Sir, – In his article "Sentiment subdued reason in marriage referendum", (Opinion & Analysis, June 15th), Dr Vincent Twomey is surely right in asserting that the outcome represented a triumph for sentiment (and indeed sentimentality) over reasoned argument. That triumph did not,of course, invalidate the No analysis put forward by secular unbelievers like myself.
However, as an apologia for the Catholic Church's position, Dr Twomey's article is disingenuous and, in part, outlandish. It tries to be a post-factum justification for both the Yes and the No outcomes at once. Thus , the Yes vote is somehow a latter-day expression of the missionary impulse (first paragraph) but so is the No campaign (last paragraph)! We are also told that the No voters are the descendants of those who brought about Catholic Emancipation and "an independent Ireland". But of course. This best of all possible results also vindicated the Catholic bishops who "responded with pastoral sensitivity to the campaign".
What this really means is that they were ambivalent and mealy-mouthed, and fearful of further reducing their support. How could they have squared their timorous woolliness with the uncompromising ghosts of such prelates as Lucey, McQuaid, Newman and, farther back, of both Cullen and MacHale?
Dr Twomey unwittingly provides us with the answer.
In a breathtakingly revisionist sweep, he informs us that “traditional Irish Catholicism” was neither Irish nor Catholic. In other words, the religion that formed (or malformed) Dr Twomey and me and the generations stretching back to the 1820s was, sexually speaking at least, an aberration.
A classic case of “now you tell us”! – Yours, etc,
JOHN A MURPHY,
Cork.
Sir, – The Rev Dr Vincent Twomey makes some valid points in his opinion piece “Sentiment trumped reason in marriage referendum” (June 15th). However, I disagree with him on a number of issues. I do not agree that the No campaigners won the public debates. They continually brought in issues that were not relevant to the campaign. While Yes campaigners did argue from a human point of view, what was wrong with that? I believe more humanity and Christianity makes for a far superior society than one too tied up with excessive rules and regulations. I suggest apathy was the predominant reason why 40 per cent of people registered to vote didn’t exercise their franchise, as is similar in other campaigns. It certainly had nothing to do with intimidation, as suggested in the article.
I attended Mass in my local church and heard Bishop Drennan’s pastoral letter days before the vote. I would not have considered it “balanced and convincing”. It was simply reiterating official Catholic teaching.
However, there is hope for the Catholic Church and I could see it in Archbishop Diarmuid Martin’s acknowledgement of the referendum result being a “reality check” for the church, provided this reality check is based on greater compassion and understanding for our fellow human beings. – Yours, etc,
TOMMY RODDY,
Salthill,
Galway.
Sir, – Vincent Twomey’s opinion piece was remarkable, in that he did not once set out the nature or substance of the “reason” which he insists was subdued. He bemoans the lack of critical thinking and complains of an irrational agenda while conspicuously failing to detail or support these assertions. When one considers that his piece was shot through with religious notions, this is perhaps not surprising. As the saying goes, if one could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.
It is almost comical, however, when a religious person accuses a majority of the nation of choosing sentimentality over rational thought.
Finally, he manages the audacious feat of simultaneously attributing the winning Yes vote to “what is best in traditional Irish Catholicism” and the losing No vote to “an inherent weakness in Irish Catholicism”. Here’s a thought – perhaps it had nothing to do with Catholicism at all? – Yours, etc,
CATHAL O’SULLIVAN,
Blackrock,
Cork.