Sir, - Good inter-church relations have an important contribution to make to peace and to the easing over time of the sometimes murderous sectarian tensions that still persist in part of our island. We should not add misunderstanding about what is normal to genuine and long-standing differences, or let those differences be exaggerated out of proportion to what is held in common.
It is not, at least in my experience, the general practice in Church of Ireland churches to issue explicit general invitations to partake in Communion to members of other denominations in good standing, not least because at a normal service very few others would be present. In a place such as St Patrick's Cathedral, at virtually every service there are a significant number of visitors, some from at home, more from overseas, who may be in doubt as to whether they would be welcome at Communion. Such an invitation need not be specifically or exclusively directed at Catholics. Worldwide, and not just in Ireland, there are many nonepiscopal Protestant denominations; and in some Englishspeaking countries, such as the United States or Scotland, the Anglican Communion would not be dominant. In other days, for instance, my father-in-law (a Scottish Presbyterian) would not have been able or encouraged to take Communion in some Anglican high churches. Attendance from time to time in each other's churches, particularly on special occasions, contributes a lot to the generation of good feeling. Most Protestants or Anglicans, attending Mass, respect the formal rules of the Catholic Church and would not go up for Communion, as Archbishop Empey has said, but in my experience at least need not, for all that, feel excluded (just a little different). Many of us would have shared vicariously in the pride and elation that, for example, accompanied the Pope's visit to Ireland in 1979, and wish to congratulate Archbishop Connell on his elevation as Cardinal.
Conversely, Protestants, all the more so being a small minority in this State, appreciate the family, civic and ecumenical occasions when Catholics attend their church. One would not normally expect them to take Communion, not because they would not be welcome, but because of the rules of their own church, which would make doing so a decision of conscience. (Obviously, in practice, exceptions take place in both directions, as high-profile instances involving Tony Blair in Italy and President McAleese here have illustrated.)
Over the past 25 years, public representatives, from the President and Taoiseach to members of local authorities, have been particularly good about attendance at ecumenical occasions. Differences over the validity or admissibility of intercommunion at the present stage of inter-church dialogue should not obscure the strong solidarity that has built up between Christians of different denominations throughout virtually every part of this State. This solidarity makes up for some of the damage done by high degrees of sectarian exclusiveness, of which all traditions have been very guilty of in different ways and at various times in the past, and without any of us being perfect even to this day.
St Paul, who, in his time, and before his conversion on the road to Damascus, persecuted Christians, tempered his later convictions with humility. In his famous passage in Corinthians on faith, prophesy and knowledge being no substitute for the additional element of charity, he acknowledged: "We know in part, and we prophesy in part"; and "now we see through a glass darkly". And he went on to say: "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
Some of us come from a religious background that has difficulty with arguments that any one church is uniquely efficacious in procuring salvation, and have an instinctive impatience with rules, based on access to certainties, that tend to keep people and churches apart. But, pending greater unity, respect not just for the sensibility of others but for the integrity of their position - something which applies equally in both directions - would suggest that better ways have to be found by all concerned of expressing such respect, so that there is no appearance, even implicitly, of ignoring, overriding or belittling the beliefs, practices or leaders of another church, be they majority or minority. - Yours, etc.,
Martin Mansergh, Special Adviser to the Taoiseach, Government Buildings, Dublin 2.
Sir, - Rev Stephen Neill's frustration at the reluctance of Roman Catholic clergy in senior positions to speak out against Cardinal Connell's views on intercommunion (The Irish Times, February 26th) is something many Roman Catholic priests, including myself, share. Yet it is possible to understand, if not justify, such a conspiracy of silence. There are historical, ecclesial and personal considerations involved. No one, I think, would be so ungracious as to seek to deflate Cardinal Connell's obvious joy.
But there are more serious matters involved here. The cardinal's gung-ho attitude on the intercommunion question needs to be balanced by other voices that point to other truths. The problem is not just with the uncompromising and absolute stand the cardinal has taken but with the perception that he is, repeatedly and severely, seeking opportunities to hammer home his message. How many times does he have to say it?
The fact is that the cardinal's uncompromising dismissal of intercommunion and his lecturing of the Church of Ireland has significantly set back ecumenical dialogue and embarrassed his own church. I wish to dissociate myself from the present Gadarene rush (see the double Dominican whammy from Fathers Greenan and Byrne, February 26th), to commend the cardinal for his honesty and to raise my voice on behalf of those who believe that there is a wider and deeper truth here - a truth which, I respectfully suggest, the cardinal may have damaged significantly. - Yours, etc.,
Rev Brendan Hoban PP, Kilglass, Enniscrone, Co Sligo.
Sir, - Cardinal Desmond Connell has asserted on his return to Ireland the "awesome dignity" of all human beings. Could he please note that the process of awarding the title "prince of the church" to the oligarchy to which he now belongs is part of the secular game of stripping dignity from those at the base of the world's pyramid of dignity in order to flatter a few. It is a medieval travesty of Gospel brotherhood - a consequence of the deal made between the hierarchy and the state in the fourth century. As an Irish Catholic I feel deeply embarrassed rather than honoured by it.
Could he also note that Jesus of Nazareth affirmed the dignity of all by absolutely refusing earthly elevation and by breaking bread with all. When the "princes" of my church instead use the Gospel to justify their own promotion, to oppose reforms which would give their laity a voice in their own church, and to impose an exclusive rather than an inclusive Eucharist, their use of the word "dignity" in relation to the rest of us sounds not merely hollow but hypocritical.
Our youth look on as old men place funny hats and gold rings on each other, wondering what on earth this has to do with Christianity, with dignifying anyone else. This past fortnight can only accelerate their tendency to vote in the only way they can - with their feet. - Yours, etc.,
Sean O Conaill, Greenhill Road, Coleraine, Co Derry.
Sir, - In God's name let us deal with this debate sensibly. Firstly, let us all as Christians celebrate the many common beliefs we share. Then, let us all pray that the Holy Spirit guides us to debate our differences in a structured and dignified way, far removed from media manipulation. - Yours, etc.,
Tony Corcoran, Fairbrook Lawn, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14.