When Pope Benedict was leaving our country to return to Rome last September, David Cameron said:
You have really challenged the whole country to sit up and thinkIt seems that the Prime Minister has now had time to slouch back and stop thinking. In an interview with the Derby Telegraph the other day, he was asked about the case of Eunice and Owen Johns who were prevented by a decision in the High Court from becoming foster parents after telling a social worker they would not tell a child that homosexuality was acceptable.
Although the couple are considering an appeal, the Prime Minister said that we should "rest with the judgement that was made." Asked whether Christian views were compatible with an acceptance of homosexuality, he said:
I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded.This fatuous remark simply underlines the fact that in modern Britain, whether coloured red, blue or yellow politically, Christians are supposed to be tolerant, welcoming and open-minded to any fad of moral relativism, while those who enjoy the current fashion of political support need not trouble themselves to be tolerant, welcoming or open-minded towards Christianity. When addressing the Holy Father, David Cameron chose to quote the Blessed John Henry Newman. Let me therefore respond directly to him in the words of Newman:
"it is more tolerable to be called narrow-minded by man, than to be pronounced self-wise and self-sufficient by God" (Parochial and Plain Sermons vol 3. Sermon 14)At Westminster Hall, the Holy Father recalled the fundamental questions posed by the trial of St Thomas More which took place there. He spoke of co-operation between religion and made the pertinent observation:
And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square.In his address at Heathrow Airport, David Cameron recalled the words of the Holy Father
As you, your Holiness, have said faith is not a problem for legislators to solve but rather a vital part of our national conversation.Not any more, it seems.
And we are proud of that.
H/T Protect the Pope
13 comments:
I find it very amusing that the Pope should appeal to the believers' right of conscience. When Roman Catholic faithful are faced with the moral dilemmas of our society they are incouraged to follow their consciences and forget society; however when in true honesty they come to conclusions different from the Roman Church, then their consicence is wrong! - and the Magisterium always right!
Conscience does not produce the same effects in everyone and yet for the RC Church's perspective all believers should reach the same conclusions - lest they sin.
I'm never quite sure whether those who expect politicians to be consistent is an expression of hope or simply wishful thinking... :-)
Deal Hudson's written an interesting piece on 'civility', here:
http://tinyurl.com/69rrjh3
Diego - Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk deals with your question very well.
Are we Catholics not being too demanding of our political leaders? I would accept your criticism of David Cameron, if I had seen a definitive, official Catholic response to the case of Eunice and Owen Jones. I may have missed it, but I have seen no such statement.
Are you suggesting, Father, that the undoubtedly Christian David Cameron must always put into words (and practice) the Catholic attitude to moral and political dilemmas, when our own Bishops offer no such guidance?
This is not a Catholic country, indeed hardly a Christian country, so we should be glad that we have a PM who is decidedly Christian.
I agree that our official Catholic response has been useless (has there in fact been one?)
Still, if Cameron is to bleat on about how he goes to Church, he can be taken to task for failing utterly to uphold the freedom of Christians to profess christian belief in the public square.
These guys are getting ready to start a massive war. Britain has been in the Gulf since 1990 and has continued invading nations that have never attacked us. If the West's economies completely tank then Cameron et al will go for it.
The pic on this link sums up the world's attitude to Catholics today...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c3cPqjvKYEY/TWJ7TUSq-nI/AAAAAAAABFc/rI7ABAEiQiA/s1600/Popular%2BCulture.jpg
I frequently wonder how much the Christianity outside Catholicism is merely theological relativism: the ideal seedbed for it's cultural counterpart.
Diego's post seems to be the perfect example of this: the assumption that there's something wrong with the (Papist) idea that 'all believers should reach the same conclusions', as he put it.
Surely, if we believe 'Jesus is, the same, yesterday, and for ever', or is, 'The Way, The Truth, and The Life', Christians should reach the same conclusion, 'lest they sin', shouldn't they? I take pride in the very notion Diego mocks. It's the foundation which makes Catholicism the true Church.
Therefore, I don't see Dave's position as 'decidedly Christian', 1569 Rising
If I didn't believe the fullness the of Christian revelation subsists in the Catholic Church (CCC816) I'd be a Baptist when it suited, and Anglican when it suited..., like the Vicar of Bray.
To argue the lack of a comment from the Bishops is reason for anyone else to stay quiet, is a non sequitur, isn't it?
