Sir, - I see that the Catholic traditionalists are fighting back with a vengeance (Rite and Reason, November 17th). Can we find any common ground between them and those who seek reform?
In 1 Corinthians 12, the church is called the body of Christ. We are parts of the body, all needing each other. The diversity of gifts is meant for the good of the whole body. Thus denominations need each other; theological slants (evangelical, Catholic, liberal) need each other; people of different temperaments need each other. Each variety is valid as long as it contributes to the good of the whole church. Statements such as "This is what our church teaches" must be understood in this light.
Dare I suggest that the same is true of rebels and conservatives? Some will lean one way, some the other, but the Church needs both.
This is important because of another principle which Christians through the ages have learned - that every part of human nature is tainted, even our good points. So human religious zeal and staunchess need the transforming power of Christ if they are to be of any value to God's kingdom.
If this principle is neglected, people make virtues out of the things they are personally good at - on one side, obedience and faithfulness to tradition; on the other, tolerance and thinking for oneself.
Frank Flanagan talks about those who haven't the humility to accept papal teaching. Does he see himself as a humble man, as if the obedient already possessed humility? The truth is that strict observance can be motivated by the wrong reasons. The church's job is to liberate such people from hidden insecurity. The truly humble person is equally prepared to obey, or to weigh up a challenge to his views.
Equally, those who boast of their tolerance may fall far short of Christian forbearance. Much that passes for tolerance can be a touchiness about other people's convictions, not wanting them to come too close. Hence the paradoxical statement: "I can't stand intolerant people." They too need to be liberated from insecurity.
Perhaps the saddest part of Frank Flanagan's article is that he sees advocates of strict obedience as the heroes of today's church. Recent letters from his hero Dr David O'Hanlon (e.g. December 3rd), are more of a sneer than the reasoned argument which is his duty to his fellow church members.
If we are to present the Gospel, and not just a legal code, we can't avoid subjects such as a Christian's liberation. Our security is in Christ, who can set us free from those enslaving parts of our personalities (see Luke 4.18). The we can be free to be at ease with that extraordinary mixture of people called the church. - Yours, etc., Alan French,
Mulgrave Street, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.