Madam, - In response to Father Tom Ingoldsby (July 22nd), I would like to make the following points on the nature of marriage.
Whatever the believed mystical nature of (heterosexual) marriage as Father Ingoldsby sees it, a marriage between a man and woman is as much open to abuse as any other "arrangement". Father Ingoldsby is deeply mistaken to assume that, per se, marriage is a sanctified union simply because of its own nature, or because of biblical descriptions of it.
In my younger years, I worked as a church organist for Father Ingoldsby's denomination. In a period of about seven years I was present at over 200 weddings. These varied from genuine and wholehearted expressions between two people to casual and vulgar displays of ego. At best, fewer than half the couples displayed a real respect for the institution into which they were entering. It is difficult - and deeply unfair - to criticise well-intentioned gay couples when so many heterosexual ones are doing a very good job of cheapening marriage as an institution. If marriage is to be damaged, it will be damaged from within heterosexual unions themselves, not least by the vast army of heterosexual couples who reject it outright.
Christian marriage is a cultural institution, just as polygamy is for other cultures. In a post-Christian society, it is not unreasonable to redefine institutions to suit the cultural changes of that era. Marriage is no exception, and to a large extent has already been fundamentally altered by widespread cohabitation. The separation of Church and State will not be complete if it is insisted that all State institutions mirror Christian institutions, and referendums on divorce and abortion in recent years have proved that, even on these contentious issues, the views of the Church are not the views of the people.
It is particularly sad to see the hostility and vindictiveness of people such as Father Ingoldsby with regard to gay couples who do not want to change society, but only to be left alone in peace.
Recognition for gay couples will not fundamentally alter a single marriage, whatever the beliefs of the Catholic intelligentsia to which Father Ingoldsby and others believe themselves to belong. - Yours, etc.,
LAURA FARRELL, Wood Quay, Midleton, Co Cork.
Madam, - I write in support of Father Ingoldsby's letter contending for the biblical pattern of marriage. He omitted to mention that, in Scripture, marriage illustrated Christ's relationship with his Church. He is the groom and the Church is the bride.
It seems that the same-sex unions of today were not uncommon in the first century AD, when the Roman empire flourished and the early Church had a counter-cultural role. History has a habit of repeating itself and perhaps the distinguishing marks of a believer in the 21st century will become as clear as they were in the Church's early days. - Yours, etc.,
GEORGE MORRISON, Hartwell, Kill, Co Kildare.
Madam, - Father Ingoldsby cries "lust" at same-sex unions. Yet lust (an appetite for sexual activity) is a factor in all creation. Why is it that those who forgo sexual activity in order to be closer to their Creator often feel it necessary to disparage the Creator's means of procreation?
There are many who were born because of lust. Thank God for it - for if we were always to wait until love and lust come together, many of us might not have been born - clerics included. - Yours, etc.,
DECLAN KELLY, Whitechurch Road, Dublin 14.