Page 5, 8th March 1968

8th March 1968
Page 5
Page 5, 8th March 1968 — Hierarchy 'must act' on teaching of new theology

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.


Locations: Madrid, London, Canterbury


Related articles

Teaching Not Denial Of Doctrine

Page 5 from 15th March 1968

`reluctant Teachers' Speak Out

Page 5 from 12th July 1963

Threat To Doctrine In Our Schools

Page 5 from 1st March 1968

Schism Of Catholic Indifference?

Page 12 from 1st October 1993

Bible Called "jewish Book"

Page 7 from 30th December 1938

Hierarchy 'must act' on teaching of new theology

I AM not a teacher, but am in daily close contact with many of them. One and all are grateful to T. Rigby (March 1) for courage in writing about the difficulties being imposed on teachers by the supporters of the so-called new theology.

All most teachers want and need is to be able to teach the faith to children in a way which will make them love it and live it. New catechetical methods are one thing; new doctrine is quite another.

If the representatives of the Catechetical Centres had confined themselves to methods of teaching they would have been well within their sphere of duty—but they can have no authority from anybody to teach what I consider false doctrine.

Older teachers find the new interpretation of doctrine an implicit criticism and rejection of all they have lovingly done over the years; younger teachers and children are so confused that many are in peril of losing their faith or of not developing it at all.

The matter is one of the utmost gravity. It calls for rapid, drastic action by the Hierarchy.

E. Metcalf Kirkby. Lancs.

THE letter published in your paper last week from T. Rigby will do much to clear the air. Over the past months numerous priests, religious superiors, teachers and parents have been in touch with me over each of the points of doctrine mentioned in the letter.

If it initiates a dialogue stamped by truth, charity and moderation it will more than have achieved its purpose.

(Rev.) Francis J. Ripley Liverpool (The above letters are representative of many received on this matter.)

Exclusive humour

Wily should not everything be Catholic in the CAI-Holm HERALD? Why do the cartoons appear so anti-Catholic? What can be the point of the joke about the commander of the Papal Guard asking for volunteers for the Salvation Army? Is this preaching indifferentism, that one religion is as good as another? Is this the way to make conversions?

The cartoon of what appears to be Roman nobles sitting on a Cardinal's cappa magna also seems very pointless. Do you want to abolish the attendance of nobles at the Vatican? If so, at least you should conform to some aspect of truth and not accuse nobles of precisely one of the things that they are unlikely to do. A member of the Maltese nobility told me that their duties at the Vatican are tiring because they have to STAND so much.

Again I see no point in the cartoon about Cardinals smuggling sterling through the customs. Are you so desperately anxious to lower the reputation of the princes of the Church? Another cartoon shows a Cardinal warning the Archbishop of Canterbury what he says in a sermon on account of Mr. Muggeridge.

Are we supposed to believe that sermons are to please men or God? Perhaps your humour is understood by the English, but as a Scot I understand nothing of this so-called "merriment". As Catholic means universal, is it right that your humour should be so exclusive?

Ian G. Macnair-Smith Madrid

St. Edmund's

IN his interesting account (February 23) of the proposal to move part of St. Edmund's College from Old Hall Green to London your reporter suggests that the buildings other than the chapel are "of little architectural interest." That may well have been A. W. N. Pugin's view, but in these days of wider architectural ap

preciation, especially o f Georgian buildings, such a statement certainly needs challenging.

Though somewhat gaunt, and despite internal changes, the original block, by John Taylor of Islington who also designed the very similar first block at Ushaw, is of real dignity and was, when built between 1796 and 1799, the most ambitious Catholic building to arise in England since the easing of the penal laws.

As such, it is an important link with the immediately postpenal period, reminding us that the revival of Catholic architecture in this country started in Georgian, not in Victorian, times.

Bryan Little Bristol

blog comments powered by Disqus