Sir, – In lumping together all criticism of Pope Benedict, John Waters (Opinion, April 20th) fails to distinguish between those critics who have an entirely secularist and negative agenda and those critics who have a pro-Christian background and simply seek to improve the church as an institution.
The secularists who criticise the Pope’s Catholicism also criticise other parts of the Christian Church and indeed other faiths. Given that whether one believes or disbelieves in a God is self-evidently a matter of faith, the secular criticism is reducible to the level of “my team is better than your team” until such time as the existence of God is proven or dismissed.
On the other hand, those critics who have as their goal the positive agenda of improving the church do not deserve to have their arguments dismissed lightly by John Waters or indeed suppressed by Pope Benedict.
A number of the letter writers on this subject have been inclined to say that if someone disagrees with the church’s teaching they should leave the church. However, if these people truly believe in unmarried clergy, papal infallibility, the fact that the Bible can be read in English (or Irish) and the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, then they would not have been Catholics in earlier centuries when such practices and thoughts were not part of the church’s teaching.
In reality, the church is not static and has changed its views on numerous occasions over the years on matters which have not been at the core of Christ’s teachings. If the church wishes to continue to be relevant to the lives of ordinary people, it must learn to debate issues in public and with clarity.
Pope Benedict’s arrogant, iron-rod approach to debate shows that he has learned nothing from the past history of the church and merits the criticism he receives from those who simply wish to see an extension of Christian principles in his organisation. – Yours, etc,