Sir, - As one of your readers invited by you to judge for themselves, my clear verdict is that you have been entirely unfair to Dr Desmond Connell and that your self-justifying editorial (December 23rd) was a shameful sham.
You drew a spurious distinction as to whether it was the Church of Ireland Communion or the taking of that Communion that was said to be a sham. You claimed that to have ascribed the former to the archbishop would have given him grounds for complaint, but not the latter. What is clear to me is that neither is an honest reflection of what he actually said in his radio interview, for an account of which I am relying on your own report.
I must also say that he was treated unfairly by Dr Robin Eames, who, despite conceding that the basis of his reproof was something that may have been taken out of context, nevertheless proceeded to issue what the media, without contradiction, interpreted as a reproof and broadcast as such.
It seems perfectly clear from your own report of his radio interview that Dr Connell referred to the incompatibility of believing in the unique Roman Catholic concept of the Eucharist and yet partaking of a non-Roman Catholic Eucharist. The sham that he referred to was that perpetrated by those who profess the Roman Catholic view of it and yet make a show of endorsing a contrary view. What was carefully obscured by your headline was that he made no suggestion that anyone else engages in a sham.
The restricted sense of that word was sufficiently clear in his original comments to render his subsequent qualification redundant. Far from intending offence to anyone who does not accept the Roman Catholic view, he expressed his concern that such a sham on the part of Roman Catholics would be "profoundly insulting to the Church of Ireland or to any other Protestant church".
I am afraid it all amounts to Catholic-bashing by you, by the journalists in defence of "whose work on the page in question" you affect such pain, by Mary Holland and by several other commentators. You referred to the "exacting craft" of sub-editing involved in headline writing, but it ought to be accepted that the most exacting thing about it is to be truly faithful to absolute truth. I often admire the wit of your headlines, but is it not the case that in your exercise of the exacting craft you rank both wit and your inclinations as agent provocateur ahead of truth? Is crafty inexactness somewhat nearer the mark?
It is to the media that anyone who seeks your "adroit media performer" should look. Likewise, Dr Connell ought to be able to tell the truth as he sees it without having to allow for the adroitness of the media. Is it not his duty to propound the Catholic view, especially when the media are full of confusion as to whether that view still exists? Is your interest in the confusion such that you would intimidate him from providing guidance? Will you always play to the non-Catholic and semi-Catholic gallery? - Yours, etc.,
Frank Farrell,
Lakelands Close, Stillorgan, Co Dublin.