The (Tony) Blair (Gay) Pitch Project

I really wanted to go through Holy Week without doing any fisking or public pulling of air or wild rolling of the eyes, but I had the misfortune of reading this piece, just posted by BBC News: "Blair questions Papal gay policy." It reports on a recent interview given by Tony Blair to Attitude, a popular British "gay" magazine (a PDF of the interview, sans advertising, can be accesssed here), which opens by stating Blair "is probably the most prominent pro-gay religious figure in the world."

All of those who criticized or expressed serious doubts about the former Prime Minister's dedication to Church teaching and wondered a bit about his becoming Catholic will say, understandably, "Told you so!" Some of us who took a more "wait and see" attitude will now say, "Wait, now I see." And what we see isn't very encouraging:

Tony Blair has questioned the Pope's attitude towards homosexuality, arguing that religious leaders must start "rethinking" the issue.

Some older Catholics had "entrenched attitudes", while most congregations were more "liberal-minded", he added.

Mr Blair, who converted to Catholicism after resigning as UK prime minister in 2007, told the gay magazine Attitude that views had to keep "evolving".

But he added that Pope Benedict XVI also stood for "many fantastic things".

I don't know which is more bothersome: Blair's apparent ignorance of why the Church teaches what she does about homosexuality and homosexual acts—as well as sexuality and marriage in general—or his apparent ignorance of, say, how the Anglican Communion and many "mainline" Protestant groups have completely embraced homosexuality just as completely and eagerly as they've jettisoned traditional mores. (Never mind what all of that has led to in England, although you can get a good picture of it by reading Theodore Dalrymple's Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses).

Last December the Pope angered gay and lesbian groups by arguing that blurring distinctions between males and females could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.

In a letter to bishops in 1986, when he was a cardinal, he wrote: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

'Discipline'

Asked about this comment, Mr Blair told Attitude that "there is a huge generational difference here.

First: Chronolical Snobbery Alert! Secondly: How embarrassing. Third: This is not about "generational differences," but about radically different understandings of anthropology, theology, morality, the natural law, sexuality, and marriage. I know of 75-year-old folks who fully support "gay rights" and "gay marriage," while I know plenty of 20-somethings who are strongly opposed to the same. Yet, there is also some truth to what Blair suggests, and it is that most people become more traditional and conservative regarding sexuality as they get older, especially when they realize the damage caused by one night stands, serial monogamy, etc. However, it seems clear that his comment is meant in a critical sense.

"And there's probably that same fear amongst religious leaders that if you concede ground on an issue like this, because attitudes and thinking evolve over time, where does that end?

"You'd start having to rethink many, many things. Now, my view is that rethinking is good, so let's carry on rethinking.

"Actually, 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.

"So some of these things can then result in a very broad area of issues being up for discussion. That's when I understand why religious leaders are very reluctant."

Why, you'd almost think that Blair used to be (or still is) a politician, the way he casually paints religious leaders (including Benedict) who reject homosexuality as a healthy or normal or good thing as "fearful," while he, of course, is among those enlightened elites who engage in the magical process called "rethinking." Which begs the question: if someone is "rethinking," shouldn't they show that they were really thinking in the first place? No, of course not, for this isn't about principled thinking and thoughtful principles, this is about attitudes—evolving attitudes!

Frankly, I find it insulting and laughable that Blair would talk glibly about 'the discipline with which you approach your religious faith," especially in the context of Ratzinger/Benedict, whose erudition as a moral theologian makes Blair's musing look like the empty rhetorical rubbish it is. And if Blair is too busy giving interviews to "The UK's best selling gay magazine" to read anything at length, he could at least acquaint himself with the CDF's 1986 document, "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which was, of course, promulgated under the direction of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Why, he would discover that Cardinal Ratzinger actually referred to him—albeit not by name, but by type of action:

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage. (par. 8)

Meanwhile, back to the interview:

Mr Blair, who has set up his own faith foundation, was then asked: "Can you foresee a situation where in your lifetime or mine, we would have a pro-gay Pope, for example?"

"I don't know, is the honest answer. I don't know. Look, 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."

No, not really. Why, in my more cynical moments (my wife believes they begin when I wake and end when I fall asleep) I think I'd be surprised if the average Catholic parish in the U.S. (or England, I suppose) was filled with Catholics who understood the basics of Church teaching and weren't shy about expressing loyalty to the Church and her teachings. As for the notion of a "pro-gay Pope," it is silly in that the term "gay" is (despite protests to the contrary) affirmative of homosexual inclinations and acts, and the Church has been quite clear about her beliefs about those matters. But just as important, the Pope is always pro-human; he has a duty to proclaim what is true about man, to affirm his dignity as one created by God, but to also explain that certain actions are an offense to what it means to be truly, authentically human. And the Pope and the Church point out, in various ways, that what they say about human sexuality and morality is very often and very much a matter of logic, natural law, and solid thinking; it isn't fair to suggest that opposition to homosexual acts, for example, is merely based in a "religious" or "doctrinal" perspective. Yet Blair seems to think so, stating in the interview:

You are a very rare example of a person who is publicly very religious, and very pro-gay. Did you ever see a conflict between the two?

