Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Tony Blair a Catholic?

Fr. Dennis Brown sends me, Stan, a Zenit.org post:
Holy See Welcomes Blair's Decision to Convert
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Tony Blair's decision to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church has been welcomed "with respect" by the Holy See, according to a Vatican spokesman. “This is "good news that we welcome with respect…Catholics are glad to welcome into their community those who, through a serious and reflective journey, convert to Catholicism."
I wrote my Catholic friend Bill in the UK
Bill

I recall 4 years ago some of us thought both Bush and Blair would convert upon their leaving office. So, were you invited to the reception?

Stan
Bill wrote back:

Dear Stan,

No, I was not invited to the reception. With my opinions on Phoney Tony (or Tony B. Liar), the security guys would never have let me within a hundred yards of the ceremony. What has staggered both many Catholics and numerous secular commentators was the contrast between Blair's voting record on numerous key legislative issues (e.g. abortion, stem cell research, gay "marriage") where he proved himself to be one of the the most anti-Catholic British politicians since Oliver Cromwell, and his professed Christianity. How on earth could he possibly be accepted into the Church without public and unequivocal penitance for his past public outrages against Catholic morality?

But then the Blair contradictions are endless. When he sucked up to the loathsome hard-core pornographer Richard Desmond, who had just bought two major newspapers (admittedly, an action guaranteed to get most British politicians groveling at your feet) , one scathing columnist noted "the Reverend Blair was caught with a hard-core magazine concealed inside his Bible". When he came to power in 1997 in the wake of a string of corruption scandals which had dogged the outgoing Conservative government, he promised to be "whiter than white". Needless to say, the new Labour regime has been plagued by one accusation of corruption after another, culminating in Phoney Tony being the first British Prime Minister to be questioned by the police while still in office. Sadly, instead of serving a suitably enormous prison sentence, he is free to tour the world as a peace envoy (the most unlikely candidate since Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize) and earn vast sums of money on speaking engagements and memoir sales.

I have pasted in below a very good article by Fraser Nelson from "The Spectator" of 28 Nov 2007. He gives a more temperate and balanced account of the Blair conversion issues than I would! Some of the quotations are very revealing, especially the one from the priest on working-class Irish in the church. As my late parents were both working-class Irish, I had steam coming out of my ears at his comments. The working-class Irish (and now the new working-class Poles, Slovaks and Lithuanians) have been the backbone of the Church in England for generations. If the bishops and other well connected clergy are so desperate for social acceptance in the higher reaches of the British establishment, it is plainly time that we had a new set of bishops.

I also loved one comment from a "Daily Telegraph" reader on Blair's first confession -that he would need a confessional with an en-suite bathroom...

Blair may be about to convert, but will that make him a Catholic? (by Fraser Nelson) from "The Spectator" of 28 Nov 2007

Tony Blair’s coming conversion to the Catholic faith will not be welcomed by all Catholics. There are many in the Vatican, and the Catholic church in this country, who wonder how a politician with his voting record can be admitted to the church.

‘My First Confession’ would be a great title for Tony Blair’s memoirs. At any rate, though the book may be years away, Tony Blair will soon confess his sins to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and later (no one is sure, but the Vatican has heard it will be after Christmas) Mr Blair will be received into the Roman Catholic Church. And in true Blair style, his decision to ‘Pope’ is creating a political storm.

In the robustly secular world of Westminster, few care what Mr Blair does with his Sundays. But Mr Blair’s conversion is a hot and divisive topic among priests and ordinary Christians in this country — and even in the Vatican itself. Churchgoers who wrote to their MPs in protest against the former prime minister’s various policy initiatives, from embryo research to laws on homosexual adoption, have good reason to be puzzled. Has Blair recanted? If he has, shouldn’t he say so publicly before he is received? Or has he decided not so much that he will go to Rome, but that Rome will come to him?

Many are remarkably keen to speak on the subject — but few on the record. ‘I cannot be identified,’ says one senior Vatican source. ‘The amount of good I am able to do here depends on it.’ There are pressing issues here, however. Some fear that Blair’s conversion has no deep theological basis, and that the rules are being bent in a most spectacular fashion to accommodate him. Others fear that Blair is no more than a secular liberal with broadly Christian — but not obviously Catholic — beliefs.

If Mr Blair were not a public figure, none of this would matter much; at any rate there would be none of the sort of anger that is now sweeping the pews. It is Mr Blair’s prominence and his outspoken religiosity that cause the problem. The former prime minister has spoken with obvious feeling about what he believes and how he fuses his politics with his creed. Alastair Campbell was not comfortable with this, declaring four years ago that ‘we don’t do God’. But Mr Blair most emphatically does.

