Robert Megg's letter (HAS, Nov 8), was highly selective and factually incorrect in content, rancorous and hostile in tone, and a complete vindication of the main point of my earlier correspondence.
That letter had nothing to do with homosexuality, rather about the civilised conduct of free speech in these columns.
But for the record, the selective Mr Meggs didn't quote the full catechism statement (on homosexuality) binding all 1.2bn Catholics globally to the love, sensitivity and respect in their regard and particularly the avoidance of any unjust discrimination. This was ignored.
Religion precludes rational debate? Really? I doubt that Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Antony Flew, William Craig Lane or members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences could agree.
Unfortunately, anything Mr Meggs doesn't understand becomes de facto an absurdity. The real absurdity is not the challenge to faith but abusive language used to vilify it.
Desperation finally emerges, characterising a mainstream religion by reference to the most extreme elements. This is like condemning football because some remote part of the world subjects black players to vile abuse.
Finally, does Mr Meggs not know Latin ceased 40 years ago?
Surely what anyone believes is their own free choice and business not that held by Rob Meggs.
Michael Baldasera,
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article