Madam, – Sinead O’Connor’s letter (March 4th) provides all the ingredients of a dinner-party debate. Abrasive language, tick. Sweeping generalisation, tick. Shoddy facts, tick. However, I would treat it similarly to the way Ms O’Connor once handled a portrait of the Pope: shred it.
Ms O’Connor (or is it Mother Bernadette?) claims that the Bishop of Ferns “dictates”. This is bewildering nonsense. Even the most obtuse reader could not construe Dr Brennan’s “invitation” to parishes to help financially as a dictatorial act. Moreover, the fact that Ms O’Connor can analogise his statement with the Inquisition is wincingly inappropriate, not least to the victims of the latter. Her claim that the church “throttled billions” from people would warrant strategic attack were it not so fantastic.
Ms O’Connor’s contends that the entire organisation of the church is evil. So naturally, this includes its almost two million consecrated personnel who dedicate their lives to ordinary Christian service and charitable works every day. Anyone can see that this statement is as absurd as saying that all musicians are pot-smoking nihilists.
Ian Paisley is retiring, we hear. I think we’ve found a worthy successor in Ms O’Connor. Her talents in anti-Romish and inchoate rants are impressive. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In these difficult times for all members of the Catholic Church, our problems are in no way alleviated by the interference of those outside the church who feel they have the right to advise and lecture us as to how we should conduct our affairs.
This is particularly the case where those handing out the advice are clearly only interested in maximising the damage suffered by the church and those who appear to have a vested interest in the continuation of conflict and controversy. Take the Ferns case as an example. Here we have a bishop who had no part in the clerical sex abuse cases or cover-ups, who is implementing all the new guidelines for the protection of children in the future and is doing his best to ensure that all those who suffered are, at least financially, compensated.
As a direct result of his efforts, he now finds that the diocese is in imminent danger of becoming bankrupt, while there are still a number of other victims whose cases are outstanding. Being a responsible pastor of his flock and conscious of his obligations to all members of the church, he has put a set of proposals before those members, setting out a number of options for the funding of all the essential activities of the Diocese.
These proposals include, as I understand it, one which would involve raising a mortgage on the bishop’s residence, and another which would require church members to voluntarily contribute monies over a five year period.
Even though these proposals potentially affect only those who attend services in the diocese – and even then only as and when they feel like contributing – no sooner had the news hit the air waves than all the usual suspects were interviewed and their objections recorded.
What possible business is it of people outside the church how the internal affairs of the church are conducted? No laws are being broken, nobody is being forced to do anything against their will. Those who still love and respect what the church has always stood for and wish to see it rediscover and resume its former calling will, in my opinion, be glad to continue to support it in any way we can. – Yours, etc,