Sir, Having read the letter from Austin Dunphy (November 4th) I cannot help feeling that a fundamental point is being missed. I find it sad that the arguments in favour of retaining churches with an architecture of times past seem to place the church in the role at museum. This is not the role of the church building; it is a place where people come together to worship, to celebrate add essentially, it is to be a place of joy.
The architecture under discussion reflected the Church at a different era, a time when laity had little to do and where separation of clergy and laity at all times was the norm. This was reflected in altars far removed from worshippers, railings to mark the areas each should frequent and pulpits which re-enforced the dominant role of the priest. But what has all of this to do with the Church of today?
In every other walk of life and in our language, we recognise the powerful role that symbols can play in retaining or re-enforcing images. And so with churches; if these symbols are left, how can we reconcile this with the Church of today? The church is not a museum or a relic of times past, it is a living place and has to be a symbol of today. Let's leave the museums to do what they do best and allow our churches to symbolise the Church of today.
Finally, an argument advanced in support of a "no change position is that our ancestors donated money and contributed to the creation of these architectural wonders. I strongly feel that this is to misuse their good deeds and intentions. They wished to support the Church of their day; what on earth gives anyone the right to suggest that were they alive now, they wouldn't wish to support, as strongly, the vision of the Church today? - Yours, etc,
Templeroan Park,
Knocklyon, Dublin 16.