Sir, – It is heartening to hear Pope Francis’s messages so far. I pray that he will be in post rather longer than the 33 days allowed to the last one who meant business. – Yours, etc,
Revd Dr WS MONKHOUSE,
Rector of Portlaoise, Dysart Enos & Ballyfin,
Coote Street, Portlaoise, Co Laois.
Sir, – It would be helpful if Breda O’Brien did not trivialise the issues that are of concern to some faithful members of the Catholic Church (Opinion, March 16th). She implies that there are people who “cherish a dream that a pro-choice, condom-distributing candidate” would be selected as Pope.
Catholics who want a change in the stance outlined in Humanae Vitae are not looking for the indiscriminate distribution of condoms. They merely want to use various methods of contraception within marriage and still feel that they are adhering to church teaching. Many people who are not pro-choice make a distinction between their own moral stance and the duty of government to legislate for all its citizens.
Painting the views of those who differ from her in extreme terms is an unhelpful contribution to an important debate. – Yours, etc,
MARGARET LEE,
Newport, Co Tipperary.
Sir, – While it is wonderful that the new Pope appears to have been welcomed with magnanimity by everyone, including social liberals/feminists, I am deeply confused. A cursory glance at the Pope’s stance and comments on the “hot button” social issues of the western world, abortion, same-sex marriage etc, reveal an individual who is if anything , more wedded to traditional Catholic teaching than his predecessor.
Can one assume therefore that social liberals/feminists now agree with Catholic teaching on these issues? Or is it more likely that the new Pope’s honeymoon period will be shortlived, and it will be back to normal anti-Catholic service very shortly? As a card-carrying cynic, I suspect the latter.
In addition it has been reported that at one stage Fr Bergoglio was banished to the relative outback of Argentina by his more “ liberal” Jesuit confreres, because they objected to his doctrinal orthodoxy. In view of the outcry in the world over the case of Fr Flannery, it seems very odd/inconsistent that there was no similar protest over this treatment of Fr Bergoglio. I wonder why? – Yours, etc,
ERIC CONWAY,
Balreask Village, Navan, Co Meath.
Sir, – Hugh O’Shaughnessy (World News, March 16th) claims that the Argentinian church is tainted by its stance during the military junta’s dirty war. His commentary is selective in its choice of sources. The National Commission on the Disappeared found that the Argentinian Episcopal Conference clearly and repeatedly condemned the junta’s methods. In fact, bishops, priests and religious were killed because of their opposition.
Truth commissions in El Salvador and Chile reached similar conclusions in their respective countries. The few members of the clergy who supported dictators’ methods are the exception proving the rule (and there is no real evidence that Pope Francis was among these exceptions). The fact that the church maintained relations with these governments does not mean that it condoned their abuses. To affirm the contrary would be tantamount to saying that the church is in favour of abortion, just because of its relations with pro-choice governments. – Your, etc ,
ÁLVARO PAÚL,
(Chilean PhD student),
New Square,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.