LETTERS Fish on Friday
While I applaud the proposal that the bish- ops’ conference reintroduce a simple eating day on Friday (News from Britain and Ireland, 4 December) as a witness to those around us that “this is who we are and this is what we do”, I would urge a “flesh-free Friday” rather than “fish on Friday”. Over 60 years ago, fish may well have been abundant and considered a cheap way to eat, but those days are long gone. Fish stocks are under immense pres- sure around the world and the fishing methods used today are extremely wasteful. The depletion of the oceans is an issue we can- not ignore. It is essential we start to view the oceans as a precious resource that needs care- ful and respectful treatment so that all may benefit now and in the future. Fish cannot be seen as “honorary vege tables” that are abundant and freely given; they are complex creatures which are essential to the functioning of a vital ecosystem. The disap- pearance of species of fish will change the way the oceans work, with unknown conse- quences. The Church should show that restraining from eating any flesh for one day, including fish, is a holy and respectful way to live a simple life that also expresses gratitude for all life on earth. Mary Colwell Bristol
In his bestseller Light of the World, Benedict XVI writes: “Christianity is itself something living, something modern, which thoroughly shapes and forms all of my modernity.” I see “fish on Friday” as giving the opposite signal. In the same book, the Pope highlights the importance of all of us as individuals, in our current consumerist culture embracing a “will- ingness to do without”. Cafod’s Livesimply campaign did precisely that with its commit- ment to “live simply, sustainably and in solidarity”. What a wonderful gift to us all if our bishops could offer a similar imaginative mark of Catholic identity, perhaps even ask- ing us to view it as a serious “obligation”! (Fr) Kevin T. Kelly Liverpool
A generalised obligation might do away with the many excellent Friday practices that have developed over the years. Just one example is the Cafod Friday Fast Days in which Catholics themselves choose what kind of fast- ing they wish to do in order to give to the poor and stand in solidarity with them. Another example is the practice in schools whereby chil- dren bring in a small donation for Cafod in exchange for a soup-and-roll lunch. Or they give up some of their pocket money to fill a shoebox with small toys to send to those who will have none at Christmas. This involves them
The Editor of The Tablet 1 King Street Cloisters, Clifton Walk, London W6 0GY
Fax 020 8748 1550 Email
thetablet@thetablet.co.uk All correspondence, including email, must give a full postal address and contact telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to shorten letters.
of latex between their sexual organs. In media coverage, the focus is mostly on the generative function. However, if intention- ally thwarting the generative function were the only concern, then nothing would bar, say, knowingly infertile HIV-discordant couples from using condoms, since they cannot pos- sibly thwart procreation. In addition, nothing would bar natural-family-planning HIV- discordant couples from using condoms when they are having sex, since they aim to have sex only during the infertile period of the woman’s cycle. The fact that the Pope does not choose these
Would ‘flesh-free Friday’ be preferable to ‘fish on Friday’? Photo: CNS
personally in thought and decision-making. A “one-size-fits-all” observance would be a poor substitute. Sue Oakley Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh, Hampshire
Since Friday is the day on which we commem- orate Jesus’ death on the Cross and is also the Muslim holy day, and the day on which Jews begin the Sabbath, let us make it a day on which we pray, as Catholics, for the needs of the world, in particular for peace in the Middle East, and for all those who share the Abrahamic faith. Let us make time on Fridays for some indi- vidual or communal act of prayer or for some practical gesture of charity towards our Muslim and Jewish neighbours, as circum- stances allow. Such a focus would signal that Catholicism is not “a threat to nobody”, to borrow a phrase from your 4 December editorial (“Merits of fish on Fridays”). The activities of the English Defence League and supporters of Zionism would have to be included in the list of “ene- mies” for whom we would have to pray. Paul McGowan Coventry
Morality of condom use There is much speculation among Catholics about what Pope Benedict’s statement on con- dom use by a male prostitute means for the Church’s position on the permissibility of con- dom usage to prevent the spread of Aids. There are two prongs to the Church's opposition to condom usage. It sees that sex has a generative and a unitive function – sex is what makes procreation possible and it is through sex that partners within the bounds of marriage can become genuinely one. It is a sin to have sex and at the same time to inten- tionally thwart either of these functions. So it is wrong to have sex with a condom since condom users cut off the possibility of pro- creation and do not permit a genuine union to come about by interposing a little piece
examples of permissible condom usage sig- nals that the Church is concerned that sex with a condom also thwarts the unitive function of sex –leaving no room for permissible con- dom usage. However, an appeal to the unitive function of sex in condemning condom usage for HIV-discordant couples is not easy to defend. Do condom users really report any dis- satisfaction about being incapable of bringing about a genuine oneness with their partner? And for HIV-discordant couples, the only reasonable alternative to condom usage is abstin ence. Does sex with a condom not leave more room for becoming one with one’s part- ner than a cold bed? And finally, suppose that, contrary to fact, spermicidal gels, contracep- tive pills or diaphragms were to stop the transmission of the HIV virus. Then there would be no piece of latex blocking genuine physical contact. Would the Church permit the usage of such devices? I somehow doubt that this would make a difference. (Professor) Luc Bovens London School of Economics
Fr Jack Mahoney SJ (“What the Pope actu- ally meant”, 4 December) makes a valiant effort to intuit what Pope Benedict meant by his remarks about condoms (“In trying to under- stand his meaning I came to suspect …”). But the Pope is not supposed to be a Delphic Oracle, speaking in riddles –especially on a moral ques- tion affecting millions. He must by now be aware that his words have been variously inter- preted, so surely we can expect him to clarify what he said. (Dr) Michael Hoskin Cambridge
Making the Christian case In Notebook (“Cautionary tale”, 4 December) it is suggested that “Catholic converts should have learned to avoid debating religion with Christopher Hitchens”. This prompts several thoughts. First, Christians should be ready to accept invitations to speak about their faith, especially with debating partners who might be likely to defeat them in argument. We need to speak with as much conviction, clarity and courage as possible, always tempered by
11 December 2010 | THE TABLET | 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36