| Much of the comment on Tony Blair’s change of denominational allegiance back in December was intrusive and impertinent. It exposed a wider and continuing problem faced by all public servants who profess a religious faith.
Many commentators have failed to grasp how religion operates — both in the life of an individual, and in the day-to-day demands of public and political life. For the sake of democracy and faith, we need a realistic assessment of what may be reasonably expected from religiously observant people — especially politicians — who must serve the whole of society.
The 16th-century essayist Francis Bacon, writing at a time of religious conflict, described his monarch as “disinclined to make windows into men’s hearts and secret thoughts”. The pragmatism and humility attributed to Elizabeth I is a model for those who exercise authority.
Conscience in action encounters complexities that do not always fit with doctrinal definitions. Since Constantine brought together Christianity and the state, the purity of persecuted isolation has not been an option for the Christian citizen, still less for the Christian legislator.
There are particular difficulties for Roman Catholic MPs, because their Church’s teaching is uncompromising on some matters to which not all citizens of good will are able to give unqualified assent. Anxiety generated by this was the source of much of the criticism directed at Ruth Kelly on her appointment as Secretary of State for Education.
Some of the comment on Mr Blair’s reception into the Roman Catholic Church suggests an inverse ratio between orthodoxy and humility. Censure of his voting record has been presented as evidence that he was unfit to become a Roman Catholic.
This is a blunt instrument to force a window into a heart, and takes no account of nuance or of the conflicting pressures of legislating for a diverse society. Most practising cradle RCs strive to conform to church teaching, while making occasional private reservations about some aspects of doctrine.
That humane privacy is denied to the new Roman Catholic, who must assent that “everything the Catholic Church teaches is true and has been revealed by God”. Thus Mr Blair, whose spiritual disposition will have been scrutinised by his new Communion, is subjected to presumptuous speculation about what is known only to his confessor and to God.
The most recent British Social Attitudes Survey (News, 8 February; Faith, page 21) suggests a society becoming more liberal on marriage, relationships, and same-sex partnerships. Two-thirds of the population find no fault with unmarried couples living together, though condemnation of adultery remains strong. A similar number believe divorce can be a positive step towards a better life.
Half those surveyed think that homosexual relationships are “rarely or never wrong”, but there is greater wariness of alternative family arrangements where children are involved, only 33 per cent believing that same-sex couples can be as good at being parents as heterosexuals.
While this is hardly evidence of a society going to hell in a handcart, it does diverge from the teaching of mainstream Churches. The former US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey observed that there are “not enough jails, not enough policemen, not enough courts, to enforce a law not supported by the people”.
Neither are there enough theologians, evangelists, or clerics to insist on legislative authority for doctrines that do not command general assent. A call to conversion of life has a greater chance of success in the seedbed of compassionate realism than on the stony ground of prohibitive laws lacking majority support.
FAITH COMMUNITIES have the right and the duty to present their case and to ask questions of legislators who must balance personal faith with public office. Yet failure to consider the strains inherent where civic responsibility meets personal adherence to religious doctrine can place a heavy burden on faithful men and women.
Stephen Pound, Labour MP for Ealing North and a practising Roman Catholic, told me that he sometimes finds himself under pressure both from Roman Catholic constituents and from the hierarchy.
Who would choose to be in the firing-line of the Life League? This pro-life group threatened to “out” Roman Catholic MPs who abstain on abortion votes and who then receive holy communion. This is the thinking of totalitarianism, and displays a concept of authority bordering on the idolatrous.
Authority may safeguard doctrine, but it should be exercised with a light touch when applied to individual consciences. Roman Catholic MPs tend to be cautious when dealing with policy decisions that may bring them into conflict with their bishops. This is not dissembling, but evidence that their duties to a democratic society are being carefully weighed — one may hope under the guidance of a wise spiritual director — with the demands of their Church.
The Judaeo-Christian moral code still commands respect in this country. That is in no small part due to the post-war evolution of a secular culture of governance, which is the guarantor of religious freedom in a pluralist society. A democratic legislature cannot be an arm of denominational teaching, and those who think otherwise may eventually undermine their own liberties.
Alastair Campbell’s notorious comment that “We don’t do God” is democratically sound because a theocratic state tends to oppress citizens who cannot sign up to all its doctrinal strictures. We expect integrity from our politicians, but integrity is not the reserved territory of the religiously observant. Humility demands respect for the individual conscience and recognition of the difficulties in adjudicating between conflicting interests.
When I asked Stephen Pound how a Christian MP might best make that adjudication, his answer was succinct and exemplary: “Through prayer.”
Jill Segger is a freelance writer. |
back to Comment
previous story
|
next story 
%231%23.gif "Wordl Vision Sponsor a child Nov to Dec campaign © site")
.gif "Caris Magazine for girls aged 11 to 16 © site")