LEAVING aside the particular controversy over the recent prayer service held by Father Mark Morris – in his parish church, not in GCU – I believe Shona Craven’s article (In a world of free choice, do we need chaplains?, July 20) betrays an astonishing lack of awareness of her own contradictory responses to the presence of chaplains in our universities.

The very headline is contradictory. It seems she advocates free choice for everything except religion. Censorship of the kind she proposes denies choice and is anything but inclusive. She uses the phrase “preaching hate on campus” as if Father Morris actually did this, and the phrase “should there be enough like-minded students to sustain” faith-based groups is blatant sneering at people of faith in its implication that of course there won’t be.

I find her use of the terms “indoctrination” and “state promotion” unfortunate, to say the least. Nicola Sturgeon recently praised Catholic schools, which are attended by young people of all faiths and none, and I would remind this journalist that the parents of these students pay taxes too.

Ms Craven has of course the right to express her opinion, but to attack sincerely held religious faith under the guise of inclusiveness shows evidence of intolerance and is yet another example of anti-Christian prejudice, to which I have the right to reply.

Katherine Longmuir
Address supplied

SHONA Craven rather misses the point today if she thinks that the sole role of a Catholic priest in a hospital is only to administer the “last rites”. In fact since around Vatican II the last rites have been known as the sacrament of the sick and are not reserved for those close to death. I myself received this sacrament at the end of Mass several months ago while sitting on a church bench. It consists mainly of anointing with oil and is extremely comforting. At the time I had a serious depression.

A Catholic priest is there to discuss all sorts of problems with folk and not only to administer the sacrament of the sick. To my mind Glasgow Caledonian University is right out of order in dismissing him. Political correctness has indeed gone mad.

Alan Clayton
Argyll

AS a former chaplain appointed by two Scottish universities in different decades, I fully support the action taken by Glasgow Caledonian University over its Catholic chaplain recently. However, Shona Craven’s article shows a confused misunderstanding of the function of chaplaincy in institutions today.

Church denominations and other religious bodies, with the agreement of universities, appoint and in some cases pay those to represent them in universities, often in a team situation. But the role of a generic Chaplain as a full member of staff, under the same conditions as other members, is somewhat different. He or she is employed and mandated to serve students and staff of all faiths or none, often facilitating different groups, including humanists, to minister as appropriate to any staff or students.

One incident in my time as chaplain to the University of Edinburgh in the last century may illustrate this. There were a number of tragedies such as student deaths that had often occurred during hours/weekends when pastoral care was needed, but agencies such as the counselling service were closed. In a protocol it was agreed by the welfare team that in these circumstances the chaplain should be the first person to to be contacted. My good friend and colleague, who headed the university medical practice and was personally averse to religion, said to some of her colleagues who were suspicious of this arrangement: “For God’s sake(!), Iain and his colleagues are not here to bash people over the head with a bible, but to offer the help of the university on behalf of all of us on the welfare team.” That speech encapsulated the proper role of a university chaplain.

Rev Dr Iain Whyte
North Queensferry

PERHAPS the confines of a short letter (mine of July 19) inevitably prompt misunderstanding, but it’s a pity that none of the responses really addresses my main points, while making various assumptions about what I actually believe. While increasingly we live in the age of screaming, surely its possible to discuss these matters unemotionally!

I said nothing in favour of any religion and quoted the Apostle Paul (who did exist, Lee!) as an example of strictly logical thought, not because of his status. Anthony Flew was rather the Dawkins of his day, although a proper philosopher (unlike the latter), but became a theist later in life in response to the discoveries of how DNA actually works. So far as I know he did not become a Christian or ally to any other religion. He had simply concluded it was intellectually dishonest to believe that the realities of DNA could be ascribed to mere chance. It is possible and indeed a good discipline to discuss these issues without reference to religion.

As for Neil Barber’s dismissive comment, in the world I live in killing and stealing have been and remain endemic – how would he seek to persuade the perpetrators that they should refrain if the results for them are more wealth and power etc? It’s no use saying “for the good of society” because their disturbingly logical response will be “why should I give a hoot about society?”. It’s no use saying “because you ought to be unselfish” – the “ought” is plucked from the air and has no logical foundation. In fact, it sounds suspiciously religious...

I was not questioning that atheists can live to up to a moral standard, but arguing that their own premises provide no grounds for doing so.

Alan Oliver
Falkirk