LETTERS Christian voice or


Catholic voice? Attempts to provide a more authoritative church voice on behalf of the poor and vul- nerable described by both Francis Davis (“Players in the public square”, 18 June) and Clifford Longley (“Many voices, one message”, 18 June) are to be welcomed. But the enter- prise is not without its risks. Do the poor and the vulnerable want to be championed by a Catholic voice – or by a Christian voice? Francis Davis’ analysis, though thorough,


risks implying that the voice of the Catholic bishops is somehow in competition with that of their Anglican counterparts. For as long as we continue to see the need for a “Catholic voice”, alongside an “Anglican voice” (not to speak of a “Methodist”, a “Quaker” and a “Salvationist” voice), those outside the Church will make merry by finding division between us where there is none. Media coverage of the speeches by the Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury on the Big Society on the same day last week demonstrated just that. Ecumenism may have its detractors, but when so many are suffering from the impacts of economic crisis, recession and public spending cuts, surely there is more to be gained by the Churches finding ways of speaking truth to power with one clear and powerful voice. Niall Cooper National coordinator, Church Action on Poverty Manchester


Francis Davis’ article sounds a timely warn- ing about the shortcomings of “know-how on the part of Catholic groups”. We have great assets to bring to the public square, not least a consistent moral framework, our everyday experience and many vibrant church commu- nities. Unless these values and the treasures of Catholic Social Teaching are focused in the quarters where they really count, our influ- ence will continue to diminish. Unfortunately, in the decision-making areas of policy, be it at Westminster or in dele - gated authorities, the Church punches below its weight. This can only be redressed by a much greater involvement by the Catholic commu- nity in the political process. The bishops should be calling for this unceasingly, and could not be accused of being partisan by stressing that all Britain’s major parties could do with such an input. Michael Davey Leeds


The Tablet asks why Anglicans are in the fore- ground of the public square. The answer is a simple one. The Church of England is the established Church of the land, not only of its acknowledged members. As such, it is expected


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.


to be concerned with all its public issues, and on very difficult ones such as euthanasia it sets up working parties to produce expert findings (on euthanasia, its report is entitled “On Dying Well”). The Church of Rome, however, is under the


dictatorial power of the Vatican, which has made itself felt on such issues as contracep- tion, abortion, the ordination of women and, more recently, forbidding girls to serve at a Tridentine Mass. It seems that the Vatican can override its own ecumenical council. English people are not prepared to have public issues thus decided by a foreign power. (Canon) Hugh Melinsky Norwich


Sport of delation Reports (News from Britain and Ireland, 18 June; “Hardliners holed by the rock of St Peter”, 11 June) of the doings – and non-doings – of the pressure group Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, prompt a regret that it should have adopted – usurped? – the title of a papal award made on, I understand, a bishop’s recommendation, in recognition of a lay person’s lengthy and selfless service in some aspect of the Church’s life and work. Few of its recipients are likely to share this group’s ecclesiastical ideology or its members’ unlovely readiness to engage in the sport (for which there is, unfortunately, no close season) of delating to Rome bishops and priests of whose actions they disapprove. I write as the son, and in memory, of a recip- ient who would have been well described as, in church matters, a staunch suffragette. Peter Glazebrook Jesus College, Cambridge


Virtue of abstinence Having for many years excluded meat from the Friday menu as a virtuous act, I now feel somewhat resentful that my observance is offi- cially no more than a canonical requirement. Rather than a Christian steward’s act of gratitude to a loving God, it will be a prac- tice of “penance laid down by the church


authorities”. Church authority exercised in this manner does not foster joyful participation in the work of the Kingdom but seems more like infantilisation of the faithful. I wonder what the canonical penalty will be for those who choose not to observe the requirement. I am reminded of an American pastoral theologian who, in trying to explain the post-Vatican II liberalisation of the rules on fasting and abstin - ence to an elderly relative, was asked: “But Billy, what about all those people who went to hell for eating meat on a Friday?” I would also question how my Friday menu can be “visible in the public arena and an important act of witness” as the resolution suggests. Increasing the sales at the Morrison’s fish counter or influencing the consumption of Waitrose cheese-and-onion quiche do not, in my view, demonstrate Christian witness as much as seeking justice for victims of cleri- cal abuse or honouring the equality of women in holy orders. These issues are simply not going to disappear and the displacement activity of Friday fasting is not going to address the supine powerlessness of bishops’ conferences in the face of an intractable centralised Magisterium. (Dr) Bridie Stringer Basingstoke, Hampshire


Is the reimposition of Friday abstinence from 16 September after an interval of 27 years likely to be another conscience teaser like Humanae Vitae,which will be largely ignored and thus inevitably forfeit the Church of much needed authority and respect? Were the laity consulted? Nicholas Fitzherbert Much Hadham, Hertfordshire


Premature revisionism I’m grateful to Dr Massimo Faggioli and Professor Nicholas Lash (Letters, 18 June), allowing me the opportunity to clarify the fol- lowing. First, since the Alberigo project is multi-authored, not all Marchetto’s criti- cisms listed in my review apply equally to every author of that project. I provided a list of the most recurring criticisms. Lash is right to ask that I should judge


whether these are fair criticisms. I could not give a yes or no answer without referring to particular essays in the Alberigo collection (which I have read), but in general terms, I think Marchetto’s concerns about a system- atic bias and many specific judgements are right. I provide textual evidence of the Alberigo project biases in my forthcoming book, Vatican II, hermeneutics and other religions. Secondly, I think it is an exaggeration to say,


as Faggioli does, that no one but “ideologised Catholic bloggers” think Marchetto’s arguments are important. The academic editors of Vatican II (Oxford University Press, 2008)


25 June 2011 | THE TABLET | 19


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