Reformation is a live debate
Dear Editor, Your special Reformation issue of The Irish Catholic (IC 26/10/2017) was remarkable for its breadth and depth, but its real value may lie in its relevance to current Church debates.
Take, for example, the piece on the Catholic Counter-Reformation by UCD’s Prof. Tadhg Ó hAnnracháin in which he says that what was decided at the Council of Trent was in many respects less important than what Trent was believed to represent.
We hear a lot nowadays about the differences between what was decided at Vatican II and the so-called ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ – is it possible that those who oppose developments in the Church over recent decades aren’t upholding the teachings of Trent so much as a caricature of Tridentine Catholicism?
The piece on how the current rapprochement towards Lutherans and Lutheranism, as well as what could be described as a rehabilitation of Luther himself, builds on the work and thought of Benedict XVI, forms a useful riposte to those who would challenge Pope Francis for his recognition that Luther’s heart was – at least at first – in the right place. If the Holy Father believes this, he is simply developing the insights of his predecessors.
Indeed, the introduction to the ‘Reformation 500’ special reveals the extent to which much current opposition to the Pope owes as much to early Protestantism as it does to Catholicism.
Luther, we’re told, said that even if some of his writings seemed inappropriately harsh, he could not recant them since doing, when consciences were tortured by the Pope’s teachings, would have bolstered ‘tyranny’. Furthermore, he said, those who challenged him on some issues were only doing so because they knew his case was watertight on others.
Given how their writings can echo such claims, the authors of the so-called ‘filial correction’ of Pope Francis should take note!
Yours etc.,
Gabriel Kelly,
Drogheda,
Co. Louth.
Jesus was not born on December 25
Dear Editor, The advertisements for Christmas-themed merchandise began penetrating the media a good three months before the actual event. Obviously the emphasis is more on making a healthy profit from the season than actually remembering it as the birth of Christ.
A growing number of Bible scholars are concluding that Jesus Christ, or Yeshua to give him his original Hebrew name, could not have been born in the “deep mid-winter”, or December 25, as it would have been too cold in the hills of Judea, where Bethlehem is situated, to have shepherds out in the fields at night as the Gospel story recounts. A September or October birth would seem more plausible, as a milder time of year.
There are clues in the Bible which help to verify these claims, including the birth date of John the Baptist who was Yeshua’s cousin, and who was born six months before him. In I Chronicles 24:10 in the Old Testament (or Jewish ‘Tanach’) John’s father’s priestly cycle of Abijah is listed as being on the eighth week of the Hebrew year, and from this point we can calculate nine months which will arrive at Passover, an ‘appointed’ feast. Both the special births of John and Jesus were predicted in Scripture to be at the ‘appointed time’, which in Hebrew is the word ‘moed’ meaning an appointed feast or holy day.
It would appear that John was born “at the appointed time” on the first day of Passover and circumcised, as a Jew, on the eighth day of the week-long feast, the eighth day also being a ‘moed’ or appointed feast day, an annual Sabbath or rest day. Exactly six months later Jesus would have been born in September/October time on the Feast of Tabernacles, or ‘Sukkot’ in Hebrew, on the first day of the festival, an ‘appointed time’, and circumcised, as a Jew, on the eighth day, the last day of the festival, also an appointed time or annual Sabbath.
Yours etc.,
Colin Nevin,
Bangor,
Co. Down.
Opting out of certain classes
Dear Editor, The Minister for Education, Richard Bruton, wishes to have alternative tuition options available for pupils who opt out of religion classes in secondary schools. I hope that the same service will be provided for primary school students who do not wish to attend such courses as the “Different Families; Same Love” programme, which many parents regard as being harmful.
Yours etc.,
Eamon Fitzpatrick,
Sligo.
Protection for life reflects a civilised society
Dear Editor, The right to life is the primary most fundamental right from which all other rights follow. Human life is at its most vulnerable at the beginning and end of life. The principle of protecting all human life including those who have life limiting illnesses should apply regardless of their stage in life. Thankfully palliative care provides the very necessary care and support for patients and their families in these very difficult situations. Our Constitution presently recognises that the developing baby and its mother share a right in common, a right qualified by the words as far as is practicable. These rights do not give the developing baby precedence when the mother’s life is in danger. Respect and protection for all human life reflects a civilised society.
Yours etc.,
Dr Frank Hassett,
Hospice Jinja,
Uganda.
Single people are not lesser beings
Dear Editor, As a single person I would like to respond to your editorial of September 28 (There’s no such thing as a ‘vocation’ to the single life’). I found the tone of the article quite worrying.
You seem to imply that single people are ‘lesser beings’ who are afraid of commitment, live unnatural lives and further are not really part of the “long tradition of God’s plan for his people”. You soften the blow in your exhortation that in spite of our flaws we should still be regarded as full members of the Church. I think the Lord who sees into all our hearts and histories will himself render us welcome without anyone else asking that it be so.
Many single people give gifts of themselves and do not need marriage or religious life to show them how to truly flourish in a human way. Some chose not to marry for very valid reasons. Others who are pressurised into thinking they have to be married at all costs have often chosen abusive partners, but that is deemed better than not to marry at all! It might be kinder when making a laudable case for religious life, not to do so at the expense of another group of people whose lives are no less worthy.
Yours etc.,
Marie-Thérèse Cryan,
Ballygall, Dublin 11.
Lack of clarity in WMOF resources
Dear Editor, I was very much looking forward to the release of the official catechesis programme for the World Meeting of Families 2018. As a teacher, I’m always on the lookout for resources that I can use in the classroom. I must say I was disappointed with the programme. While there is a lot of good material in it, there is also a lot of ambiguity on the issue of “alternative” family types and what the Church teaches regarding same-sex relationships.
I would be hesitant to use anything in the classroom that is not clear or that would create a misconception about what the Church teaches. I believe clarity is very important in teaching people about the Faith. As such, I’m sorry to say I will not be making use of this programme. I feel that the authors of the programme have missed a valuable opportunity to deliver authentic Church teaching on these issues in a clear manner.
Yours etc.,
Adam Conroy,
Newbridge, Co. Kildare.
‘Love both’ can’t offend anyone
Dear Editor, The pro-life motto ‘love both’ surely cannot offend anyone and if all of us pro-life people were to display the stickers on our cars, it would surely send a very positive message and help to counteract the biased media reporting on the referendum issue.
Yours, etc.,
Brigid Lavery,
Raheny,
Dublin