6 JANUARY 1967, Page 13

Sm.—Because it has been a painful experience for me as

a Catholic that Charles Davis should leave the Church, and because salt has been rubbed into the wound by the publicity and terrible thorough- ness ,with which he has done this, I should like to make a few points arising from Desmond Fisher's article 'The Patb from Rome.'

He quotes Charles Davis as saying that the Council 'disappointed him . . . it did not do the things that mattered.' He does not say what did matter except 'it should have set out to examine the whole meaning and function of liturgical cult in modern society.' What flight of intellectual fancy is this? To a super- intellectual theologian this may seem terribly im- portant; as an ordinary Catholic it seems a curious hynosthesis whip 1 do not even understand. The Council was primarily a body of men concerned with running the Church for ordinary people like myself who want help and guidance about how to live as good Christians. At this level I feel they succeeded. I think Pope John's 'fresh air' has re- freshed and invigorated us all. Some theologians may have been disappointed. But I should not like the non-Catholic readers of your journal to think that this was the only reaction. In my own parish it, bas made us more enthusiastic, more active and more committed Christians.

He goes on to say 'it took a close look at the iiiner workings of the Church; it hardly bothered tqLdeal with the needs of the world for which the church is supposed to be the model.' He does not enumerate these needs. If they are such a burning issue I would have been grateful to be told what they are.

::Archbishop Roberts has, he claims, been `sacrificed to the system' But he spoke his mind at the Council; hp is known as a kindly, lively man and a good priest. Were he a member of a political party it might be said that he was wasted out of office; but even a political party could not be brought down by the waste of one talented individual; particularly one who seems to bear no grudge himself.

My last point is one which, to the crude logic of one working in a mass medium, is unavoidable. Why, if his aim was fairness and a sensible approach to public relations, did he choose to make his announcement on the eve of the enthronement of Bishop Butler? This was an important event in the Church, an important event in the 'aggiomamento.' He cannot have failed to know that Abbot Butler was to be consecrated as Archbishop Heenan's assist- ant on the following day; it was certainly in the papers. It was a curious day to choose.