which reflects contemporary society". Unfortunately, there is a major flaw in the "contemporary society" you admire. It wishes to subvert the natural law.
Therefore, to this end, "contemporary society" regards all law, including the law of God and the law governing social behaviour, as totally expendable. This has rarely been more obvious than at the present time. So why you want to bother with a Constitution at all is very strange. I give an example of what I am talking about.
We know that it is in the capacity of man to do terrible things and to delude himself into thinking that he has done nothing wrong or that he had done wrong because he had no choice, or that it was necessary to do wrong to achieve good. Man has an enormous capacity for self delusion.
Take the practice of contraception. Many of us have completely deluded ourselves into thinking that there is nothing wrong with practising contraception. Yet we know that it is totally irrational to, "destroy nature's perfection in the laws of procreation. We know that, in doing this we are removing the integrity of the natural law. We are in fact saying that we may do what we like with nature not realising that we are creating anarchy within our environment which is totally dependent on the natural law.
Those of us who practice contraception quickly realise also that we are rejecting God because the practice of contraception, being the essence of self indulgence, is incompatible with self denial. In the practice of contraception we also use others purely for our own pleasure.
The acceptance of contraception has "fatally injured" many of the provisions of our Constitution using others for purely personal pleasure supersedes the natural law, the position of the family is undermined by promoting adultery, marriage to many has become meaningless because promoting contraception promotes casual relationships.
You have played a part in bringing all this about in that you are operating a policy of censorship in these matters by printing defective logic, selective and half truth and refusing to print the whole truth.
What do you say to this? I bet you won't print this letter. Yours, etc., Lusk, Co. Dublin.