The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL Telephone: 071-405
1706; Telex 27124; Fax 071-242 0603
THE FACTS OF LIFE
Not so long ago, the British press and the British establishment were filled with contempt for the Anglican church. The Church of England's prayerbooks were said to be written in `Tesco speak'; Anglican bishops were said to have been hijacked by people with a 'feminist agenda'. Every- where the Church was criticised for aban- doning its traditional values in favour of transatlantic trendiness. Even the Sun poked fun at 'vicars in knickers' when the Church of England agreed to ordain women priests last November.
Given the bitterness of that recent wave of animosity, it has been curious to read last week's attacks on the forthcoming papal encyclical, a copy of which has been leaked, in German, to the press. The encyclical, entitled Veritatis Splendor — the Splendour of Truth — is a vigorous confir- mation of the Catholic church's moral authority, and an attack on modern forms of dissent, which the Pope calls 'objections of a political or psychological, social or reli- gious, indeed of a theological kind'. While it is quite normal to express political differ- ences and conflicts in a democratic society, he writes, moral teaching should not be subject to the same democratic debate. He does not mention birth control, the ordina- tion of women or the question of priestly celibacy directly, but the encyclical is clearly aimed at quashing debate on these issues. `Dissent through lack of agreement or because of a different opinion stands in opposition to the unity of the Church,' he writes.
On the evidence of this draft, hardly any- thing in the forthcoming encyclical is new: the Pope is merely reaffirming the Catholic church's traditional opposition to moral dissent, and attacking moral relativism. This is, of course, precisely what the critics of the Anglican church have always wanted its leadership to do: reaffirm opposition to dissent, including those who favour the ordination of women, and attack moral rel- ativism. One would, therefore, imagine that the British reaction to news of the Pope's reaffirmation of tradition would be posi- tive. But this has not been the case.
The Pope has given an authoritarian tone to the encyclical which will alienate many Catholics, particularly in the West,'
trumpeted the Times. In a leader, that same paper characterised the Pope's statements as 'an extreme reaction' and called his `imposed uniformity' an 'intolerable burden upon the practice of faith'. The Daily Tele- graph, meanwhile, said the encyclical would `deepen divisions among theologians and laity'. Nowhere was there a clear defence of the Pope, made in the same language which was used only a few short months ago to condemn the Anglican church; nowhere was there an advocate, in other words, of the religious continuity and tradition which the encyclical represents.
Far from discussing the wider effects of the encyclical, the British press seemed above all concerned with the plight of those Anglo-Catholics who might want to con- vert, and will now not feel able to do so. But it is not as if the Catholic church has made any radical changes to its doctrine: even Ann Widdecombe, the most promi- nent Anglican convert to Catholicism so far, has said that 'if people were not put off from joining the Roman Catholic church before because of its position on birth con- trol, they are hardly going to be put off now'. Nor is the Pope himself likely to be much worried about attracting a few thou- sand British converts. After all, he has a following of hundreds of millions to worry about.
The whole debate is tinged with hypocrisy. It is impossible both to demand clear moral guidance from religious lead- ers, and to object when religious leaders try to lay that guidance down. Either one agrees to be a Catholic, accepts the doc- trine of papal infallibility and attempts, in good faith, to obey the Pope's commands, or one accepts another religion. It is no use calling the Pope's encyclical 'the latest in a line of flawed letters from the Bishops of Rome' if what we are fighting is moral rela- tivism.
For much of the world, the Pope's encyclical may indeed have negative effects, but not because its tone is 'authoritarian' or because it 'suppresses dissent' or because it offends the sensibilities of Anglo-Catholics and American nuns who want to be priests. Where the encyclical will really matter is not in Britain, or even in Catholic Europe (Italian and Spanish birth rates are already among the lowest in Europe, and that can- not be an accident) but rather in Latin America, Africa and parts of Eastern Europe, where the continued restrictions on birth control will help keep many more generations of people impoverished. These are countries where poverty is perpetuated by people who are too poor to pay for the care and education of their children, who do not have access to information about birth control, who know few people in authority other than priests. Yet nowhere, in the multi-paragraph discussion of the papal encyclical in the British press, is there any mention of the actual problems caused by papal doctrine. Instead of trading insults and prejudices, a little consideration of reality might be more useful.
Previous page
