Dear Editor, Your editor’s comment on the need to present young people with real challenges (IC 11/10/2018) exposes a very serious problem in our efforts to pass on the Faith to our children, the gravity of which our Church seems unable to grasp, as comments by Bishop Brendan Leahy on the YouCat for Kids suggest.
Dr Leahy is effusive in his praise for the new book, intended as it is to catechise parents and young children at the same time, and indeed it seems a remarkable piece of work, surely belonging in every Catholic home. But the idea that it could usefully be given to teenagers strikes me as disastrous.
You say it yourself: “If young people – exposed to so much – are challenged in science class, English and history but then find themselves faced with colouring books and word searches when it comes to religion classes is it any wonder they have looked in the box that has been presented to them as the Faith and found it empty?”
We’re regularly told not to judge books by their covers, but too many of us do, and I fear any teenager presented with a book packed full of cartoons and labelled explicitly as “for kids” would give it barely a cursory glance.
The YouCat for Kids may be superb, but it’s hard to see it reaching a teenage audience.
Yours etc.,
Susan Murphy,
Tallaght,
Dublin 24.
On bullying, racism and the imminent referendum
Dear Editor, Almost devoid of a national debate, we are careering into a referendum to remove the offence of blasphemy, defined in the Defamation Act (2009) as a matter intended to be “grossly abusive” to people because of their religion, and which is without any artistic or academic merit.
If such abuse happened in a one-on-one context it would be considered bullying; in the context of goods and services, the Equal Status Acts would apply; and where skin-colour was involved it would be termed racism.
Voting to allow such abuse is contrary to our society’s values of decency, fairness, and appreciation for the beneficial role religion has played in many peoples’ lives.
It would ignore the lessons of history that such vilification leads to horrors; from Nazi Germany, to religious bigotry in the North, to ISIS defaming the religious beliefs of the Yazidis in Iraq.
We would lose this minimum standard of decency, so vital to allowing free-speech, the life-blood of a properly functioning democracy.
We would also lose a means of resolving grievances in accordance with the ‘rule-of-law’. In some countries – because the hands of community leaders are legally tied – disaffected extremists have claimed a false legitimacy as defenders of their communities, with tragic results.
Finally, our objective definition of the offence of blasphemy, with its insistence upon “intentionality” is designed to remove accusations from the toxic atmosphere of personalised conflict and the inevitable injustice that characterises some Muslim countries.
Jean Vanier of L’Arche said: “To mock what is precious to someone is a form of violence. Instead let us work towards creating places where we can encounter one another.”
Our anti-blasphemy law works unobtrusively and ought to be vigorously promoted worldwide. I will be voting ‘No’.
Yours etc.,
Gearoid Duffy,
Cork City,
Co. Cork.
Defending ethical practitioners
Dear Editor, The Nuremburg trials had something to say about the role of conscience in the killing of the innocent.
The trials concluded that the defendants had not just a right but also a duty to conscientiously object to ending the life of the victims. The accused were unable to rely of the defence of just following the law or obeying orders in defending their actions.
It is unconscionable, some 70 years later, for a democracy to coerce medical professionals into cooperating with killing unborn babies because of societal pressures. Do we want to drive ethical practitioners out of medicine?
Yours etc.,
Colm Fitzpatrick,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
Quality clothing is a great investment
Dear Editor, I was glad to see Mary Kenny’s column in praise of so-called ‘slow fashion’ (IC 4/10/2018). Buying clothes that have been ethically produced helps to reduce not just the number of garments that end up in landfills, but also the impact of clothing production on the environment more generally – think of the pesticides, dyes, factory pollution, etc., involved in bringing vast quantities of essentially unnecessary clothes to market.
While, as she notes, the global mega-retailers employ hundreds and thousands of people in poor countries, I would argue that these jobs are very far from being an unmitigated blessing for the people who hold them. Since the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013, more and more consumers have become aware of the dire sweatshop conditions many high street retailers tolerate in their factories on the other side of the globe. Should production costs in these countries really be so cheap, or is it just that western companies are able to get away with shoddy infrastructure, polluting practices, and starvation wages when people are desperate?
Buying fewer, better clothes and putting more thought into what we really want to wear before making impulsive purchases seems like the best answer to the situation. Cheap fashion stores might be useful when we need a quick work wardrobe for a new job, but the more we can shift our thinking toward seeing clothes as an investment, the better for everyone I think.
Yours etc.,
Laura Collins
Tallaght, Dublin 24.
Churches must speak out on blasphemy
Dear Editor, If the article banning blasphemy in our Constitution is deleted it will give free rein to the open mockery of God and all things sacred. Sadly, there are now many who will delight in doing just that. Bishops and priests will not be spared either; the insults they are subjected to at present will even be increased.
Hence it is time we had uniform statements in all churches telling people how grievously immoral it would be to support this proposal in the forthcoming referendum.
It is God’s honour which is at stake. All who claim to believe in Him and especially those ordained who represent Him, if they are serious about their role, should take a stand.
Yours etc.,
Fr Richard O’Connor,
Rome, Italy.
Why were no churches included in Open House Dublin?
Dear Editor, This last weekend, a number of historically and architecturally significant buildings around Dublin were open to the public as part of Open House Dublin. I was disappointed, but maybe not surprised, to see that there were no churches, Catholic or otherwise, participating in the event. I suppose it suits this ‘new modern Ireland’ we all hear so much about to ignore religious buildings in favour of tours of corporate headquarters. But it does seem like a missed opportunity to invite people to step through the doors of a church. If the organisers of such cultural events don’t make the effort to include us, it seems worthwhile to take the initiative to try and change things for next year.
Yours etc.,
Maura O’Toole,
Drumcondra,
Dublin 9.
For Christians, Christmas is not a competition?
Dear Editor, In last week’s paper (IC 11/10/18) there was discussion about how difficult parents find it to stay afloat during Christmas. I think this is something that needs to be talked about much more, as it’s surely the case that most families are too embarrassed to explain their financial stress.
In Ireland, the notion of Christmas being a Christian holiday is totally removed from most celebrants, and so it really has just because a commercial holiday. It’s important to remember that Christmas is not a competition and that your worth or your child’s worth doesn’t come from the expense of the present you give them. A more loving and thoughtful gift means so much more than an impulsive buy from a shop shelf.
Yours etc.,
David Gallagher,
Killarney,
Co. Kerry