Sir, - It is easy to empathise with Fathers Wilson and McVeigh and the other eight (less wellknown) priests who wrote a joint letter on the Drumcree parade dilemma (June 20th). In claiming that "the insistence of the Orange Order on marching where they are not wanted is part of a supremacist sectarian mind-set", they evoke an image of the "Loyal Orangeman", from Portadown, as depicted in Sir Samuel Ferguson's pen-portrait: "A never did insist upon/Nor ask condition beyont the one -/The crown o' the causeway on road and street,/And the Papishes put under my feet!"
But are the priests right in their call for "Church people" and politicians to support the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition in their stipulation that a resolution of the problem depends on direct dialogue between the Coalition and the Orange Order?
Their case is based on what they claim to be the crux of the matter - the issue of equality - "that the British and the NIO continue to uphold the right of the Orangemen to parade as equally legitimate to the right of the residents of Garvaghy Road to live in peace, free from fear and intimidation".
But that case ignores a genuine attempt made by the Co Armagh Grand Orange Lodge, in the run-up to last year's parade, to address their own responsibilities to the rights of the residents to "live in peace, free from fear and intimidation".
In a letter sent to the 1,500 Catholic families living near Drumcree, the County Grand Lodge acknowledged "objections raised by the nationalist community", and stated that, as a result, several "principles" had already been implemented for the parade. Emphasising their own commitment to strict marshalling, and pointing out that "if this was reciprocated, then there would only be a need for a minimal police presence", the Grand Lodge made a reasonable gesture to deal with the problems that the nationalist community had with their parading. And then, prematurely undermining "the issue of equality" as the crux of the issue, and highlighting the Coalition's demand for dialogue as the real crux instead (and, incidentally, modifying that pen-portrait by Ferguson in the process), they expressed a desire "to listen to all those within the community who want to promote harmony and mutual respect among the people of Portadown".
But they made one, significant pronouncement. "As a matter of principle," they wrote, "we cannot be involved in talks with convicted terrorists because of what they inflicted on our community." In the absence of an IRA declaration of permanent ceasefire, and in view of their perception that the Coalition's demand is an element in the Republican Movement's "street phase" of their ongoing struggle, the attitude of the Orangemen merits sympathetic understanding from the Residents' Coalition; especially in the light of the explanation given in the letter that the Orangemen see their parade as an outward witness to their sincere belief in the Reformed Faith. "For that reason," the letter pointed out, "we see attacks on our parades as both a denial of civil liberties and an attack on our religion."
Dare we ask the ten priests to re-consider their stance, and instead (1) to call on the Archbishop and other "Church people" (including themselves) to examine the question of Orange parading in the light of the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican Two and (2) call on politicians (including unionist ones) to examine the question in the light of the 1916 Proclamation's resolve that all the children of the nation (and the Orangemen, despite their repudiation of it, are numbered among them) have a right to be cherished equally, and (3) call on the Residents' Coalition to protest with dignity, and strict marshalling, but to allow the Orangemen to parade, unhindered, along the disputed route, in tentative recognition of the 1916 Proclamation and/or Vatican Two. - Yours, etc., James McGeever,
Kingscourt,
Co Cavan.