There were some who criticized me for my less than exuberant feeling about Tony Blair’s entrance into the Church. Here is an I told you so.
ony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
“…There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.[reference]
It seemed to me at the time that Mr. Blair had done nothing to repent of and recant what he had done as Prime Minister that was gravely evil. Part of repairing the damage one has done is to do something to correct it, something that there has been no sign of. Though I hold Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor more responsible for bringing him into the Church probably knowing that he would perjure himself in saying that he accepted all that the Church taught. A high-profile convert such as Tony Blair only brings scandal until such that that I pray he repents.
22 comments
he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal
Moral and anagogical senses aside, what are passages like, to be germane to his interview, “a man shall not like with another man” supposed to be a metaphor for?
Jeff … I hold the same sentiments you express. It is suppose to be “let your Amen mean Amen … Your “Yes” mean “Yes”. When “high profile” Catholic politicians or editorialist/jrnlst start pontificating against the Church and her teachings in public, it seems to do more damage than any enemy can do from the outside.
Well, now that we have the former British Prime Minister as a Catholic we don’t need the Pope…after all we’ve always been waiting for the enlightened one.
Whatever happened to “cognitive dissonance”, the inability to hold two opposing views? Blair’s statement that “the concept of evolving attitudes” should be included in one’s “discipline” is truly bizarre. Catholicism as moral schizophernia?
The fact is that Mr. Blair has actually broken Canon Law, in that his comments are the type to incite hatred against the Church. Not that any assistance is needed in that department…people are standing in line to cast stones and persecute Christ and His Bride. He is directly attacking the Pope in his words and needs to be notified of his obligations as a Catholic. If he does not agree with the teachings of the Church, then he is under no obligation to stay. I hope the door doesn’t hit him on the way out, although I’d prefer to see his conversion.
Canon 1369:
A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1373:
A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
It’s a little nervy he just became Catholic and already he’s full of criticism.
Poor little man. He tends the tomb of Henry VIII instead of worshipping God at the Shrine of Our Lady of Walshingham.
Um…Walsingham.
Well, “gay” people – more accurately people who have a temptation to engage is sexual acts with members of the same sex – are equal to other people. We’re all sinners. To treat one of their sins as being non-sinful would be discriminatory and damning.
How did this prick enter the church if he felt this way? Who was responsible for him entering the church if he held positions like this? Why isn’t is wife excommunicated for her stances on contraception
The Blairs conduct brings grossly misrepresents the call to Christian charity and faithfulness. While I certainly understand and share the urge to show the Blairs the door, perhaps the bishops show wisdom and prudence in restricting themselves to public rebuke rather than excommunication.
As much as we promote, admire, and encourage submission to our superiors in the faith, perhaps we should also exercise caution when wishing for a zero-tolerance policy on dissent and critique.
The Legionnaires had a zero-tolerance policy for critique of superiors – but Pope Benedict XVI requested that they drop this restriction. And it now appears that during the era of no critique, their leader managed to keep a mistress and child for decades all the while having his conduct unchallenged.
Perhaps we need to endure the shameful conduct of the Blairs in order to have transparency in our leadership.
Perhaps we should hold all who are baptised in our faith to the teachings of the Church. Whether they are the leaders of a religious community or former leaders of a country. If both were held accountable for their words and actions fewer would have been misled. The Church should never tolerate false prophets, false shepherds nor false teachers. We should never endure shameful conduct because it leads many into error and quite possibly into eternal damnation. How about if those who publicly spread error are publicly rebuked? Like what is happening with Notre Shame and Fr. Jenkins.
People like Blair just confuse weak minded Catholics.
“People like Blair just confuse weak minded Catholics.”
I would add that for a lot of years Bishops, who tend the flock here at home, weren’t vocal enough on issues, especially abortion. Everyone was afraid of offending or of making the Church smaller. I understand that angst but I’m not sure in the end it helped. For a long time people have formed their own thoughts without benefit of a moral standpoint being touted, though many elected leaders – who are always interested in preening or in building support – feel compelled to oblige. They usually go the way the wind blows. I think that’s a large part of too many of today’s Catholics being okay with abortion (“not for me, but for thee”). The pushback (finally) we’re seeing by Bishops will have effects for years to come. The gas pedal being pushed on vocations instead of our riding the break will have an impact, too.
Absolute power corrupts !!!
I thought the Body of the Church already had a Head. Too bad its getting another A$$h0le.
Methinks Prime Minister Blair has converted to the Church of Hans Kueng rather than the Catholic Church…
Wow – some folk don’t pull any punches. In this instant, those punches are justified for the most part.
I’m a convert and I’ve made some big slips along the way. I’m grateful God and His Church didn’t give up on me. Though, with much shame I admit that I was at times hardly living the Faith. I was poorly catechized in a parish that at the time made most liberal parishes look conservative. Yep, it was bad. Now, that’s still no excuse for why I behaved as I had done in the distant past. I am grateful for a few tough penances and miserable life experiences along the way that shook me up and brought me to my knees and allowed God to get me back on the straight and narrow.
Mr. Blair does need to visit the dictionary and look up humility, as does his wife. They are setting a very bad example. Let’s hope they both take a more deferential stance toward the Magisterium and official doctrine in the near future.
All these idiots like Tony Blair who bring up the line “the world has changed so the Church needs to update its doctrine” only prove that they don’t know squat about history. Compared to the Corinthians of the time, we are still rather tame.
Obviously Mr. Blair is incorrect.
I wouldn’t be so quick as some here to show him the door, however. You may not realize it, but Liberalism can be a deeply ingrained and blinding ideology. Mr. Blair has converted, but he has also only taken his first steps in conversion. We should pray that his conversion continues.
Maybe some day he will read a Patristic author. Maybe some day he will have a revelation on the necessity of authority. Maybe some day the philosophical part of his mind will awaken from its dogmatic slumber. It can and does happen.
The real problem in this case is that he is a famous and in some circles respected man. He’s not meditating silently in a halfway house for recovering liberals. He’s still in the arena in a sense and so his words, which we should pray that he will some day realize that he should not have said, can do harm.
This is an area where the Church herself has lost some ground and needs to consider carefully: the appropriate next move would probably be that Mr. Blair’s bishop order him to be silent on these matters. But as we all know, bishops don’t *do* that anymore. And if they did, who would take them seriously? It’s too bad, because that seems to me to be precisely the remedy that is indicated.
Hmm… posting on Good Friday? Viva Cristo Rey!
After St. Paul was converted, he went into the desert for two years before preaching. Good idea! Newt Gingrich, take note.
I can’t think of a church which has done more “rethinking” than the Church of England. How are they doing for attendance lately? Perhaps Blair merely got lonely in the C of E, and decided to make his disingenuous conversion just so that he’d have a hand to shake at the sign of peace.