A correspondent drew my attention this evening to an important passage in
Sacramentum Caritatis:
83. Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one's children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature. There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29).
My correspondent pointed out the painfully obvious application of this paragraph to Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary who laid before Parliament the Sexual Orientation Regulations and said that she was proud to bring them forward.
A correspondent drew my attention this evening to an important passage in Sacramentum Caritatis:
21 comments:
Sad to suggest it, but it seems to me that Ruth Kelly, for all her Opus Dei connections, has joined the "personally opposed but..." camp. Rather like Blair, her political master.
Political expediency seems to be the guiding power and order of the day here - not adherence to revealed truth. She seems unconscious of her "grave responsibility before society".
She may well be "proud" about introducuing these foul regulations. Her Spiritual Director would do well to remind her that, not only does pride have a fall but, at the deepest meaning of the word, is also one of the deadly sins. One hopes she is not using the word at that level.
Let us pray not only that these regulations will be overturned, but also for a misguided politicians.
I hope someone has sent this to Ruth Kelly??
I am going to be doing jury service soon, and this makes me wonder what will be the position of jurors when these Regulations come into force. If, say, a priest is charged with withholding services from a gay couple who have approached him wishing to be married, what should a Catholic juror do? Just decide whether or not he is guilty of the charge on the basis of the evidence and vote accordingly? Or abstain from voting, giving the reasons to the judge at the beginning of the trial? I ask this because it might become a real issue at some point (though fortunately not when I'll be doing it!). Can you help? Thanks!
She's kind of strange don't you think?
Come out of the closet Ruth Kelly and tell us what 'brand' of opus dei you belong to (or not)! Consistent you most certainly are - but not of the Catholic kind!
Your SOR's are a disgrace, as you will most certainly hear on Wednesday evening!
I think there would be a good case for refusing Holy Communion to Mrs Kelly on the grounds of public apostasy.
Fr Andrew Wadsworth.
No doubt 'living with partner' also equates equally to homosexual as well heterosexual promiscuous 'shacking-up'! And shacking up is NOT the same as being married. Dreadfully sorry Ma'am BUT .......
Just goes to show how far down the slippery PC slope of relativism we have gone including those that are supposed to provide shining examples to us all.
There was a time when right was right and wrong was most definitely wrong and the Monarchy swore by Almighty God and held fast to these objective truths.
Truth, doing the right thing, protecting the vulnerable, upholding law and order for the common good, these were noble pursuits - life's 'Holy Grail'.
Well, back for a reality check - it's all gone down the toilet!
Ruth Kelly is MP for Bolton West.
In the 2001 General Election, her majority was 5,518 votes.
In 2005, it was cut to 2,064. On both occasions, the Tory candidate finished second.
So if that continues, she could be out on her ear next election.
I was going to suggest that someone stand against her as a Christian Socialist candidate (or something like that) and hopefully split the Labour vote and get her out. The other candidates couldn't be any worse - or could they???
It looks to me as if Lord Acton was right: All Power Tends To Corrupt.
Fr Tim
Pope John Paul II's encylical Evangelium Vitae has an interesting discussion on the obligations of legislators in such situations (nn 68-74). Of course, his position is substantially the same as that of Pope Benedict in Sacramentum Caritatis, but, unlike some of your commentators, he recognises that legislators can be in a difficult position, and that there may be cases where a legislator can licitly support a law which, in absolute terms, is morally unjust, where the alternative is likely to be even worse. Naturally, if formal co-operation with evil is involved, that is a different matter, but I suspect that the legislation we have ended up with is not half as bad as it could have been because of Ruth Kelly's involvement. If that is the case, she deserves congratulations, not abuse, and certainly not the public denial of Holy Communion. The altar rail (if it still exists!) is not the place for political argument, and the confessional is the only place in which one can form a judgement as to the state of an individual's conscience.
Michael - Pope John Paul did not say that a legislator could support a law that was intrinsically unjust. He said:
"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it"
He allowed that legislators could vote for a more restrictive law. The SORs introduce a new law that is itself intrinsically unjust.
I am afraid that I do not agree with your view of Ruth Kelly's involvement here. She should have resigned when Cabinet colleagues made it was clear that they would not allow any possibility of mitigating the law in any significant way.
I agree with commenters that without a public retraction of her involvement and her "pride" in the law, it would be appropriate for her to be refused communion.
Fr Tim
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I was trying to draw an analogy between the situation referred to by JP 2 in Evangelium Vitae (that of voting for a more restrictive law) and what may (and I emphasise that) be the situation here. My perception of Ruth Kelly's actions is that she did all she could to mitigate the effect of this legislation and is continuing to do in respect of the way in which they are implemented. It may be that, ultimately, this makes little difference, but I don't think that her formal co-operation in evil is as conclusively proved in the way that you suggest it is. Her position may be compared to that of a member of the French Resistance in WWII, a Catholic in Elizabethan England - or indeed that of a supporter of the Traditional Roman Rite in the Modern Church (such as myself). There are times when you have to conceal your identity in the interests of wider and long term goals. In the circumstances, I would rather that Ruth Kelly stays where she is and tries to exercise what influence she can for as long as she can. As for the public refusal of Holy Communion, I think it is deplorable that this has been introduced into this particular debate. To refuse Communion to a committed Catholic who may very well have done her best in a well nigh impossible situation; to do this moreover without any attempt to resolve the issue privately with her, would I am afraid, cause greater scandal than that which you are trying to avoid.
Michael
Michael - get your head out of the sand! What is this mealy-mouthed 'agree to disagree'. Absolute truth is exactly that and as a Catholic (you professed it yourself) you are bound to the Magisterium and to be consistent in professing this Truth - in action, deed and thoughts.