Although Anglican, Mr Blair has always attended Mass with his wife, a convent-educated Catholic. He has done so, he says, to keep the family together on Sunday. He has described himself as an ‘ecumenical Christian’, which appears to mean that he confers on himself the right to attend any service he chooses. In 1996 the late Cardinal Hume wrote asking him to stop taking communion at St Joan of Arc, a Catholic church in Islington. He reluctantly agreed, but wrote in reply, ‘I wonder what Jesus would have made of it.’
He might also have wondered what the Anglican and Catholic martyrs would have made of it. Much as it may baffle Blair, people once died rather than deny — or affirm — Catholic Eucharistic teaching; and few practising Anglicans and Catholics would today dream of gatecrashing each other’s communion queues. Yet Mr Blair had come to his own, very unique conclusions about religion, and felt confident enough to lecture a Cardinal on Eucharistic protocol.

In Downing Street, Mr Blair’s faith was seen as a driving factor in his life — but few saw his beliefs as Catholic. ‘If you look at not just his voting record, but his legislative record, he has fought the Church for years,’ says one senior official who worked for him at No. 10. ‘That is why I cannot see how he can enter the Church now. Converts cannot cherry-pick which parts of the faith they agree with. It’s easier for cradle Catholics to dissent, but converts have to sign up to the whole agenda. Perhaps he has changed his mind. I just don’t know.’

To critics within the Church, Mr Blair was — as one priest puts it — ‘the most anti-Catholic Prime Minister of modern times’. Others, especially Evangelicals, go further and describe his policies as broadly anti-Christian. He has legalised homosexual civil unions and gay adoptions. He has championed stem-cell research — and with a fervour that contrasts starkly with his friend George Bush’s opposition to such research. He voted against lowering the abortion limit from 26 weeks to the present 24. His credentials are those of the perfect secular liberal. All this makes it baffling that he should now choose to join the Church that has so often attacked New Labour’s legislative programme. His friend Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has been an outspoken critic, but Mr Blair has, apparently, been unmoved.

Joining the Catholic Church is not for the doctrinally fainthearted. The convert must first make confession of his serious sins. Next comes the Rite of Reception which includes the declaration: ‘I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God.’ Ann Widdecombe says she had struggled with this sentence before being able to convert herself. ‘So either Tony Blair will perjure himself on a massive scale, or he has genuinely repented. But we can’t send a message that we accept people just because they used to be the prime minister.’

Other Catholics go further. ‘St Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus would pale into insignificance by comparison,’ says John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, who has a dossier on Mr Blair’s voting record. ‘We need to hear a full repudiation from him. Without one, having Blair as a Catholic is like having a vegetarian in a meat-eating club. It simply does not make sense.’

But might there be more leeway in the conversion process than Mr Blair’s critics suggest? Some would say that there is. The so-called Tablet Catholics — named after the distinguished liberal Catholic weekly — would argue the case for plurality. Cherie Blair puts it like this: ‘The Church isn’t just about the Vatican. It’s about all of us.’ This is the Catholicism of Hans Kung, a Swiss theologian who professes loyalty to Rome but rejects its teaching on celibacy and women priests. That he has been a house guest at 10 Downing Street provides another clue to the Blairs’ thinking.

Mrs Blair made her position explicit in an article two years ago in which she confessed to having ‘doubts’ about some of the Church’s teachings. ‘But I have been taught that you should stay and try to change things. It’s like the Labour party in the 1980s. I wasn’t happy with the way it was going, so I tried to help change it from within. Luckily, we won that battle.’ For all the breathtaking presumptuousness, one cannot fault her ambition. Today: Westminster. Tomorrow: Rome.

But one cannot join the Church as a liberal Catholic. There is only one kind of Catholicism, and its teaching is laid out in the Catechism. No doubt Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor will have discussed the Catechism with Mr Blair; certainly his spiritual adviser will have done. ‘If Cormac is for Blair coming into the Church, then there is nothing anyone down here can say about it,’ says a senior cleric in Rome.

Many priests I spoke to suspect that Mr Blair’s charm may have been impossible for the Cardinal to resist. ‘The Catholic Church in England has been working-class Irish for yonks and we’ve only become socially acceptable in the last 30 years,’ says one London priest. ‘It can be very flattering when you’re courted by the establishment. If Mr Blair came knocking on my door, instead of the usual hobgoblins, I’d be flattered. I can understand if Cormac has been.’

