Madam, - I write in response to Breda O'Brien's column last Saturday on the Catholic Church and homosexuality. Ms O'Brien says she does not believe the Vatican instruction banning homosexuals from seminaries is homophobic or hate-filled.
Such a view seems to me quite impossible to justify and I note that Ms O'Brien does not attempt to do so. Instead she focuses on what she argues is a problem of ambiguity.
She writes, for instance, of a deep sense of frustration that the phrase "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" used in the document is "so ambiguous". She asks: Why not use something like "someone whose homosexual tendencies verge on the obsessive, making it extremely unlikely that he could live out a life of celibacy"?.
Well, probably because such an expression is a good deal more homophobic than the language chosen! It is difficult to imagine how anyone who has analysed this document objectively could believe it is neither homophobic nor hate-filled.
The most objectionable and homophobic terms contained in the Vatican instruction do not feature in Ms O'Brien's column. She makes no mention of the description in the document of homosexual acts as "grave sins" and "intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law". Nor does the term "objectively disordered" feature; nor the concept of homosexuals gravely hindered in "relating correctly to men and women"; nor homosexuality as a "transitory problem".
Thankfully, it seems this instruction will have little effect in Ireland. In particular, the Archbishop of Dublin has already expressed his view that sexual orientation is not an issue regarding someone's suitability for the priesthood. - Yours, etc,
KEITH O'MALLEY, Chief Executive, GLEN (Gay and Lesbian Equality Network), Fumbally Lane, Dublin 8.
Madam, - Fr Tom Ingoldsby (December 3rd) asks a very pertinent question, to which I would respond by asking two questions.
His question: "Are Patsy McGarry and Senator David Norris better judges of what the Catholic Church expects of her priests than Pope Benedict?"
My questions: 1. Are Pope Benedict and his Bishops better judges of what it means to be a sexual person than the People of God - who are, after all, the Catholic Church? 2. Is it not the People of God/the Faith Community that determines who is suitable to serve as priest, not only the Pope and his bishops, and have they not spoken when they accept that gay priests may serve them? - Yours, etc,
JIMMY O'CONNELL, Riverside Lawns, Kinnegad, Co Westmeath.
Madam, - What a splendid letter Joe Mulvaney writes (November 28th) about the Catholic Church's distorted view of human sexuality. Obviously sex is anathema to the Roman Hierarchy - especially gay sex! The very idea of celebrating sex makes them squirm.
However, let us admit that sex is something we all have difficulties with, no matter how liberated we imagine we are. Some of us see sex as fun, some see sex as a necessary evil, some see sex as one of God's little jokes.
Mr Mulvaney urges the Roman Catholic Church to adopt a positive healthy attitude and learn to "celebrate" sex. To my mind what we really need to do is celebrate intimacy. Unfortunately men and women have different agendas here. Women tend to use sex to set the scene for intimacy to occur. Men offer intimacy to enhance sexual activity. Dialogue is essential between men and women, and between the Roman Hierarchy of the church and the laity. - Yours, etc,
IRENE REDMOND, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.