Did Our Blessed Lord shirk the Truth or the Cross by saying to Pilate, 'well Pilate me ole' mate, this situation is getting a bit out of hand, let's just agree to disagree, I'll pretend I'm not the Son of God just to appease the crowds, give us a bit of a public flogging to maintain your credibility and we'll all go home happy as Larry'.
Had Ruth Kelly made a stand against her liberal and morally bankrupt anti-Catholic political pals on this SOR(did)issue, we wouldn't all have to go to London this evening and demonstrate to Parliament that Catholic England is having none of it - law or no law!
George
I don't think my head is, or was, IN the sand. I'm not quite sure how I can make it any clearer than I have already done, but my objection is simply against those who seek to judge Ruth Kelly's subjective culpability when they do not have access to the full facts of the matter, and who seek to put an uncharitable construction on her actions in a situation where the picture is not, or may not be, as black and white as it may seem. In the world of practical politics (as opposed to the world of commenting on blogs), things are rarely as simple as we might like them to be.
Michael
This is absolutely not about judging Ruth Kelly's subjective culpability. She is a cabinet minister who has, in her public role, introduced and welcomed legislation that is unjust. Both Evangelium Vitae and Sacramentum Caritatis refer to the public nature of the Eucharist and the public duties of Catholic legislators.
We cannot judge Ruth Kelly's subjective culpability but we are entitled to comment on her actions in the public square.
Fr Tim
Thank you. I agree. But surely it is precisely because we can't judge her subjective culpability that it is wrong to suggest that she be denied Holy Communion?
Michael
Michael - it is as black and white as this:
THE WORLD OF PRACTICAL POLITICS = THE BLOODY MESS THE WORLD IS IN RIGHT NOW!
Michael - no, and that is the key point here. Holy Communion is a public and ecclesial act, not a private devotion. Therefore, acts in the public forum may be objectively incompatible with receiving Holy Communion. To take an example, the Church does not permit those who are divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion. It may be that a person in such a state is not subjectively culpable. Nevertheless, the public status of being in an irregular marriage is incompatible with the public act of receiving Communion.
(A person should examine their own conscience before receiving Communion as well, of course.)
The Code says that “any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion” (CIC nn 912) I am happy to be corrected if I’m wrong, but this would seem to indicate that it would be irregular for Ruth Kelly to be denied holy communion without due process (CIC nn 221.3) unless her conduct were so manifestly scandalous as to damage irreparably her right to a good reputation and to vindicate that right publicly (CIC nn 220). I realise that there are going to be those who take the view that in passing the SORs she has done precisely that, but I still hold fast to the position that this is not conclusively proved. We have to remember that men and women with homosexual inclinations “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358). At the level of principle, the SORs are an attempt to do just that. The difficulty, of course, is that the secular, liberal culture in which we live differs from the Church as to what is and is not “unjust” discrimination. My intuition is that Ruth Kelly realises this just as much as anyone else and has fought a heroic, if ultimately futile, battle to see that the legislation accommodated the Church’s views to the extent that it was possible to do so. She only lost on the question of an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies when she was overruled by the Prime Minister, and whilst others may take the view that she should have resigned then, it is difficult, in the circumstances, to convict her of acting in bad faith. On those grounds alone, I repeat my view that it would be wrong to deny her holy communion.
One of the earlier commentators asked what he should do if called to jury service if a priest is put on trial for refusing to marry a gay couple.
The Regulations for Restraining the Further Growth of Popery (as they might as well be called) are civil law, not criminal. So gays can sue and obtain an award of damages. Or they could get a court order so that the Respondent could be committed to prison for up to two years for contempt of court.
So now the buck passes to Catholic schoolteachers etc. who are in line to be martyrs. When taken to court, fight the Regulations according to law by means of the Human Rights Act.
If this fails, the next step for the Claimant is to obtain execution of the judgement, and this is done at a separate hearing. That is the time for Christian witness, that the Judge is now himself on trial before the tribunal of Christ the King and will incur His vengeance if he dares to put the judgement into effect.
It won't keep you out of jail, but you will at least have done your Christian duty.
Michael (previous comment but one)
Sacramentum Caritatis and other similar statements (e.g. on freemasonry or irregular marriages) give guidance on those who are "prohibited" under canon 912. Canon 221.3 refers to a canonical penalty which is not the case here. The priest does not have the jurisdiction to impose a canonical penalty but he does have the responsibility to admit to or refuse communion.
I do not agree that the SORs were ever simply about "unjust discrimination". The debate in the House of Lords shows that they were always about something much more fundamental, namely the "rights" of homosexuals. The people behind the SORs do not agree with Catholic teaching that homosexuality is a disordered condition therefore they see no need for compassion or sensitivity, only equal rights under the law.
I do think that the time for her to resign was when the exemption was over-ruled. However, it is not too late for her to publicise an honourable resignation "after reflection".
And, yet again, this is not a matter of judging whether she has acted in good faith, but of the objective character of the regulations which she has put before parliament, saying that she is proud to bring them forward.
I was not suggesting that I or any other priest should deny Mrs Kelly Holy Communion on our own initiative, but merely underlining the Holy Father's observation of the eucharistic implications of the grave responsibilities of Catholics who hold public office (cf.Sacramentum Caritatis, 83). I believe Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz of Nebraska has ruled that Catholic politicians (and others) who publicly dissent from the Church's teaching in moral matters should not receive Holy Communion in his diocese. A Catholic politician who introduces legislation into the House of Commons that will make the Catholic catechesis on this matter ILLEGAL in our schools, stating that she is delighted to do so, must surely be dangerously close to similar dissent. Unless our bishops have the courage to publicly state that such a politician is WRONG in her judgments then many Catholic faithful will continue to be confused in relation to the Church's clear teaching on a number of serious moral matters.
Fr Andrew Wadsworth.
Post a Comment