Yet it is just not possible to believe that the Cardinal would allow himself to be seduced into allowing an unsuitable candidate to become a Catholic. But why, ask liberal Catholics, hold Mr Blair to a standard of doctrinal orthodoxy that many of today’s faithful would fail? Mr Blair’s supporters believe opposition to his joining the Church is confined to a handful of Tories and ultra-conservative clerics.

‘Those objecting to Tony’s conversion are modern-day Pharisees,’ says one former aide. ‘How many Catholics can genuinely say they agree with every single one of the Church’s teachings? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’ Stephen Pound, a Catholic Labour MP, takes a similar view. ‘Perhaps Tony isn’t perfect. But there has only ever been one person on this earth who was. If he wants to join the one, true and indivisible Church then we should celebrate the fact.’

In the Vatican Mr Blair’s conversion has been expected for some time. When he met the Pope last June he brought as a present a picture of Cardinal Newman, the most famous Anglican convert. The meeting consisted of pleasantries, as is the custom on these occasions. An altogether tougher encounter had occurred earlier when Mr Blair met Cardinal Bertone, the papal secretary of state, who laid out the Church’s objections to Mr Blair’s legislation. But there is no Papal blackball on his conversion.

There is concern in Rome, however, over the liberal direction of the Catholic Church in this country. According to a senior Vatican source: ‘The situation in England, from mass attendance to vocations, is as bad as anywhere.’ But things in the US and Germany are bad too. That is why the Pope has decided that there are three appointments that will define what is expected to be a relatively short papacy: new cardinals in New York, Munich and Westminster. All three incumbents have reached the mandatory retirement age.

But finding a successor can be a slow process even under fast-moving Popes. ‘The Holy Father is a gentle man, he works very slowly, to the frustration of some,’ I am told. Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, has long been the frontrunner for Westminster. ‘But he is the Gordon Brown of the Church,’ says once source close to the Cardinal. ‘He thought the job should have been his last time, and he’s been gunning for it ever since.’ The Vatican suspects the Cardinal’s preferred choice is Arthur Roche, Bishop of Leeds.
Both may be in for a disappointment. I am told the Pope is sceptical about choosing anyone from England’s ‘magic circle’ of metropolitan bishops and is actively considering monastic candidates to succeed Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor — just as Basil Hume was plucked from the monastic seclusion of Ampleforth Abbey in 1976. Those already in Church hierarchy, it is feared, are liberals.

But the Cardinal himself is certainly no patsy. Catholic MPs were this week surprised to receive an invitation to a private soirĂ©e to discuss the coming ‘parliamentary agenda’ — the first time a ‘Catholic whip’ has been attempted. The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales is clearly not going to stop his campaign against the anti-Christian policies of this government, or of any other. Tony Blair’s conversion may be popular at Westminster Cathedral — but his secular liberalism will not find any sympathisers there. When it comes to his first confession, he will have to follow his conscience — and listen carefully to the advice of his confessor.

Hong Kong, Progress, and Atheism

The day before Christmas, I received a Christmas package from Bill with a beautiful calendar from Hong Kong, and some British Humor magazines. Always a treat. I thanked him for the package, and he wrote back:

Dear Stan,

Glad to hear that you received the package OK. The Hong Kong calendar gives you some idea of the unbelievable vitality and economic success of this tiny enclave. Even though it was returned to Beijing rule in 1997, it is still a Special Administrative Region; the nominally "Communist" regime is smart enough to pay only lip service to Marxist and Maoist pieties and does not want to inhibit this goose from laying as many golden eggs as possible. I found the following web page while following up comments on Theodore Dalrymple's brilliant article on currently fashionable atheists. I was fascinated to see someone else supporting my speculation on the reasons for the phenomenal success of Hong Kong and Singapore. A major Chinese economist noted how civilized the Chinese in Hong Kong were and attributed it to Christian influence. Certainly I felt much safer on the streets of Kowloon and Singapore than on the post-Christian streets of Britain.

One amusing detail I found in Singapore which I had not mentioned before. On Orchard Road, the land of mega-malls, I found a huge and crowded branch of Borders. It was practically identical to the Borders on Orchard Lake Road in Farmington Hills. The layout, interior design and book stock looked as if they had been prescribed in detail from the corporate HQ in Ann Arbor. The only way you could tell you were in Asia was the inclusion of some Asian magazines among the US and UK titles in the magazine racks. Also I think the coffee shop was run by a different franchisee.