No. Not for me. Because I came to a religious faith through people who were themselves very much open and liberal on all these issues, and who would have regarded it as bizarre to have attitudes of hostility to gay people. I think it would have been, actually, the other way around. If in the end I’d felt that my religious faith was pulling me in an opposite direction, I’d have had real difficulties with it.

[Pause button] Note, again, the false alternatives: complete acceptance of homosexuality or hostility toward homosexuals. But, of course, these are inadequate and disingenuous. The 1986 CDF document noted, "One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination." Then, after denouncing "violent malice in speech or in action" aimed at homosexuals, the document states, "But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered." Yet Blair's position is: either be "pro-gay" or be labeled a homophobe.

I think that for all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice? For many people, the reason for their religious faith is less to do with the doctrine and practice, and more to do with the values like love of God and love of your neighbour. And one of the things I do through my Foundation, through trying to bring different religious faiths together, to show how, actually, there is a huge common space around these values between the different religious faiths. For many people in the world of religion, they have found they’re facing the same challenge as everybody else is in changing times, when it comes to the role of women, the issues to do with sexuality, and so on. But the problem within the institutions of organised religion as opposed, for example, to those in politics, is that those attitudes get mixed up with those of doctrine.

Who, really, is "mixed up" here? (HInt: not the Church with 2,000 years of clear and consistent teachings about homosexuality.)

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:

• Authentic Freedom and the Homosexual Person | Dr. Mark Lowery
• Homosexual Orientation Is Not a "Gift" | James Hitchcock
• Can I Quote You On That? Talking to the Media About Homosexuality and the Priesthood | Mark Brumley
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci
• Contraception and Homosexuality: The Sterile Link of Separation | Dr. Raymond Dennehy
• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae | Rev. Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Viagra: It's Not Just for Old Guys Anymore | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino

Comments

[El Zorro]

Thanks for your "spot-on" analysis, Carl. Unfortunately, the half-baked arguments of Blair and those with similar views are persuasive to many young people. Your work helps those who read your blog to think about this issues critically, and to see that orthodoxy is intellectually defensible. I say this partly because I have found Blair on other occasions to be one of the more eloquent political figures of our time. Such eloquence, obviously, may be put at the service of good or evil, but in either case it is more potent than the empty slogans of less thoughtful politicians.

[Ed Peters]

I only skimmed it (not caring terribly much about Tony Blair) but, did he actualy SAY much of anything, as opposed to filling the air with words?

[Kevin]

Since I am myself only now in the process of entering into full communion with the Church, I can sympathize with Tony Blair's lack of understanding in some areas and struggle with honest questions. If there is a downside to the Church's theology being so deep and multidimensional, it is that it takes time to get a good handle on things.

On the other hand, since Blair is admittedly still a newbie, it is a tad presumptuous to take upon himself the role of judge or critic of the Church's teachings. And as to his appeal to the attitudes of the Catholic laity, it must be observed that truth is never determined by majority vote.

[Gail F]

You can't really blame Tony Blair. A great many Catholics in this country see no problem with a stance like that, and I assume the numbers are even greater in the UK. I am sure he is only being honest when he says that "most congregations are more liberal-minded" than the pope. Why should he listen to people who say the opposite of what he wants to believe when so many "Catholic" people, including many priests, are saying what he wants to believe?

The silver lining in the Notre Dame fiasco here is that so many bishops are now confronting this reality. More than half of the self-identified Cahtolics in the US voted for Obama. The Pew study out last week showed that the majority of US Catholics see nothing wrong with divorce, homosexuality, and other moral issues clearly against the teachings of the Catholic Church. The numbers among actual church-goers are much lower, but still not as low as those from church-going NON-Catholics.

While I am personally disheartened by stances taken by Blair, Pelosi, Kerry, Daeschle, et al, I don't think anyone should be surprised. They are natural when the culture is pulling that way, when political success is granted to people who hold those stances, and when opposing those stances is seen as "kooky" and untenable. I am heartened that bishops are finally starting to take notice of the state that years of looking the other way has creatad. Yes, many people complain that it's too little, too late, but in the history of the Catholic Church a couple of decades are only a blip.

[Ed Peters]

Great comments. ps: Kevin is already obviously a Clear Thinker.

[B. Johnson]

Tony Blair can pull the cellophane off of his Bible and read the following passages.

Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love God with all your being.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 shows that certain members of that church had been slaves to same-sex sexual relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

[Thomas]

Cormac Murphy-O'Connor wasn't replaced soon enough. HE is the one who received Blair into the Church and PERSONALLY instructed him. His Disgrace, er, His Grace should be ashamed of himself. He personally facilitated this scandal on a very public stage.

