Madam, – With respect to Pól Ó Cionnaith (March 6th), my letter of March 2nd in no way argued that “the Pope is the conscience of all Catholics”. It did contain a quotation about the papacy “not put in opposition to the primacy of conscience but based on it and guaranteeing it” (page 23 of On Conscience by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger). Both are underpinned by the concept of truth, the “basic understanding of the good instilled in us” (page 32).
The following statement a few pages later might allay Mr Ó Cionnaith’s fears: “The pope cannot impose commandments on faithful Catholics because he wants to or finds it expedient. Such a modern voluntaristic concept of authority can only distort the true theological meaning of the papacy” (page 34).
I hope the concise letters of Fr Seán Coyle and Domhnall O'Neill (both March 7th) have blown away a lot of smoke. If Bishop Buckley is still confused about the doctrine of papal infallibility ("so-called papal infallibility" as he described it on March 6th),he should reread the section in the Letter to the Duke of Norfolkentitled "The Vatican Definition".
The bishop's charge of " argumentum ad hominem" comes as a bit of a surprise. On February 26th he described the papacy of Benedict XVI as "reactionary and unenlightened". On February 7th he wrote of "Roman colonialists and their Irish branch managers". My use of the term "self-styled Bishop" reflected, I assure you, extremely well-founded scepticism concerning his "episcopal holy orders".
I refer readers to an article by Fr Vincent Twomey in The Irish Timesof April 27th, 1999, and to the letter of Fr Martin Clarke on the 6th of the following month.
– Yours, etc,