SIR – In your leading article of February 10, you ask whether those unhappy with many of the words and deeds of Pope Francis are a recognisable group, and you cite vaticanista Marco Politi who believes they represent – as you gloss it – “a pious, clerical-led reaction to Francis’s far-reaching reforms”.
You then list a number of reasons for unhappiness with the Pope’s programme, yet fail to mention one of the largest groups whose members are almost unanimously apprehensive as to Francis’s approach to their concerns. I refer to dedicated pro-life activists in many countries: members of organisations certainly not normally “clerical-led” (though good bishops and priests will strongly support them), but who notice that while Pope Francis repeats that he is opposed to abortion and other anti-life procedures, he also suggests that the lives of millions of the unborn should be put on the backburner and condones the appearance of some of the world’s most energetic abortion supporters at Vatican events. Such are Jeffrey Sachs – right-hand man of George Soros, the billionaire notoriously spending his wealth on undermining Church teaching – and Dr Paul Ehrlich, who advocates abortion (not even excluding forced abortion and sex-selective abortion) on a massive scale to defuse a hypothesised “population bomb”.
An unwillingness to speak out unequivocally – that is, not from two sides of the mouth – on pro-life issues has long been apparent among many of our higher clergy. (Long ago I was asked by a journal to review a book on the subject, Catholics against the Church, dealing with the situation in Canada: the review remained unpublished).
It is extraordinary how little many Catholics, including bishops, are willing to do to protect the unborn.
There are strong grounds to fear that double-talk from the Vatican will make things even worse in this area, for both our clergy and laity know well how unpopular you can be with the secular elites if you are too bothered about the killing of millions. Nonetheless, I consider this aspect of current Vatican policy deserved treating in your editorial.
Yours faithfully,
Professor John Rist
Cambridge
SIR – In her letter (February 3), Dame Louise Casey makes reference to “equalities duties under the law” pertaining to schools and the Church’s “long-held view” that marriage is between a man and a woman. She does not, however, note that under the law it would be illegal for the Catholic Church or the Church of England to marry people of the same sex. The Church’s “view” of marriage is not simply an opinion; Parliament has enshrined it in the Marriage Act.
Dame Louise has been rightly critical of those who would disregard the law but in future she would be wise to understand it a little better before she speaks.
Yours faithfully,
Rev David Ackerman
London W10
SIR – I, too, am a divorced and remarried Catholic (Letter, February 3), but I do not believe that the Church should, or indeed can, depart from teaching that marriage is forever, with all that implies.
It is human to seek to avoid the consequences of our sins and misdemeanours, as did Adam: “It was the woman you put with me; she gave me the fruit, and I ate it.”
Figuratively, we have eaten the forbidden fruit. We don’t like the result, and look to change the rules for our benefit. If they are, what will that say to those who are striving within difficult marriages, trying to make the best of it, honouring their vows? And what about all the other rules that might not affect us, but do affect others? As soon as one rule is changed, there is less (or no) reason not to change others.
To allude to the Year of Mercy is a red herring. Forgiveness requires contrition, confession and a firm purpose of amendment. Without the last, there is no forgiveness. We seem to want to have our cake and eat it. I live without Communion – a great loss! – but I do not feel a distance from God, whom I address morning and evening in my prayers, and at various intervals during the day when His majesty suddenly strikes me through the wonders of creation.
No, we are not second-class citizens; we are sinners who still have the immeasurable bounty of Christ’s salvation. It is not for the Church to accommodate itself to modern society, but society must accommodate itself to the Church.
Yours faithfully,
Name and address withheld
SIR – I’m writing in response to Melissa Kite’s article “When politics replaces morality” (Notebook, February 3), which I found sad. Recently, for the first time ever, I protested outside Sheffield Town Hall along with people of all faiths, cultures and classes about Donald Trump. Aside from his disturbing utterances about women and his, in my view, vindictive repeal of Obamacare without anything concrete to replace it – thereby pandering to the many one-issue Catholics who voted for him – it was something else that got me out of my comfort zone and on to the Town Hall steps.
A recent homily completely changed the way I view the Christmas story. For the first time I saw with startling clarity the real meaning of “no room at the inn” when the only place available, apparently, grudgingly, to the Mother of God was a stable. Compounding this, Herod, prepared to commit infanticide in order to find and kill this tiny, vulnerable child because he was so afraid of the power of weakness, contrasted greatly with the courage of the Magi who had set off from “a far country”, following only a star on their quest for the Messiah and on finding Him refused to allow evil to prevail.
By the end, I understood fully the helplessness of the Holy Family in the face of misused power, and that many ordinary people chose to turn away. That was why I recently protested and it is why I will continue to do so.
Yours faithfully,
Emma Green
Sheffield
SIR –I read with interest Thomas Craughwell’s article (February 3) on the descendants of Sir Thomas More. He mentions John Donne the poet. Another of interest is Christopher Waterton, the great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of Sir Thomas More and my great-great grandfather.
The reason I consider Waterton of interest is that he was a direct descendant of Sir Henry Jerningham, who had been given Costessey Hall in Norfolk by Queen Mary I for supporting her claim to the throne.
The Jerninghams were an ancient and noble Catholic family who, during 300 years of persecution, kept the lamp of the faith alight in Norfolk. The last of the line, Sir Henry Stafford Jerningham, died in 1935.
Yours faithfully,
Maurice French
By email
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.