As the prime minister struggles to defuse a row over church adoption agencies being forced to accept homosexual couples, Sua Eminenza (Your Eminence), as he is addressed in Rome, was anxious to explain why he had decamped from Westminster for a short visit to the Eternal City.
“I saw Pope Benedict last night, but I wouldn’t like people to get the sinister view that I’m out here in Rome getting backing,” he chuckled as he sat in his small study — a label on the door is marked simply The Cardinal — at the Venerable English College, a 16th-century seminary in the heart of historic Rome. 
“Had to get into my glad rags for a service with the Pope and then a small banchetto (banquet) to celebrate the 50th anniversary of my becoming a priest. It wasn’t possible to speak to the Pope, but in any case I’m my own boss. Every bishop ought to be free to express his views and one of the nice things about Britain is that it does allow religious leaders to have their voices heard,” the cardinal said.
Back in his sober clergyman’s outfit — white dog collar, black suit and sweater, shiny black shoes — for a breakfast-time interview, the 74- year-old cardinal spoke in a warm, hushed tone. Every quarter of an hour he had to raise his voice to make himself heard above the sound of the college bell.
He is still waiting for a reply to the letter he sent to Blair and every cabinet minister last week to warn that Catholic adoption agencies may have to close if it was made illegal for them to turn away homosexual couples. The cardinal made short shrift of newspaper reports that Blair had caved in to pressure from cabinet colleagues and would not water down the sexual orientation regulations, which come into force in April as part of the Equality Act.
“I don’t think the issue has been resolved in cabinet. I think we can still find a solution. Some years ago Catholic doctors were allowed to opt out of performing abortions and that’s still the case today.”
The conflict has seen the church accused of gay bashing and the cardinal, in particular of blackmail, for his threat that agencies could close. Does it hurt to be called a gay basher (which he has heard before) and a blackmailer — surely a new one on him? “I don’t like being called a blackmailer,“ he said with a pained expression. “I don’t do blackmail. The point is not that the bishops would close the agencies, but that they wouldn’t be able to continue without funding from the local authorities. If the local authorities had to stop funding because of this law, they would have no option but to close.“
Won’t the children be the ones who suffer? “My priority is the children. To put it very simply, our faith dictates that we should do this kind of good work. We don’t believe in discrimination — homosexuals should be treated with respect and sensitivity — but the best way of bringing up a child, and the government says so, too, is having a mother and a father.”
It strikes me that for all his protests he is, of course, discriminating against homosexual couples. But the cardinal is not for turning. “Moral views may be changing but our view is rational and has been held for many, many years in this country as the normality. Shall we leave it there?” He is keen to broaden the scope of the interview beyond the adoption row.
I try to press him. Targeting homosexual couples means discrimination, I suggest. “If we turn away a homosexual couple, the government agency would be able to accommodate them, so I don’t think they will be discriminated against.” The cardinal is passing the buck. Seeing me unconvinced, he added: “We’re not talking about huge numbers. It’s a principle.” As it is for homosexual couples, surely.
Asked about a newspaper report that Cherie Blair, with her Catholic faith, was the reason for the row, he shook his head vigorously: “I don’t agree with that at all. This is clearly a matter for the government and the leadership of the Catholic church promoting its views.”
Does he have a special channel through to Tony Blair or Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary and a devout Catholic? “I think I have no more privileged access than any other church leader,” he replied with some caution. “Certainly I would have access to the prime minister and Kelly, as to other ministers.” He added that yes, of course he felt sympathy for Blair’s dilemma.
However, this row is about much more than adoption: “This is about the rights of the government to legislate, but is also about the rights of conscience — the rights of large numbers of citizens to live according to their beliefs. Moral values have changed over the past 50 years, so much so that now it’s very difficult to reach a consensus on social and ethical matters.
“But you can’t live without values and the last thing we want is a total moral vacuum. Nor do we want a total relativism. There ought to be a consensus, particularly on the dignity of the human person and on the rights of family life, the bedrock of society. I do believe in a separation of church and state, but you can’t altogether divorce religion from the state.”