Is a Christianity that's barely indistinguishable from Secularism Christianity at all? Is physical presence in a certain type of building once a week sufficient to qualify, or does it require something more? ‘It is not those who say to me, “Lord, Lord,”', as Sunday's Gospel put it...
Realativism?
Like having married priests, and then banniong them?
Like slavery - once perfectly acceptable?
Like crawling to fascist regimes (Hitler, Franco, Salazar) then pretending, afterwards, that you didn't?
Yes, but this IS the R Catholic church.
Lying, merderous, oppressing hypocrites.
Mr Tingey: I think you would be in some difficulty in proving that the military dictatorship of Portugal was fascist. It certainly was a military dictatorship but fascist? I think you will find it was much more mixed ranging from some fascists (Humberto Delgado started as one) to some very liberal ones. Eventually it was communists in the army who brought the regime down substituting a Communist dictatorship which happily only lasted a couple of years. As for Salazar he was brought in to solve the economic problems which he did very successfully at first. He was a devout Catholic having taken minor orders at the seminary in Viseu. He was undoubtedly a very powerful force in keeping Spain and Portugal out of World War II. He had a constant problem in playing the various factions within the army off one against another. He was negligent in failing to curb the activities of the police or to remedy the abuses in the prisons. His economic policy - corporatism - was inspired by Rerum Novarum but unfortunately it never got off the ground due to incompetence and corruption although he himself was neither incompetent nor corrupt. Unfortunately the peasantry, with whom he identified himself, were left in poverty. Yes the Catholic church was friendly to him; he was after all not persecuting them unlike the Republic at the beginning of the century. He had his critics in the Church notably the Bishop of Oporto. Just remember that there were very few killings beyond those who died in bad prison conditions.
Recently a newspaper polled its readers on who was the greatest Portuguese of all time and Salazar won hands down.
Certainly in the North you will find many working people who look back with nostalgia to his regime although recognising the need to move on.
It is a great mistake to lump Salazar together with Franco, Mussolini and Hitler.
Nicolas Bellord
G. Tingey, in case anyone is wondering, is an atheist megabore who used to whinge on the Holy Smoke blog under the name of nick something-or-other. He's a retired physics teacher, from what I recall, and an old and rather silly example of a Dawkinsite.
@Pachomius
You mean he's a troll :-)
@ Father Finigan
As you know Father Tim I am now a grandfather to little Ava Rose, and I am also a father to three wonderful children, Siobhan, Michael Roy, and Joseph John.
Just follow this link to see and comment on this photo of my MP David Evennett and Jackie Doyle-Price MP at the Civil Partnership of Daniel McInerney and Bexleyheath and Crayford Conservative Association Chairman Cllr Chris Taylor in Sidcup on Saturday 5 February: » http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0097009/photos/bexleyheathcrayford/5424935439/
My former MP John Austin wrote to the Home Secretary in May 2010 requesting a meeting about my dispute with the Metropolitan Police regarding my high profile FOOTBALL AGAINST RACISM IN EUROPE 1991-2011 City Challenge development case.
Following a meeting at his constituency office on the 4th June, my new MP David Evennett asked the Home Office to reconsider my case from inception to completion, in support of the request made to the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, by John Austin the former MP for Erith & Thamesmead.
On the 23rd November 2010 I received a copy of a letter from David Evennett MP which had originally been sent to John Austin by the Police Minister Nick Herbert on the 6th July 2010 turning down the suggested meeting (Herbert joined his long-term partner, Jason Eades, in civil partnership in early January 2009 after a 10-year relationship).
The delay in receipt of the response from the Home Office meant that I lost the right to challenge the IPCC & MPS at yet another Judicial Review ( I defeated the IPCC & Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on these FARE Human and Civil Rights issues on the 28th February 2007 in Court No 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice before the Honourable Mr Justice Goldring, the RECORD OF EVENTS presented to the Court fully detailed the shameful attempts at joint cover up by the Met Police and the IPCC).
David Evennett MP wrote to the Home Secretary about the loss of my case file by the former Bexley Borough Commander Tony Dawson, and the subsequent 'making-up' of a new file to replace it by the Met's solicitor Andrea Cunningham. This issue has yet to receive any response at all.
I try very hard not to be homophobic, and to be broad minded, but the performance of gay Conservative men in the scenario that I have described, is beyond reason, incompetent, and most significantly it denies me and my family JUSTICE.
Yours sincerely
ROY HOBSON FRICES 1990, FRICS 1984,Grad Dipl QS aka Vesper 2011
Post a Comment