Madam, - Some of those who have written in your newspaper commenting on the election of Pope Benedict XVI appear to have a deeply flawed notion of the office of the papacy. Fr Steve Gilhooley (Rite and Reason, May 9th), for instance, bemoans the new Pope's not being "open to discussion" on the predictable topics of "the role of women, contraception and homosexuals".
Jim Bruce, writing on the Letters page of the same edition, says he would like to see women ordained as priests, and expresses the hope that "the new Pope will take this ball and run with it."
Both men seem to have missed an important point. The task of the Pope is not to introduce new teachings on faith or moral issues, or as Mr Bruce says, to "decide everything".
His task is to preserve, explain and observe the Catholic faith in line with the tradition of the church. He is the servant, not the master, of the deposit of faith whose care has been entrusted to him.
The Pope cannot alter the church's positions on a whim of his own, or of anyone else. He could not change Catholic teaching even if he wanted to.
Of course, no one is forced to believe or do what he says, just as no one is forced to be a Catholic. But as the visible head of the church on earth, the Pope is bound to abide by the truths preserved by that church.
In demanding that the Pope bend the church's teachings to suit their agenda, Mr Bruce, Fr Gilhooley and many of the dissident theologians whose writings have filled the opinion pages of The Irish Times in recent weeks are attributing to the Holy Father a power he simply does not have - an ironic instance of "popolatry" among enlightened Catholics! - Yours, etc,
BRIAN T HICKEY, Taney Rise, Dundrum, Dublin 14.
Madam, - It would be possible to argue at some length, with the aid of the Ratzinger-Shoenborn Catholic Catechism endorsed by the late Pope John Paul, in response to Fr Sean Fagan SM (May 3rd). However, that would waste your space as, judging from his condescending reference to "people with little knowledge of theology and church history", Fr Seán is clearly engaged in a last-ditch attempt to maintain the monopoly that Ratzinger aimed to break with the Catechism.
Yet what is at issue is so hugely important. I suggest that after 40 years of related fudging it is high time for the prime offical representatives of our church in this area - that is, our Papal Nuncio and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - to clarify things.
In effect, Fr Seán, with the help of newcomer Fr Jim Corkery SJ, reiterates his 40-year-old stance that Catholics may, in conscience, dissent from the church's moral and other beliefs and yet say and attend Mass and avail of the sacraments with impunity, that is, without putting their salvation at risk.
If that is so, we can all stop discussing and bother as much or as little as we wish with Catholic practice, and let Catholic freefall accelerate to, as Archbishop Martin has said, "put us [clergy] out of business".
If it is not so, a continuation of official church silence in relation to it will, I suggest, be scandal-giving of a grave kind. - Yours, etc,
JOE FOYLE, Ranelagh, Dublin 6.