Sir, - After the funeral of Cardinal Tomas O'Fiach on May 9th 1990, I had a conversation with a titled friend of the late cardinal. She recalled him staying in their castle and how he would say Mass in the morning for the staff. When he came to give out Holy Communion, he would insist on giving it to the chatelaine and her husband, who were both Protestants. The cardinal explained that he had no hesitation in doing this, as the difference was only a matter of words.
I was lucky enough to know Cardinal O'Fiach, a scholar of European reputation and a compassionate and courageous human being. It seemed entirely in keeping with his character that he would have behaved in this broadminded and commonsense way. I think it is also an indication that he could have approved of the action of our President in taking Communion at the recent service in Christ Church Cathedral.
The current attitude of the Hierarchy on the matter is difficult to understand. In particular, Dr Connell's use of the word "sham" has been adversely commented on and there has been much consulting of dictionaries. Curiously enough, "sham" was the very word which came immediately to mind when I heard the Archbishop himself on RTE make an attempt to retrieve a position where he had paid out on behalf of the diocese a substantial sum of money to an altar boy who had been sexually abused by a priest.
I have been assured that a number of Catholic theologians share the view that the Vatican document of 1896 declaring Anglican Orders as void is unlikely to stand much further scrutiny. In these circumstances it is a perfectly justifiable position to hold that the Anglican Church is covered by the phrase in the 1993 Directory for Ecumenism which provides that in certain circumstances a Catholic may receive Communion "from a Minister in whose church the Sacraments are valid or from one who is known to be validly ordained".
The thrust of Ecumenism is to reach out rather than to withdraw. For example, the rule prohibiting Catholics from attending Protestant services which was in force 30 years ago has been erased. I had a personal experience as a boy in which I was in a position to observe the potential of the strict application of this rule (now abolished) to cause real grief. My nanny, Anne Bell, before she had undertaken the formidable task of keeping the tabs on my good self, had been with a Protestant family whose youngest son served in the British army in the second World War. He was 20 years of age and had been gazetted as a Major when he was killed at Arnheim in 1944.
Nanny was heartbroken, for she had reared the deceased from the time he was a baby. Invited to attend the memorial service for her former charge, held in Rathgar Presbyterian Church, she asked permission from the local parish priest to do so, as she was meticulous in the exercise of her religious duties. He forbade her to attend and warned her that if she did she would be guilty of a reserved sin for which absolution could be given only by the archbishop himself. Nanny would have none of this and with fine Northern courage (for she was from Cookstown, Co Tyrone) attended the service held for "her boy". Five years ago, at a service held in that same Presbyterian Church in Rathgar, I stood in the pulpit and recited a translation of a Swedish Lutheran hymn to a congregation which included the parish priest of Rathgar Catholic Church.
This harsh rule about attending Protestant services no longer applies to Catholics. There is ample opportunity now for a similar relaxation of the rule against Catholics taking the Eucharist at Anglican services. - Yours, etc.,
From Ulick O'Connor
Fairfield Park, Dublin 6.