THOMAS P. WALSH,
Madam, - Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, December 24th) makes much of the fact that December 25th as the date for celebrating the birth of Jesus was actually a late historical development. He observes that Christmas as such did not feature in early ecclesiastical lists of holy days. The conclusion he draws is that talk about the true meaning of Christmas, in something like traditional Christmas terms, is merely "stuff" and rhetoric. He suggests that if we could resist that "stuff", we might get back to the "true" meaning. This, in his view, is really a kind of pagan festival involving food, wine, laughter, and cosy times around the fire.
May I suggest that the logic of his argument fails to appreciate the genuinely symbolic nature of celebrating a birth? In commemorating a birth we symbolically celebrate the total phenomenon of a person's intrusion into history and the contribution that person makes to the life around them.
For Christians, Christmas in this sense means the Incarnation, and by extension the Redemption. Perhaps the fact that the early Church was uncertain about the actual date of Jesus's birth is not so significant. Nor does it provide sufficient ground to warrant the brusque dismissal of the Christian significance of Christmas. - Yours, etc.,
THOMAS P. WALSH, Faussagh Road, Cabra, Dublin 7.