Sir, - Amid all the opinions voiced on the issues surrounding the recent State reception for Cardinal Connell there is one uniting thread. It is one of confusion and misunderstanding about the role and respective responsibilities of the Church, the State and their public representatives.
For those who subscribe to the view that the Church (of whatever denomination) should keep silent on these issues and "go with the flow" there is on the one hand the assumption that, because of the sins of the few, the Church has no right to speak on any issues of public morality. That argument, posed in its most offensive form by Liz O'Donnell in what can best be described as a rush of blood to the head, has been largely discredited. On the other hand, some argue that matters of Church, religion and morality belong to the private sphere and should not be confused with public matters of state.
This ignores the reality that faith is of its essence about relationship, primarily for the Christian with the three persons of the Trinity and springing from that to relationships with fellow human beings and indeed the whole of creation. Faith is inherently political (with a small p) and public and cannot be confined to the realm of the personal and private.
To be a Christian has implications far beyond the personal. Nobody complains when the Church condemns violence in any situation within or beyond this island; indeed, people look for comment. Therefore, to ask anyone representing their Church to turn a blind eye on another public issue seems to be inconsistent and a plea for dishonesty!
Alternatively, those who would argue from the pluralist point of view that the State should embrace and tolerate the broadest possible understanding of the family must acknowledge that our Constitution is not so flexible. It has some very strong things to say about the family. We cannot have it both ways.
If there is to be any integrity on this issue, the Government has to either uphold the Constitution or seek to amend it. To be Taoiseach is not necessarily to be a role model, but as leader of the Government he or she must act in a way that demonstrates some respect for the Constitution. It is not an easy situation to be in, but it goes with the territory.
In this age of political correctness it is very difficult to affirm one model of family and society without it being assumed that one is condemning any alternative. Very few people would even suggest that single-parent families are inherently deficient or that co-habitation and even same-sex unions should be condemned out of hand; but nobody would pretend that these arrangements do not have at least some drawbacks. Surely the centrality of the traditional family in society is something that we can promote without fear of being accused of intolerance and persecuting minorities. Ideals are good for society as long as they do not become absolutes. It is vital that sensitivity is shown on this issue; but sensitivity does not mean moral paralysis for fear of offending someone.
The Church, for all its faults and failings, still has a lot to offer. Ireland may have grown up and embraced the modern world, but it is mistaken if it thinks that it has outgrown the Church. Partnership is one of the buzz words of our time and it is as good a word as any to describe the potential role of the Church in Irish society today. Not an exclusive or dominant partnership but one in which integrity is valued and the right to free expression is respected. We still have a long way to go. - Yours, etc.,
Rev Stephen Neill, Cloughjordan, Co Tipperary.