Catholic leaders should work to end mandatory celibacy

It seems clear that celibacy among priets should be ditched.

Troy Bramston says ending mandatory celibacy is a required step in reform of the Catholic Church for there exists a clear, causal link between this outdated rule and the sexual abuse scandal that engulfs the church in its worst crisis since the Reformation (“Catholic Church faces its own resurrection story”, 5/3). Elders fail to recognise that the problem extends well beyond their role as spiritual leaders.

In a symptom of this failure, the church leadership continues to conflate the question of what directly causes child sexual abuse with a distinct and equally serious question: why has the institutional church steadfastly covered up, or even enabled, these disgraceful crimes?

The smoking gun in this scandal is a corruption of the church around issues of illicit sexuality arising from the rule mandating clerical celibacy.

It was agreed by all five metropolitan archbishops in their testimony to the McClellan royal commission that mandatory celibacy contributes significantly to the scale of abuse within the church. All credible experts in the field of child protection agree.

So, while the Pope is content to describe perpetrators of such crimes as “tools of Satan”, this sentiment must equally apply to those responsible for the cover ups and for a rule that defies basic human nature and debases this institution.

James Miller, Sydney, NSW

Regional rail needed

I agree with Judith Sloan that high-speed trains linking cities in the eastern states are a waste of time and money (“They’re playing games with high-speed rail plans”, 5/3). Australian population density and vast distances between capital cities do not make such plans profitable.

But high-speed commuter trains, would be useful for travel within a state. In course of time, it will become a necessity to release population pressures in state capital cities. For example, a dedicated a high-speed train that took 30 minutes to reach Melbourne from Bendigo would certainly encourage people to move to the regional city in large numbers. It would be the case with other regional cities.

Bill Mathew, Parkville, Vic

Boost tank regiments

Greg Sheridan is quite right that, with defence spending at 1.9 per cent of GDP, Australia is too reliant on the US for deterrence against powerful threats that may do us harm (“As threats mount, we must start taking defence seriously”, 2/3). But he is wrong that Abrams tanks may help Americans in Iraq but offer nothing in coping with China.

Deterrence does not stop at a line of submarines or fighters. Rather, it consists of a depth of capability at sea, on land and in the air that demonstrates a willingness to address the spectrum of the threat.

Australian land forces have many shortcomings in deterrent capability. Having tanks is not one on them. Rather, the small number of tanks indicate a lack of seriousness. Two more full regiments are needed, much more than our numbers of special forces. This would be affordable within a restored 2.3 per cent of GDP.

Christopher Chayko,
Port Macquarie, NSW

Nuclear study required

Your editorial (5/3) says “Australia could quit all economic activity tomorrow and make no difference to the global climate”. I note Tom Murphy’s letter on the need to consider nuclear power. Why not study the benefits of nuclear power? We have everything going for us with this form of energy, why cast it aside because of many baseless objections?

In 2017, 14 EU countries had nuclear reactors that supplied about 25 per cent of their power. Surely this one figure is enough to take a careful look at the possibility of using it here. Let us have an objective approach to Australia’s use of nuclear energy.

Janet Forbes, St Peters, SA