Does he believe Britain has become a pagan society? He grimaced. “I don’t like the word ‘pagan’ particularly. I see Britain as very secular in that it is not motivated primarily by religious views, but especially in recent years the issue of religion comes up constantly. Very large numbers of people are searching for answers to questions about God, about life and its meaning. So it’s wrong to say Britain is a religion-less society.”
Is there anything we can learn from how countries like America or France deal with such issues? “We’re very different from, say, America or France. In America there is no connection between religion and the state, and the French are very rigorous about the secular republic. We do things differently.”
We just fudge things, I said. “Britain tends to muddle along, but it should start tackling the issue of a proper relationship between church and state, in which religious communities are not trying to impose anything but simply want to express themselves and want people to listen.
“There is a marketplace out there where everyone can express their ideas, their beliefs. That’s something which is very British and which people would not want to lose. They have an innate respect for religious leaders and are rather glad there is another voice out there, not just the politicians. People wouldn’t have Thought for the Day (on Radio 4’s Today programme) disbanded for anything.”
So where does Murphy-O’Connor set the limit for the state encroaching on people’s religious beliefs? Both the government and the religious communities work for the common good, he said: “Catholics are obliged to obey the law, just like any citizen, but I believe there is such a thing as conscientious objection. On adoption, our beliefs in the primacy and the foundations of family life are a matter of conscience to us.”
Yet the state had in recent years started “privatising religion”, he complained: “The state is increasingly taking over the activities of church and voluntary communities, but it would be a mistake for everything to be done by state organisations. Voluntary bodies do incredibly important work on children or overseas, like Christian Aid, and they have to be free to act according to what they see as the common good.”
Even individual politicians — he named Blair and Kelly — were being singled out for their beliefs: “It would be terrible if a believing Christian was not able to live by his or her beliefs as a member of government because there is a kind of moral vacuum in parliament. Clearly Christians in parliament realise that politics is the art of the possible, but the kind of attitude that says that people who have strong religious beliefs shouldn’t be in parliament is ridiculous.”
Does he talk to Blair about converting to Catholicism once he leaves office? The cardinal bristled slightly and replied in slow, clipped terms: “I haven’t talked, ever, to Tony Blair about his conversion. I have chatted to him about religion but I would not talk to him about this unless he wanted to. A person’s religion is a very private matter. Of course he is a public figure, but I would leave it to him and his conscience.”
Does he consider Blair, who attended mass with his family on his latest holiday in Miami, a Catholic in all but name? “He goes to mass every Sunday, he has an understanding of the Catholic faith and he is a religious man, so I very much respect him.” Surely as close as the cardinal could come to answering “Yes”.
Being here at the college is like a homecoming for Murphy-O’Connor. He talks fondly of the time when he and his father, an Irish doctor who settled in England, had to persuade the then rector to agree to train him for the priesthood. Two of his four brothers were already at the seminary and the rector insisted two Murphy- O’Connors were quite enough. Luckily a third was accepted and the cardinal went on to head the college as rector himself from 1971-77.
Installed as 10th Archbishop of Westminster in 2000, he was made a cardinal the following year by the late Pope John Paul II. As the leader of 5m Catholics in England and Wales, the tall — at almost 6Åft — and affable cardinal is well known for his ecumenical work, especially towards the Anglican church. He will turn 75 this August, the age at which cardinals are expected to offer their resignation to the Pope: “To be absolutely honest I would be quite content to retire. But if I was asked to stay on, I would be quite content. I have no desire to go on and on.”
I ask him what he would describe as his failings. There is a pause and an embarrassed laugh: “What about that, then . . . ah, I don’t think any failures as such. Sometimes maybe a failure of courage. I should perhaps have spoken more to the British people as a religious leader about the moral and social condition of Britain.
“It would be very sad if the country lost its roots. You see, Christian schools are among the best and the government would like more of them. But you can’t have the fruits of these schools without the roots,” he said, giving another chuckle.
“And the roots come from a Christian ethos. It’s like when people say let’s dismiss Christmas .”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
No comments:
Post a Comment