Sir, - In your front page news digest (May 13th) you state that "Catholic bishops have criticised the Referendum Commission on the Amsterdam Treaty for giving two different interpretations of its meaning". This is not so. It is a specific responsibility of the Referendum Commission to provide "pro" and "con" arguments for the guidance of voters in the referendum. It would be failing in its duty if it did not do that.
The point the Archbishops were making is that there is a difficulty, not with the Referendum Commission, but with the generalised language of the Treaty itself, which leaves it open to contrasting interpretations in some respects.
May I quote the relevant passage from the Archbishops' statement?: ". . . the Treaty is more than usually difficult to understand because of its very complex layout, wording and structure. This puts an additional responsibility on the authorities and other competent sources. They should explain as fully as possible the meaning of the Treaty, which may have implications which are unclear from the generalised language of the text. For example, all faith traditions in Ireland regard the protection of ethos in religious-run institutions as very important and this principle has been upheld by our Supreme Court. "However, two different interpretations of the non-discrimination clause in the Amsterdam Treaty have been offered by the Referendum Commission in recent newspaper advertisements. One says this clause may mean that "Irish religious institutions such as schools and hospitals can no longer protect their particular ethos"; the other says the Treaty provides "for individual member states to block measures which it does not support". - Yours, etc., Jim Cantwell,
Director, Catholic Press and Information Office, Booterstown Avenue, Dublin.