Sir,—Father Wills' letter on "the Radziwill case" and the secrecy that surrounds the deliberations of the Rota prompts me to raise a question which has occured to more than one journalist.
One sympathises with priests and other parties who are questioned when a marriage annulment is given publicity: I knew the news-editor of a Catholic paper who literally staggered under the weight of the mail he received when a film actor's marriage was annulled (the paper was not the C.H.). But the question I wish to ask is: Who has a right to know the details of such cases, apart from the persons involved and those who administer the Church's law in these mat ters?
Marriage is (and ought to be) an intimate business between two people: it is a most private vocation. If a question of censure arises from it the censure surely is nobody'sbusiness, apart from the people involved and the authorities beforewhom they place their "ease" for judgment.
Has it accurecl to Father Wills that his suggestion—that the details of such cases be publicised — logically might lead to the installation of laud-speakers on confessionals? People are entitled, by right of being persons (princesses, by the way, are persons), to the decent privacy the Rota's method ensures.
W. J. Igoe, Loughton, Essex.