Sir, - In the wake of the sensational news that Ms Sinead O'Connor was "ordained" by one Michael Cox, I was requested to write an article (The Irish Times, April 27th) on the alleged status of Mr Michael Cox who claims to be bishop. Despite the title given to the article, Ms Sinead O'Connor was not my main concern, as I consider Mr Cox's own claims far more serious than those of Ms O'Connor. (Mr Pat Buckley rightly intuited the implications of this for his own claims; his reply in these columns was predictable.) Imagine, then, my surprise to read (May 4th) Gail Grossman Freyne's spirited defence of the ordination of women as a response to my article.
I was quite fascinated, not to say amused, to study what Ms Grossman Freyne managed to read into my few words. It reminded me of those Scripture scholars, among others, who somehow or other manage to extract the most extraordinary interpretations from an otherwise simple text - apart, that is, from the most obvious one.
As a Catholic, Ms Grossman Freyne must know that any attempt, even by a validly ordained bishop, to ordain a woman would be utterly null and void. That has been the mind of the Church for the past 2,000 years, as was recently re-affirmed by Pope John Paul II, whom Ms Grossman Freyne otherwise quotes to her advantage. She must also know that, for Catholics, it is the mind of the Church that, in the final analysis, interprets the mind of Christ. Today Scripture scholars might think otherwise. Tomorrow they may change their mind . . . - Yours, etc., Vincent Twomey,
St Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co Kildare.