I was amused by Fr David Clemens’ description (Letters, 23 April) of the “Prayer for the Queen” mandated by the Bishops’ Conference for Masses taking place on 11-12 June as “a quasi-Protestant prayer for the Queen that would not be unfamiliar to Edward or Elizabeth Tudor”.
Glory to God! Amoris Laetitia is a work of immense love: intelligent, clear and beautifully expressed. Francis has not made any changes to the Church’s core teaching on the family but has flooded it with a great light, illuminating every dark corner of our understanding of love and family life, driving away all possible misconceptions.
Shirley Williams (“‘Perverse’ reform best left undone”, 9 April) is right to criticise the UK Government’s plans to turn all schools into academies. Academies are in effect government schools, contracted directly (or indirectly through the academy chain) to the Secretary of State with powers therefore to direct the governance of schools as she or he thinks fit.
Cardinal Muller's claim that 'It was not the Church but individual priests who were responsible for the abuse scandal' (Tablet, 5 March ) shows that some have still not got the message. Abuse can be contained if it is dealt with swiftly and whistle-blowers are not muzzled or threatened with excommunication...
In his apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis refers to the “internal forum” for divorced and remarried Catholics as “a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment” with an examination of conscience, accompanied by a priest.
Much as I cherish the tablet, I read your editorial (“Ireland must not be distracted by old feuds”, 2 April) with irritation. Ambiguities bedevil any human action and the Easter 1916 Rising had its fair share but it’s disingenuous to say that it raises issues concerning democracy and the rule of law.
I am amazed that Archimandrite Simeon Piers (Letters, 2 April) “can see no good reason for linking Easter to a Jewish movable feast”. Does he see no continuity at all between the Old and New Testaments?
Like carmody grey (Student Voice, 19 March), I have long felt uncomfortable with the effigy of the Crucifixion in our churches, and our focus on an instrument of torture as a shortcut visual sign for Christianity.
In these days of diminishing adherence to the Christian Churches nothing would be better witness than us all agreeing on the date for Easter, so that we would all celebrate the most important moment in the Christian calendar with one heart and mind.
James Donnelly queries the speedy canonisation of popes (Letters, 19 March). The malaise is deeper. It starts with the canonisation of popes at all, or at least before a decent wait of half a millennium.
Throughout a distinguished career, Hans Küng has been preoccupied with the question of infallibility (“Controversial Swiss theologian pleads with Pope Francis to solve problem of infallibility”, www.thetablet.co.uk/news). But two other questions also require urgent attention.
Richard Scorer’s article on the abuse scandal in the Church and in society was honest, measured and well researched (“The stain that remains”, 5 March). As he rightly says, the Church still has a long way to go in dealing with historic abuse.
While I favour our continued membership of the EU, Brian Wicker (Letters, 5 March) perpetrates a common error with his extraordinary claim that “if they [Eurosceptics] have their way, Europe will be engulfed in war all over again”.
The FOUNDING FATHERS of what has become the EU – to whom you paid tribute in your leader (27 February) – envisaged, in addition to creating political and economic structures, a recognition that our common humanity was infinitely more important than ties of nationality.
The article by Werner Jeanrond, “The state we’re in – and how to get out of it” (27 February) is timely and refreshing. As he says, the idea that the Church would cease to exist without priests is “blasphemous”.