And sorry, but I'm not buying the "Catholic Theology is so deep it's not his fault he couldn't grasp it so soon" argument. I think even the most degenerate atheist knows that the Church says sodomy is bad. I'm also pretty sure you don't need to be Catholic to understand that sodomy is bad.

[Thomas Mellon]

A few comments about Blair.
He calls for tolerance when the government that he lead was the most intolerant to internal dissent that has existed in Westminster.His henchman Campbell "took out" anyone who was not on message.

Why was he welcomed with open arms by the American right when it was obvious from day one from his open pronouncements that he had an anti Catholic agenda.

He is still a politician as his biggest ambition at the moment is to become first President of a United Europe, and the cynics might say that his conversion was solely to assist in this objective.

Finally, i believe that Blair operated a politics of revenge.I mean that if in the course of his government you opposed his ideas then his science of politics meant that it was legitimate that you pay a price for this disloyalty.He did this to individuals and institiutions. One example of this was the downgrading of the UK embassy to the Vatican State to a consulate.This was political revenge for not supporting Iraq and also a first step to diminish the Vatican State in the eyes of the UN,in particuar its influence on boiethics and population committees.It is no accident that his appointment as Consul, was the man he seconded to Amnesty International and whilst there succeeded in diverting Amnesty from its core mission by making it support abortion and equating the tragedy of domestic violence with prisoners of conscience.

Finally.He is credited with making Labour electable.The fact is the Conservatives were so hated that a monkey would have been elected for at least 2 terms if it had been put up against the conservatives.

See Blair for what he is.Its not only Britain but America that has a lot to answer for in this respect

[Charlie B]

Having directed RCIA (in the past) for several years in a parish, its hard enough to require adequate time for a catechumen to truly a) convert, and then b) adequately grasp the core truths of our faith. When already baptized adults inquire, it is easy to presume conversion, and believe that a school calendar based program will do the trick in 8 months.
Of course, people can and do change their minds, but our whole sacramental preparation system 1) rescues parents from their duty, and 2) ends up offering cheap grace to adults.
So the Blair problem is just another example of how we've not just missed the doctrinal impact, but also the conversion-based dynamic that reveals itself in the humility to listen to the Church as teacher.

[Brian Schuettler]

He is still a politician as his biggest ambition at the moment is to become first President of a United Europe, and the cynics might say that his conversion was solely to assist in this objective.

Thomas, conversion to Catholicism or any overt identification with Catholicism would hardly enhance Blair's chances of becoming the first anything in Europe these days. Either totally ignoring the existence of the Church or, preferably, publicly spitting on her would more likely do the trick.

The dogs have the day...for now.

[Ann Couper-Johnston]

I have been a Catholic for decades, but there are still parts of the teaching of the Church I don't (yet) wholeheartedly embrace. I have no problem with the moral teaching of the Church: for me it is the social teaching which leaves me behind (I suspect that's a direct reverse of Tony Blair's positon).

The difference is that I would NOT be prepared to argue against the teaching of the Church, or to say she should alter it, in a public forum (no matter of what kind). Whatever my own views, my duty as a Catholic is to represent accurately those of the Church, most especially when speaking to those outside the Church.

The Catholic representatives on our local ecumenical body unfortunately are such keen ecumenists that they have no such inhibitions. When one non-Catholic member made an (erroneous) observation that the Taize community was allowed to practice intercommunion, they both remarked that it should be the practice everwhere. They exhibit a similar attitude to Tony Blair in their disregard of the teaching of the Church (I suspect on other matters too and probably including the one under discussion here). I did not think it appropriate to challenge their views as it would only have led to an even more unfortunate end - that of two claims to be Catholic in dispute with one another in public.

If I were asked what should be the matter most urgently needing attention from the Archbishop of Westminster designate, I would say without hesitation: CATHOLIC ADULT EDUCATION. It is vital, precisely because of the widespread prevelance both of secular views and misrepresentation of the Church, that Catholics are able reason through and defend the faith from fundamental principles - the teachings of the Church which have most recently been in the news (the Pope on condoms and this matter)both lead back to the teaching on sexuality and ultimately on what the origin and purpose of our existence is: we are not made for hedonistic pleasure, but for the joy of heaven.

And would someone please explain to me how the homosexual lobby can claim that it is only doing what is 'natural' (which use of the word 'natural' itself I question, but for the moment let's take the broader and more common definition)and yet when it comes to the natural consequences of the homosexual act, the lack of children, they are unwilling to accept what is the natural and insist on the right to adopt?

I am hoping to resume the study of theology which I took up, knowing that I needed to know the Faith more comprehensively than I did (as a convert from Protestantism I was familiar with what was in dispute at the Reformation). The Faith is a whole and you cannot take one part in isolation: what I have learned has been of great help to me spiritually as well as intellectually.

[Mark Freer]

Can we hope that the "Catholic" Blair might be excommunicated?