ANOTHER VOICE
The underlying ugliness of the post-Christian hiccup
AUBERON WAUGH
If the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, Mgr Derek Worlock, had not received the support of the Roman Catho- lic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales in his Crusade for Labour speech, delivered to the Northern Housing Confer- ence in Halifax last week, it would have been perfectly proper to greet his latest appearance with the traditional rude noises and little cries of personal abuse which I have been using to comment on most of his utterances for the past 12 years. Indeed, I still feel that these are the best and fullest response: `Go back to Russia!' or 'Show us your pilger!' This time more is needed. Of all the distasteful manifestations of the post-Christian era (and I agree there are many), one of the most distressing is the spectacle of the Christian churches sear- ching for a new role, a new relevance.
However, with the more or less official adoption of a Marxist economic policy by the Bishops' Conference, whose general secretary, Mgr Vincent Nicholas (Tele- graph) or Nichols (Independent), echoed Worlock in announcing that 'we would like to see more attention given to the distribu- tion of wealth in government initiatives', the time has surely come to examine Worlock's political programme. First, I shall discuss it in the context of its political and economic relevance, then I shall ex- amine it in relation to the traditional Christian teaching on poverty which it replaces.
The most immediately political of all his proposals was where he argued that of all government errors he had described, re- cent legislative moves towards reducing the powers of local government and local education authorities were 'possibly the most damaging of all to our democratic way of life'.
This announcement must be seen within the context of Liverpool, where Worlock lives. Its Corporation had, until recently, been taken over by a clique of Militant thugs who, by their profligacy and incom- petence, had reduced the once proud city to its knees. When he talks about 'our' democratic way of life, he presumably refers to his own democratic way of life and that of his fellow Labour supporters, since nobody else's democratic way of life has been in the slightest bit damaged. When a democratically elected national govern- ment takes over the responsibilities of a locally imposed mafia, one might suppose that democracy has advanced a little. But Worlock, addressing a northern audience, touched the old chord of `us' and 'them'.
Next, on nationalisation: 'The glorifica- tion of privatisation, in the cause of free- dom and personal enterprise, seems to mean that certain industries and services, belonging at least nominally to the nation as a whole, may be sold off on the pretext that spreading the range of shareholders is a good thing.'
Well, yes. That is what it is all about. Presumably this is a belated call to rally Conference to Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution.
Next, on the direction of the economy, he argues that promotion of wealth crea- tion 'must be matched by adequate atten- tion to methods of wealth distribution'.
It is precisely by studying the consequ- ences of such matching, in unfortunate countries like Poland and Russia, that Worlock might have understood the con- sequences of condemning the ' "unproven" belief that by making the rich richer, wealth will "trickle down" to the poor'. But when he talks of the poor, he talks only of those who are comparatively poor by British standards: The so-called "targeting" of social security benefits appears to be justified on the score that it will be to the direct advantage of the extremely and unreasonably poor . . . even though it be at the expense of a large group of persons classified as "low paid".'
Precisely. But when Worlock talks in that compassionate way about the low- paid', he is talking about people who live at twice or three times the standard of living of the best-paid workers in Poland or the Soviet Union. Things which these — sob — low-paid workers take for granted among the normal comforts of life — soap, razor- blades, sanitary towels, pilgers, fresh meat, fish and vegetables, their own bathrooms even, nowadays, the free availability of alcohol — are unthinkable luxuries wher- ever Worlock's half-baked dispensations This is the Edinburgh of the Aegean' have been put into practice.
So much for Worlock as a political thinker. Let us now examine him as a religious philosopher. The entire basis for traditional Christian — as opposed to Marxist — social philosophy is to be found in Matthew xxv. This, it will be remem- bered, comprises three parts. First, we have the wise and foolish virgins. The improvident virgins are locked out. Next, we have the parable of the talents. The wicked and slothful servant who did not increase his talent is cast into outer dark- ness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, with the terrible words: 'For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.'
Finally, we have the last judgment: goats to the left, sheep to the right. The sheep, who have conducted themselves charit- ably, feeding the hungry, putting vagrants up for the night, clothing the naked, etc, go to heaven. The goats, who didn't do any of these things, go to hell — 'everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels'.
The message is clear. We must all have a mind for the future; being ready for death at any time, we must work hard to improve our lot and be charitable to those less fortunate. That was the entire basis of intelligent social philosophy until Marx, who propounded the impossible theory that man would be happy working to the best of his ability for no greater reward than his needs. There is not the faintest suggestion in Christian — as opposed to Marxist — social philosophy that equality is a natural or desirable state, merely that the Christian, as a matter of personal morality, must help out those who are in grave need. The rich, it is true, face greater temptations, and the poor are blessed so long as they stay meek.
The Government has undoubtedly trans- gressed traditional Christian practice by deliberately penalising the thrifty, and it is a waste of time to pretend otherwise. There would be nothing unChristian in giving all retired people exemption from local rates, and there would be nothing unChristian in allowing these benefits to no one except those who could show dire need. But Worlock's argument that 'target- ting' is unChristian is not even worth looking at.
Previous page
