SIR – The BBC’s drama Gunpowder (Home news, October 27) did indeed open with the most graphic scenes of violence. It defends these by saying they are grounded in historical fact and reflect what took place during the time of the Gunpowder Plot. The episode fairly depicts the sheer desperation of Catholics who had been misled to hope for some remission of persecution at the hands of King James, son of Mary, Queen of Scots. The laity faced ruinous fines. Priests were hung, drawn and quartered, and the ghastly intention was that the victim should survive to see his heart and bowels hacked out.
But no woman was pressed to death in this period. The penalty of peine forte et dure was imposed for a refusal to plead in court. Years earlier, St Margaret Clitherow had refused to plead to protect her family. She was excused as much as those in authority could. She was never stripped naked, did not spend 24 hours under a door with weights on it, and finally – not in public – was pressed to death, a sharp stone under her back.
The persecution of Catholics had horrors enough. The Gunpowder Plot allowed the extension of the legend that Catholics were traitors, so that anti-Catholic prejudice was live into the 20th century, and still today Catholics are not felt to be quite reliably English and patriotic. The BBC should have no need to invent incidents, the most dangerous thing to do in a drama documentary.
The Very Rev Fr Leo Chamberlain OSB
St John’s Priory, Easingwold, North Yorkshire
SIR – I find it rather sad that a Catholic priest, Fr Anthony Keefe, should write in such scathing and inflammatory terms about Cardinal Burke (letter, October 20). He refers to him as “witchfinder” and “arch-dissenter”, and mentions rather
sneeringly “his cohorts”. Could he not have made his argument without resorting to such insulting language?
A principal task of a member of the College of Cardinals is to advise the pope in his governance of the Church, and even to resist and correct him so that he may lead all souls to the truth. I would not know if Pope Francis has caused a climate of fear (Cover story, October 13), but there does seem to be a climate of confusion.
The Holy Father could easily remove any confusion by responding to the dubia and the Correctio Filialis. One wonders why he has not done so. Amoris Laetitia may have some encouraging and beautiful words, but since there has been such strong debate since its publication, it can hardly be denied that it has caused confusion. Cardinal Burke and his brave “cohorts” have merely sought to enable His Holiness to clarify areas of confusion and division.
Fr Keefe’s memory of the publication of Humanae Vitae differs from mine. It seems to me that it was the treatment meted out to the supporters of Pope Paul’s document, rather than the questioners, who were harassed and vilified, as indeed was the blessed pope himself.
Thomas Monaghan
Glasgow
SIR – Your sad conclusion (leading article, October 20) that those in authority in the UK and elsewhere do not care about the persecution of Christians is unfortunately true.
Those who would care are fellow Christians, but the vast majority of these in the UK are not well informed, as they obtain their information from secular media which give scant attention to the issue.
Surely the most effective way forward is for Christians to be informed by their Church leaders at their services and encouraged to take action both by financial contributions and by making representations to MPs, ministers of the Crown, ambassadors of persecuting governments, the media, and so on. There are Church-based organisations which facilitate this – Aid to the Church in Need, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Release International – but they need more support from the person in the pew.
Can we look to members of the hierarchy to give us a lead on this by individual or collective pastoral letters? There is real scope here also for ecumenical action as all Christian denominations are adversely affected by persecution.
Audrey and Paul Edwards
Reigate, Surrey
SIR – It is heartening to see that Pope Francis has acted so quickly to suppress attempts by Cardinal Sarah to re-establish the primacy of the Congregation for Divine Worship in matters relating to the translation of the Mass following the issue of Magnum Principium (World news, October 27).
The Pope has now made it abundantly clear that, in preparing translations, fidelity to the original Latin is now but one of three governing factors and that any translation must, just as importantly, be true to the language into which the text is being translated, as well as being alert to the understanding of the text by the target audience.
I would suggest that the current translation of the Mass clearly fails those last two tests. I hope that the bishops of England and Wales, together with conferences from other English-speaking countries, will therefore cooperate in seeking to find a translation that meets the criteria which has now been laid down by the Pope.
Martin Clitheroe
Bedford
SIR – In “Week in review” (October 27), you remark: “In general the British media have taken a pro-choice stance …” This expression “pro-choice” has cleverly been adopted by the pro-abortion lobby, which has made it its own. Who in their right mind would own up to being against “choice”?
The pro-abortion lobby has deliberately misinterpreted this plain English word to mean the choice to opt for abortion. “Choice” by definition requires more than one option; why are pregnant women denied the “choice” to interpret it as not opting for abortion?
Larry Connor
Leamington Spa, Warwickshire
Ann Widdecombe (Comment, October 20) interestingly poses the question: are gay people who uphold the Church’s teaching that gay marriage is wrong, automatically therefore homophobic?
I am a practising Catholic, who is gay, who upholds the Church’s teaching on the impossibility of “gay marriage” as such. Nevertheless, I live within a civil partnership with another gay man, albeit in a celibate state, and very happily so.
I do not class myself as homophobic by upholding the Church’s teaching regarding “gay marriage” and would take issue with anyone (even Balliol College’s representative on University Challenge) who might suggest otherwise.
Such narrow-minded enthusiasm sadly demonstrates the current tunnel vision of our many “free thinkers” trapped within current trendy student thinking on this subject.
William Crossley
Tideswell, Derbyshire
Letters should include a genuine postal or email address, phone number and the style or title of the writer. Email: [email protected] Due to space constraints, please keep correspondence below 250 words, longer letters may be published online
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.