A chara, - I read with surprise the article by Mgr Denis Faul (Rite and Reason, December 1st), in which he claims that "even paganism is preferable to secularism." Does he not realise that secularism does not mean rejection of religion, but rather a separation of Church and State - two distinct spheres of human activity?
Mgr Faul's opening parable, in which he somehow tries to equate pride with secularism, using a litany of bizarre and unrelated statements, is meaningless. In suggesting that secularism is synonomous with hedonism, the glorifying of greed and personal pleasure, he will have offended all Catholic parents who have chosen a secular education for their children, along with all parents of different religious traditions.
Perhaps it would have been more productive to examine why some parents, despite having had a Catholic education themselves, choose a different form of instruction for their offspring. In many cases I am sure the answer lies in the hypocrisy, and sometimes abuse, that many of that generation experienced at the hands of religious who instilled fear and timidity rather than virtue and courage in their pupils.
Mgr Faul's article is typical of the arrogance found in some of the Roman Catholic clergy - an arrogance that permits a member of another Christian denomination to share in the sacrifice of the Eucharist in a Catholic church but denies the right of a Catholic to reciprocate. Obviously we all believe our religious beliefs to be correct, but Mgr Faul could do worse than read the writings of Nicholas Cusanus, a Catholic bishop and theologian, who, despite living during the polarised days of the Reformation, recognised that truth can exist in diversity.
Mgr Faul states that Catholic students "rejoice in the truth, in the sure and certain teachings of the Church, of Pope John Paul II." Firstly, I wonder what proportion of students that Catholic schools are turning out today have an understanding of these teachings, never mind rejoicing in them. Secondly, if Papal teachings are to be accepted as truth for ever, how can one account for the many immoral and misguided Popes that have existed down through the centuries or the fact that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was pronounced only relatively recently in the Church's history?
Being a Christian means reading the Bible in order to follow the example of Jesus, the Son of God, in our everyday lives: it does not mean accepting without discussion the doctrines of a Hierarchy shrouded in mystery and intrigue. The problems that face the Catholic Church today stem from the fact that it no longer has a docile and superstitious congregation, ready to accept dogma proclaimed in an ancient language they do not understand.
I do not intend this letter to be a mere short-sighted condemnation of the Catholic Church. I am not a so-called "Church-basher". In fact, I believe organised religion to be a force for good in the world. I myself was educated in a Catholic school and that education has served me well. What I am saying, however, is that if the Catholic Church wants to continue to influence society, it must reconsider some of its attitudes and actions in order to appear more relevant to the lay community. It must realise that the days of praying with your back to the congregation are gone for good.-Is mise, Paul McPhillips,
Maghernaharney, Rockcorry, Co Monaghan.