Sir, - Ms Liz O'Donnell argues from the particular to the general when tarring all members of the Catholic Church's clergy with the one brush. Just because some have been guilty of paedophile practices; just because some have taken part in illicit relationships; just because some have been involved in institutional abuse does not mean that the vast majority of our priests have not remained faithful to loving God, to keeping their sacred vows, and to serving God's people.
Yes, mistakes were made in the past by the Church's Hierarchy in attempting to conceal the truth about the abhorrent, aberrant behaviour of certain clergymen. Then again, it would appear that our politicians have been no less guilty of the sin of omission - given recent revelations about the Arms Crisis, Ansbacher, and numerous planning irregularities. However, that doesn't mean that I accuse all politicians, or that I contest the right of all elected representatives to govern, but only of certain of the elect to do so.
Given the faithfulness and exemplary example of the vast majority of bishops, priests, brothers and sisters, is it not right, then, that they should point out when we go astray from the Ten Commandments; instruct the members of the Church on the teachings of Christ; and give moral guidance to their Christian brothers and sisters when necessary - or when challenged to do so? Such instruction does not exclude understanding, compassion and love, but it must remain true to God's Word.
For those of us who try - and who, as sinners, often fail - to love God by keeping His commandments and loving our neighbour, it would be a much sadder state of affairs if our Church's Hierarchy, priests and religious failed to act as spiritual shepherds to an often wayward flock. In these secular times, it is more guidance, not less, that we need.
Incidentally, would Ms O'Donnell, or any of the Government's defenders of the appalling protocol that attempted to embarrass Cardinal Connell at the State reception held in his honour, care to comment on why Ms Celia Larkin's name did not appear on the letter of invitation received by the cardinal - but, it would appear, was included on all other invitations issued? Sin of omission, or what? - Yours, etc.,
Mark McDermott, Naas, Co Kildare.