Bill

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Reading Reading

Dear Stan,

Cafe Scientifique is a new venture by the University of Reading as part of its public education outreach. For years the University has run public lectures in the evening in the Palmer Building, in the same auditorium where Reading Film Theatre shows its arthouse movies. These lectures have covered a wide variety of fascinating topics and been delivered with an equally wide variety of skill by the eminent speakers. Just because you are the top expert in the world on Italy under Mussolini does not guarantee that you'll deliver a scintillating lecture on the subject, as I found out last March. As the lectures are all free, it is ungracious to complain and impossible to demand your money back.

Unlike the public lectures, Cafe Scientifique is held off campus - well, 200 yards off campus in one of the bars at the Queen's Head pub in Christchurch Road. This has the advantage of being less formal than the main public lectures where the lecturer is out front at a traditional lectern and the audience is in banked rows of cinema-style seats. At the pub we were all packed in close to the speakers. The disadvantage was the limited seating for the crowd who squeezed in to listen to two speakers on stem cell research. One of them was Dr Che Connon, a researcher in stem cell research specialising in using adult stem cells for treating eyes damaged by disease or accidents, such as having corrosive liquids thrown in the face. The other was David Oderberg, originally from Australia, now Professor of Philosophy at Reading. He has lectured and written extensively on the moral implications of bioethical research.

The evening held two stunning surprises. The first was Professor Oderberg's ethical approach. For much of his talk he sounded as if he was channelling Pope John Paul 2 on the sanctity of human life, destruction of embryos and so on. I had never heard of the guy before that evening although he lives only a quarter of a mile from Reading Prison and hence St James Church. See the attached interview with Prof Oderberg for a secular philosopher's views on some of the key aspects of morality. No wonder I had never heard of him; his opinions would not be welcome in the BBC or most British TV or newspapers.

The second surprise came in the shape of an American doctor who stood up in the question and answer session to declare himself a supporter of our old friend Jack Kevorkian and a long term campaigner in the USA for abortion rights. In a somewhat incoherent challenge to Professor Oderberg, he seemed to imply that universities were for 'intellectual' pursuits and lectures based on beliefs were somehow off limits in an ethical debate. I may be doing him an injustice, but he was almost a caricature of the moral liberationist so evident in much of the US and British media and parts of academia.

The Queens Head may sound like a bizarre venue for an educational initiative, but then Christchurch Road compresses the extremes of the British education system into a very small space. At its east end, less than 200 yards from the pub, you find the huge green campus of the University of Reading. Less than two hundred yards to the west of the pub there used to be Reading Alternative School. This sounds like a chic and radical school, with an imaginative curriculum and innovative teaching methods. Er, not quite. You went to Reading Alternative School only when there was no alternative for you. Your totally disruptive, violent or depraved behaviour meant that even the worst schools in town had washed their hands of you, but the luckless Local Education Authority still had a legal obligation to 'educate' you until the age of 16. A friend taught at this school for a few months and was lucky to escape uninjured when a pupil threw a pair of scissors at her. She is a really lovely and compassionate person and explained the horrendous backgrounds of many pupils; parental neglect and abandonment, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, drink and drug abuse, mental illness. The name was proof that local British government, like the national government, has no shortage of bullshit merchants.

I use the past tense because Reading Alternative School no longer exists. I walked past some weeks ago and Phoenix College had taken its place. My cynical sister suggested that the name was inspired by the 'students' torching the earlier school, but the buildings looked much the same. Plainly the bullshit merchants had paid a return visit. They must have trained the staff well because shortly afterwards an article appeared in the local paper. Reading Alternative School might as well have been on Pluto for all the press coverage it received. Every other school in town had newspaper articles describing its academic achievements, sporting successes, drama productions, musical concerts, fundraising events, etc. No parent would ever boast about their child going to Reading Alternative School. Now at last an article described a charity fundraising event at the Phoenix College. For the benefit of bemused local citizens,who had not a clue where this 'college' was or what it taught, a staff member explained that the pupils 'had many things going on in their lives'. It was like 'La Vie en rose' covering Edith Piaf's World War 2 career.

Walk less than 300 yards west along Christchurch Road from Phoenix College and you come to the junior department of Abbey School. You go to the Abbey School if you are female and your parents can afford £8,000 ($16,000+) a year in fees. Sally Taylor, who presents the local news on BBC South Today, went to Abbey School. In fact an astonishing number of TV presenters went to Abbey School. The Chief Vetinary Officer in Britain also appeared on TV quite a lot during the recent foot and mouth disease panic.....and she went to Abbey School. The pupils at Phoenix College probably have a better chance of flying to the moon than going to Oxford or becoming TV presenters, even when the school leaving age is raised to 18 as the Government plans. But the Local Education Authority will have the pleasure of educating them and keeping their teachers alive for even longer.

William Murphy