Welcome back, your holiness
I don’t understand New Labour.
[Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor] was poised to become the first Roman Catholic bishop in the Upper House since the Reformation, as part of a drive by the Prime Minister to appoint senior leaders of all the main faiths to sit alongside Church of England bishops. Privately, Gordon Brown had told the cardinal that he was keen for him to provide leadership in the Lords once he had secured backing from the Catholic Church.
Why? Why the hell? Do we really have to bother pointing out that Gordon Brown is the leader of the Labour party? Do we really have to bother pointing out that the Catholic church has not generally been seen as an ally (much less a member) of the left, and that there are many strong and compelling reasons for that? What is a Labour PM doing telling a reactionary Catholic former archbishop that he (the PM) is keen for him to provide leadership in the Lords once he had secured backing from the Catholic Church? He might as well be telling Generalissimo Francisco Franco that he is keen for him to provide leadership in the Lords once he had secured backing from the Falange party. He might as well be sucking up to Pinochet or Marcos or Mussolini. He might as well be patting Antonin Scalia on the back and saying ‘Good job Nino.’ What is the matter with them? Why have they decided they have to cozy up to reactionary religions and their putative leaders?
The cardinal’s refusal of a peerage is a setback to Mr Brown’s attempt to make the Lords chamber more representative of the nation’s religious diversity.
Sigh. It’s hopeless. Mr Brown shouldn’t be doing that, he should be attempting something in the other direction, which would be to make the Lords chamber less representative of any religions at all. He should be trying to reduce the power of the established church, not to build up the power of its rivals.
In a country where a solid majority of the populace are fairly indifferent to religion at best (if not outright atheistic), what in the world motivates the majority party – whichever party that happens to be at the moment – to engage in such outrageous sucking up to reactionary religious interests? Tony Blair was a god-bothering twit with critical thinking skills inferior to my least skeptical bowel movement, but I’ve seen little evidence that Gordon Brown is personally devout – yet his nose is even further up the ass of the bishops and mullahs than Blair’s was (at least while he was in office). As the kids say, WTF?
Yes exactly – I can’t figure it out. The cynical reasons for sucking up to ‘faith leaders’ are tragically obvious here (in the US) but in the UK they’re not – unless there’s some kind of miasma wafting from the BBC offices over to 10 Downing Street.
“The cardinal’s refusal of a peerage is a setback to Mr Brown’s attempt to make the Lords chamber more representative of the nation’s religious diversity.”
How about making the Lords’ Chamber more representative of the _country_ and tossing out all the religious appointees?
From the article…
“…there is a canon in the code of canon law that says ordained clerics should not take part in any legislative forum in Government.”
No – the Holly See can exercise much more control by instructing it’s local bishops to bully catholic politicians with threats of excommunication thereby imparting real influence on policy without having to worry about being kept to a party line.
That’s a good point. They don’t have to worry about being accountable, either – just like God.
This relates to Amartya Sen’s observation that democracies don’t have famines. Politicians are accountable, and they can’t afford to let famines happen. Bishops and other clerics, as we know all too well, are very far from being accountable.
This aspect of religion doesn’t get as much attention as it should.
Not sure if this has been referenced here before, but it goes to the heart of the matter at hand…
“Tweety Gets To The Heart of the Abortion Matter With Bishop Tobin”
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/chris-matthews-gets-heart-abortion-ma
From Bishop Tobin in reference to his bullying of an elected official…
“…what we are trying to do is have catholics in public offic be faithful to the dictates of the catholic church…for a catholic in public offic his first commitment has to be to his catholic faith… no commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith… nothing can be more important than your relationship with god…”
Great to see him squirm.
Not sure if this has been referenced here before, but it goes to the heart of the matter at hand…
“Tweety Gets To The Heart of the Abortion Matter With Bishop Tobin”
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/chris-matthews-gets-heart-abortion-ma
From Bishop Tobin in reference to his bullying of an elected official…
“…what we are trying to do is have catholics in public offic be faithful to the dictates of the catholic church…for a catholic in public offic his first commitment has to be to his catholic faith… no commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith… nothing can be more important than your relationship with god…”
Great to see him squirm.
Why? Why the hell? Do we really have to bother pointing out that Gordon Brown is the leader of the Labour party? Do we really have to bother pointing out that the Catholic church has not generally been seen as an ally (much less a member) of the left, and that there are many strong and compelling reasons for that?
There is a specific problem here re: the Labour Party in Scotland. For historical reasons, there is a strong link between it and the section of the population descended from Irish Catholic immigrants. Despite their social conservatism, the Conservatives’ identification of themselves, since the Liberal split over Irish (and Scottish) Home Rule in the 19C, as “the Conservative and Unionist Party” made them anathema to immigrants of Irish nationalist sympathies. As a result, Labour in Scotland has been spineless in dealing with issues such as segregated schooling, and it’s also why abortion hasn’t been devolved with other health issues. Despite representing only a minority of the Scottish population (but concentrated in Scottish Labour’s west-central heartland), the Catholic Bishops periodically make threatening noises over issues of this kind, knowing that the politicians will usually back down, for fear of losing votes or being called ‘sectarian’ (an accusation which only seems to run one way). I was delighted when the Scottish Parliament had the guts to repeal Clause 2A (the Scots equivalent of the notorious Section 28 re: “promotion of homosexuality”), despite the alliance of Cardinal Winning with the Evangelical bus magnate, Brian Souter. But they haven’t the courage to end segregated schooling.
Thanks for that, Doc Silver. It’s enlightening (and depressing).