Britons should put pen to paper to protect O'Connor from the (well-evidenced) ruthlessness of the Labour machine.He suggests that the acceptance of a peerage would be a "political coup" for Labour, providing an opportunity for doorstep campaigners in marginal seats.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Questioning the value of a peerage
Francis Davis (a fellow of Blackfriars, Oxford) had an article in the Guardian yesterday: The cardinal must not become a peer. Davis argues that
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Father:
I keep saying this, but I really don't understand why this idea hasn't died a death given the canon which says a cleric can't have any political office...
Mark - a dispensation could be granted by the Holy See.
Ah, true. It just seems the worst thing to do!
While Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor undoubtedly would accept no party whip and would sit on the cross benches in the House of Lords, as a "Lord Temporal" he would nevertheless be a member of the legislature, a highly unsuitable position for a Catholic priest.
It is good that the Catholic voice be heard in the Lords, but an ennobled Catholic layman (and I don't mean Tony Blair !) would be more suitable.
Fr. Tim,
Even if the Holy See grants a dispensation, I see no benefit for the Catholic Church from having the Cardinal in the House of Lords. To my mind, it will merely give us further opportunities to be publicly opposed and shouted down on issues like abortion, cloning and sexual ethics.
The Cardinal would doubtless be one of a number of simultaneously ennobled representatives of various faiths -- so the whole thing would be a relativizing "diversity" gesture from the start. Making the Cardinal a peer would only give the Catholic Church a small space in the far corner of the Areopagus -- hardly befitting the One True Church!
And I absolutely disagree that senior Catholic clergymen should be seeking political office in order the give the Church -- as the Tablet recently put it -- "a more acceptable and friendly face in Britain, [drawn] into national life where it [can gain] respect and influence."
We are supposed to be signs of contradiction, in the world but not of the world, are we not, or am I missing something?
I was merely answering Mark's specific question. I share the many concerns about the proposed peerage.
Though at a distance, on the other side of the pond, I agree with the commenters who do not approve of the Cardinal receiving a peerage. I see no benefit to the Church from this nor do I feel it is appropriate for clerics to take on secular roles in government – even in retirement.
It could also present some difficulties for Ab. Nichols at Westminster. We don’t need more superannuated Cardinals causing confusion in the Church (Cdl. Martini comes to mind…)
To me this smacks of “rendering unto Caesar” - which is inappropriate for a Prince of the Church, whose focus should be on God, not the State. I hope the Holy Father puts the kibosh on this, if the invitation becomes official.
It would be good if there was a truly Catholic voice in the House of Lords but I fear that someone who permitted the denial of the incarnation to take place in his Cathedral (albeit in the name of music) wouldn't necessarily be the best choice.
Even if the Holy See were to grant a dispensation then there would be a real danger that he could be seen to be spokesman for the church rather than his successor.
Post a Comment