On the question of Tony Blair's reception into the Church, there is a standard response which comes up from time to time in comboxes. A friend rang me today to talk about a sermon he had heard along the same lines.
Are we not being ungenerous with Tony Blair? Should we not respect his conscience? Are we not all sinners and didn't Jesus eat with tax collectors and prostitutes? Etc. The word "pharisee" is quite often bandied about in the context.
Jesus did indeed sharply criticise the scribes and pharisees of his day for their hypocrisy. He particularly focussed on their failure to act in practice in accord with what they said they believed. The pharisees said one thing and did another. The sinners, on the other hand, were honest about their lives. What they said and did were in accord. Zacchaeus, for example, publicly promised to make amends for the wrong that he had done in the past.
When a person is received into the Catholic Church, they say solemnly and publicly that they believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God. Commentators have written on this story from both ends of the political spectrum, and from various shades of theological opinion. One thing that nobody seriously believes is that Blair has changed his mind on abortion, euthanasia by neglect, the destruction of human embryos, or gay marriage. Nor have they been given any reason to think that he has - either from Blair himself or from any official spokesman for the Church in England and Wales. For a "Church source" to say "Whatever he previously believed or did is a matter for individual conscience" is pharisaism in realtime.
Andrew Pierce in today's Telegraph has a refreshingly honest take on the matter. As "an adopted gay man", Pierce disagrees with what he characterises as the Church's "bigoted stance on homosexuality" and he says that along with Blair, he too was thrilled at the change in the law that allowed same-sex partnerships. However, his quite reasonable question is How can Tony Blair become a Roman Catholic? Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest answer.
9 comments:
Well....has he said anything contrary to the faith since he's been received into it? On a "betting woman level" I wouldn't put my money on him being 100% in the committed category just yet. But at the same time I don't want to be uncharitable and demand he walk on broken glass on his knees, since we don't demand that of others. So in charity, for now I'm hoping that the miracle of conversion occurred in his heart 100^. Now if and when he says something contrary to the faith, then yes, people can be on it like white on rice.
Karen
Fr. Tim,
We all have our private views as to whether Tony Blair really has changed his mind on abortion, gay marriage etc. etc. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
If ever he mounts a rostrum and speaks out publically against the Church's teachings on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, the male-only priesthood, celibacy, the use of condoms to prevent STDs (or whatever), those who doubted that the conversion was sincere will have all the evidence they need.
My question is this: if a marriage can be annulled, and a priest can be laicized, can a "convert" who is revealed never to have accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety - and to have lied when making his solemn affirmations on being received into the Church - can such a person be chucked out (or whatever the correct canonical term is)?
Give the Holy Spirit Time ;)
While I do not expect any remarks from Tony Blair on these matters - and while I believe such an omission may well disgust honest people outside the Church as well as in - I still think we ought to wait and see. I'm no priest but if I were advising someone in his position, I would suggest he wait until after the Christmas period so his remarks not be lost in the seasonal news vacuum.
I'm not holding my breath but where sin did abound ...?
The comments section on that article is a scary place. So many opinions delivered with downright meanness.
Broken glass? No! Just a little statement for the press to the effect that he understands that people are wondering about his support for the Church's moral teaching given his activity in the past but that he is happy to affirm that now he does indeed accept all the teaching of the Church and will not be voting for abortion, embryo destruction, euthanasia by neglect, or gay marriage any more.
Alternatively, instead of being cross with people for being "ungenerous", perhaps a "Church spokesman" could just give us a little statement that Mr Blair has indeed changed his mind on these matters.
As I say, don't hold your breath.
I must say, it is something when one is implicitly accused of being a hypocrite for denouncing hypocrisy. "We're all hypocrites now. Isn't it wonderful. Anyone who says he isn't is just being hypocritical." The weird and wonderful post-modern world of Blairism!
I find references to gay marriage in this thread rather strange. As far as I am aware Tony Blair has never advocated gay marriage and certainly has never voted for it. His government sepcifically rejected the route that (for example) Spain has followed.
His support for civil partnerhsips for gay people merely allowed the replication of something already available (and even called 'marriage') for heterosexuals who had no intention of creating a sacramental marriage or who were divorced or had an annulment. It seems therefore to be entirely consistent with the official teaching of the Church that 'every sign of unjust discrimination' in regard to gay people should be avoided.
Alnwickian - in the linked article from the Telegraph, Andrew Pierce spoke of the "same-sex partnerships which is, in effect, what they are".
That led me to take liberties with the expression but, of course, you are right that the legislation avoided this.
In Catholic teaching, marriage comes about through mutual consent, not the religious rite. The Church has established an invalidating impediment for Catholics who do not observe the religious form. However the Church recognises civil marriages of non-Catholics as true and valid marriages - indeed, sacramental marriages if the parties are both Christian.
Post a Comment