A pretty straight sort of Catholic?

Toby Belch

Can't imagine that the Son of the Manse is thrilled about his next door neighbour becoming a Roman

The future's Green

So who is going to tell Paisley?

baconboy

Rumor has it that Pope Benedict knows a bit about these things, so if Blair's conversion is okay with him, it's okay with me. Thank goodness the church doesn't require perfection before we enter, or none of us would ever make it.

Jay

Good to know that some people still think it's an error that any religion but Catholicism is allowed (see: error #77).

Kirk

So if you're barred from Holy Communion, does that mean you're barred from the Kingdom of Heaven? This is a serious inquiry -- I've never understood the whole Catholic thing of kicking people out for sinning.

Leo

Baconboy, the Church doesn't require that a person be free of all character flaws or mistakes in one's past, but don't you think it's reasonable for the Church to require that one agree with its teachings in order to formally join it? What would be the point of joining, say, the Communist Party if you rejected the public ownership of major industry, or joining Islam if you think Mohammed was a false prophet?

Jay, the labeling of statement #77 as an error does not commit the Catholic Church or Catholics to banning other religions. It is true that it leaves the door open to making Catholicism the only official religion of a particular country. The UK has a similar church - the Church of England.

Young Fogey

Surely I am not alone in thinking it odd that a Prime Minister who has engaged in a war which was condemned both by the current Pope and by his predecessor should have an easy entry into the Church. One might also wonder how Tony Blair managed to explain to His Holiness that it was his Government which tried to force faith schools in England to open up to accept 25% of pupils from other faith backgrounds -- a move which was strongly, and successfully, opposed by the Catholic church. Similarly, Tony Blair may find himself in a slightly uncomfortable position if the Pope decides to ask him if he doesn't think it slightly odd that he should seek entry to the Roman Catholic faith so soon after his Government created civil partnerships between gay couples and, most recently, ignored the Roman Catholic Church's desperate plea to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equality laws on gay adoption. More on this on my blog: http://bloggingyoungfogey.blogspot.com

Mutt

Leo, I think the analogous belief in Catholicism (to proletarian ownership [n.b., not public] in Marxism is that the Church is authorized by Christ to administer the sacraments of salvation. Are you saying that, e.g., condoms rise to that level of seriousness? I don't think it is at all orthodox to argue a soul is equal to a balloon. It's "on this rock," not "on this rubber."

Stuart, you say that "Serious moral questions are not to be decided by a free vote -- or by any vote." That's compatible with at least one type of liberal position. To ban an immoral act (if it is to be banned primarily on grounds of its immorality) would be, communally, to decide the morality of an issue by vote. Since every person who has submitted his conscience to the authority of the Church eo ipso believes that some things are immoral, can't it be argued that it is an affront to the Church to arrogate its authority to the state?

I believe you're also jumping in front of the Church's authority to tell a true from a false convert here. If you believe there's any willing person out of whom the Church can't make a Catholic, you've got more of the Protestant in you than you acknowledge.

So, Green, it's simple. Stuart will tell Paisley.

koomo

As Blair (supposedly) goes through RCIA (Rites of Catholic Initiation for Adults) over the next ~year, I'm sure many of these questions will be resolved. Then, it will be up to the Church to "let him in" or tell him it was a good try. The press will likely do the same job, as dozens of secular interviewers suddenly become obstinate experts on all things Catholic. PR from a big "catch" aside, I think the Church might benefit here from being more publicly hardline than malleable.

Zach Foreman

I am glad that the Church doesn't kick people out of the church for simply sinning. But if people publically, obstinately sin, then the Church has no other recourse. But the sin must be public and obstinate. Only a very, very few sins fall in this category and remarriage (or rather adultery) is one of them (as is public figures contradicting official Church teaching). All other sins are either private (so the priest cannot deny communion because he doesn't know that the person is in mortal sin) or not obstinate (so the priest doesn't know if the person has perhaps confessed his sins). But living in adultery is known by all AND a persistent state of sin and therefore can not be absolved until it ceases.

baconboy

Leo, those are good and fair questions, but there are plenty of Catholic priests who dissent on some of the moral teachings of the church, and even more parishioners who do as well. But the examples you use are actually quite telling, as the example of Mohammed refers to one of the five pillars of Islam and the Communist Party example is also one of the central tenets of the ideology. Both are more analagous to the Creed in representing central tenets of those faiths. So, you ask whether a church should require one to align with its beliefs in order to join and I say yes. But which ones? All of them? Which ones do you think are imporant and which ones are not important? I'd be happy if he understood and assented to the Creed (heck, if he actually understood the Creed, he'd be ahead of most Catholics). I disagree with Blair on almost all of these issues, but there are also a few places where I disagree with the Church. But I am fortunate that my choices aren't forced to be made public, or else my hyprocrisy would be made equally public. The main difference between us and Blair is that our wrong ethical decisions aren't a matter for public debate. My sinful decisions aren't quantifiably different than Blair's in the eyes of God or the church, they're just less public. And so are yours. I guess my main concern is the decided lack of grace that seems to be evident in the discussion. I'm not opposed to people making judgments, but Christians who make judgments without grace and hope don't really serve as effective witnesses to Gospel any more than a politician who supports abortion.

dee

I am probably a moral relativist, secular liberal. Probably I find it comfortable, certainly it is easier. but I still think about it.

Does religion survive alongside education and science and growth by downscaling into downscale into something “nice”?

Believers used to ask themselves, "How can I be more like God?" Nowadays it's more like, "How can God be more like me?" Hubris.

I have a good friend who calls herself a Muslim, but she drinks alcohol and gives men blowjobs (the Clinton definition of sexual relations). I don’t think it’s fair to wear the t-shirt if you don't join the club.

I have more (of a warped, split-second) respect for the Taliban’s blowing up those beautiful, irreplaceable mountainside Buddhist carvings that than I do this lukewarm tolerance that isn't religious conviction at all. Can you call yourself a believer if you allow for other beliefs?

On another note-- the Vatican’s reversal of Joe Kennedy's annulment based on his ex-wife's appeal (12 years of marriage and two kids)-- Now THAT makes me happy!

VHDeBello

You write: "Blair is not an absolutist. He is a moral relativist. He believes that the Church is wrong to resist the use condoms to fight Aids in Africa, and has implicitly rebuked the Vatican for its intransigence in this matter, for being, as he put it, 'silly'. But you can't be a Catholic and approve of the use of condoms -- or any other means of artificial contraception." But you can approve of the use of condoms to keep spouses from transmitting HIV if you apply the rule of double effect. If the Vatican doesn't accept this, the Archdiocese of NY needs to shut down Calvary Hospital which uses the RDE to care for cancer patients

H

For reference, no. 77 in the Syllabus of Errors is the 1st of the errors "having reference to modern liberalism. It states:

"In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (Allocution Nemo Vestrum, July 26, 1855).

So it remains expedient - conducive to advantage in general, or to a definite purpose; fit, proper, or suitable to the circumstances of the case; etc. - that Catholicism should be the sole religion of the state, to the exclusion of all others.

No qualifications are stipulated, & no. 77 doesn't indicate whether there are any conditions under which it would be expedient for Catholicism not to be the state religion, to the exclusion of all others.

Historically there has been some disagreement about the scope of the exclusion.

Is it Stuart Reid's view that the Syllabus states current orthodox understanding of Catholic doctrine, or that Catholics who don't accept all of its propositions are in error as Catholics, or somehow less Catholic than people who do?