Doctrinal differences mean one cathedral is not a goer

I think the urge for two major Christian faiths to share the same cathedral will not be realised, nor do I see why it should. There are significant doctrinal differences between Roman Catholics and Anglicans that will not be smoothed over by having the same workspace. Certainly there are concerns in common that can be developed and shared in pursuit of an immediate unity of purpose but that in itself is not sufficient for a wider unity.

It is much like the children of a divorced couple wishing to see their parents reunited. It is typically a pipe dream, which children learn eventually to appreciate.

While churches might share concerns for the future wellbeing of their flock, it is neither necessary nor desirable for them to share the same roof space if each already has a house of its own. Moreover, if there is to be a common place of worship let it be not just ecumenical but let it be allembracing, regardless, and allow each nonetheless their own facility to which they can repair when their mana has to be reinvigorated. Under the circumstances, a separation of such powers is not necessarily a bad thing.

John D Mahony, Mt Pleasant

Accountant’s nightmare

A joint Anglo-Catholic cathedral is unlikely. The degree of cooperation needed no church has ever achieved between its own believers, let alone those labelled as heretics. Apportioning running costs fairly would be an accountant’s nightmare. Only a secular governing body could make unbiased decisions in this, but no church, believing it is God’s vehicle on earth, will obey a secular authority in preference to its own. In matters of conflict resolution, Christianity has a long and dismal record. Phillip Rex Robinson, Waltham Am I the only one who feels tired when the constant debate about rebuilding cathedrals raises its head? I am unaware of any shortcoming in the life of this city during the period when both have laid in ruins. Of course, the believers have had to move to smaller churches, which I imagine did those parishes good. But did those believers feel themselves any less believing or less godly without huge and beautiful structures of masonry over their heads? Not myself a believer, I feel their religious spirit, if thus affected, could be open to some critical analysis.

Surely to liken our smallish city to any of the great capitals of Europe, with their immense and centuries-old cathedrals, is absurd. I gather that the Catholic bishop plans to extinguish a number of parishes so my friend Philip Carter can help him build a huge and monumental edifice on the river. And the Anglican Bishop, no doubt like his counterpart a lovely man, hopes to erect his temple in the Square.

You might say, with justification, what does it have to do with me? Well, both schemes involve huge public funds, which local and central government feel it is politically wise to contribute.

I fear, however, that with our red zone and our many poor struggling families, Jesus himself (who left us such a wonderful code of behaviour) might have felt differently. John Burn, Merivale