Dear Editor,

I have come across Mr Forrest’s lengthy communication in your publication from February 6th, in which he takes exception to some remarks I made at a public meeting in Belfast last month. I feel compelled to respond to clarify certain points.

Mr Forrest disputes a specific statement I allegedly made about paying a special Christmas visit to a Franciscan monk. He claims that it is a deliberate falsehood. However, I would like to provide a verbatim report of my actual words, as reported in the Belfast News Letter on January 12th: “He expressed great pity for him when he told him that he had little more than a fourth of that, and could not afford to keep a horse and trap. On Christmas Eve, he had the pleasure of again meeting the high constable, who told him he was just coming from paying a special Christmas visit to a Franciscan monk. He shook his hand heartily and assured him of his goodwill.”

It is clear from the report that I was referring to two separate incidents, which Mr Forrest has combined. The first conversation, as he correctly states, took place last autumn in George Street. However, the second conversation occurred at around 9 p.m. on Christmas Eve in Brunswick Street. In Belfast, I did not claim to provide an exact account of his words to me. However, Mr Forrest did give me the impression that he had just come from the Franciscan Chapel in Henry Street, had been to Confession, and even described the appearance of the person he had been with. He also mentioned the person’s name. If my statement in Belfast was indeed a deliberate falsehood, I cannot be held responsible for it.

I bear no ill will towards Mr Forrest whatsoever. I harbor no hatred towards him or anyone else. I was not aware until now that he was the one who had issued the summons against me for obstructing the thoroughfare. Based on his warm-hearted demeanour towards me in the past, I believed him to be a friend. And when he renewed his offer on Christmas Eve, there was no reason to doubt his sincerity. I told him that I would mention his kind offer during my visit to Belfast, to which he raised no objection. Thus, I felt it was fair to share this information with others during a private conversation.

Throughout our interactions, I have always known Mr Forrest to be a staunch Roman Catholic, just as eager to proselytize me to his beliefs as I am to guide him towards God’s path of salvation, as taught by Our Blessed Lord and His Apostles in the Holy Scriptures. From his letter, I gather that he is a man with two faces. The one expressed through his kind offer—his true face, I hope—is now being obscured as he demonstrates his opposition to me in the context of the car boycott. This, I believe, exemplifies what I stated in Belfast: that Roman Catholics, as a rule, lack the moral courage to stand by their individual convictions, easily swayed in one direction while their hearts and consciences oppose it. I pray for the day when “Roman Catholic” Irishmen will break free from such constraints and courageously follow the voice of God speaking to them through His holy Word and their own God-given conscience.

Yours truly,
J. John Long, M.D.
Lansdowne Villas, Limerick
February 8th, 1904

Limerick Echo – Tuesday 09 February 1904