Sir, - The spectacle of Fintan O'Toole stealing the clothes of his critics to cover the nakedness of his illiberal attitude towards Dana and the Catholic Church (August 8th) is far from appealing, almost as unattractive as the nakedness itself.
Mr O'Toole complains that "Few rhetorical devices, though, are shallower than the sleight-of-mind that tries to turn criticism of one part of a large group into an attack on the group itself". This defence cannot be sustained by the columnist whose disdain initially focused on Rosemary Brown, but grew exponentially to embrace not merely the attendance at a Papal Mass, but a third of the nation's population.
Mr O'Toole should simply accept that it was the undisciplined nature of his remarks that caused such wide offence. No amount of re-modelling can mask his regrettable lapse in judgment. The tone of his Dana critique was distinctly undemocratic, as it failed to grant parity of esteem to a marginal constituency. One does not have to be numbered among "Dana's supporters" to accept her candidacy or her vote to be valid.
This properly liberal principle was well elaborated by Vincent Browne in his recent column (August 20th) when he contended that Rosemary Brown's nomination would be beneficial both in facilitating those aligned to her agenda and in presenting an opportunity for rebuttal of her views. (I might suggest, with historical apologies, that "Put her in to get her out" might serve as a suitable slogan for this campaign). The fact that Mr. O'Toole's contribution fell so far short of this basic, hardly partisan position is the essential problem.
Like Vincent Browne, one hopes for a more mature, thoughtful debate on liberalism Irish style, especially as the Church moves into a non-authoritarian, increasingly counter-cultural role. The defence of Rosemary Brown's rights and dignity as a person is significant; no matter who finally emerges from the presently poorly formed Presidential contest. The issues involved will transcend the so-called silly season and will come to visit us again.
Mr. O'Toole's attempts to further repair his credibility by explaining what "Catholic" really, really means are hopelessly muddled. I join with his commendation of the witness and insight of Margaret McCurtain, Enda McDonagh, and Stanislaus Kennedy; but let him recognise that the pull of conscience and conviction that directs them also moves the heart of every Rosemary Brown. I do not wish to be arbiter of another's conscience, and I certainly resist Mr. O'Toole's inclination to occupy that post and the divisions he imposes on the Church and our society.
It is worth pointing out that the remark that the above persons are "not merely Catholics, but are active in religious life" is out of step with the fundamental tenet that people are full members of the Church by virtue of their baptism, regardless of the vocation they choose to follow; "not merely Catholics" is a phrase outside of any current Church theology.
If Mr O'Toole insists on "crossdressing", he might at least choose an argument that does not continue to reveal the original source of his embarrassment - a rather inadequate appreciation of the Catholic faith. - Yours, etc., BILL KEMMY, CC,
Leighlin Parish, Leighlinbridge, Co Carlow.