Now officially Catholic, Blair continues to eschew orthodoxy. Though a devout believer, he stands in opposition to his pope on issues like abortion, embryonic-stem-cell research and the rights of gay people to adopt children and form civil unions. "I guess there's probably not many people of any religious faith who fully agree with every aspect of the teaching of the leaders of their faith," he says.
The latter observation represents an enormous assumption on Mr Blair's part, as one's perception of how many Catholics are faithful to Catholic teaching, for example, may well depend on which journals you read, which news releases you choose to take seriously and which type of Catholic circles you move in. But I think what this paragraph in the Newsweek article clearly indicates is that Mr Blair cannot and should not be considered as an authentically Catholic voice in the issues concerned. Some may like what he is saying and doing, but it cannot be considered Catholic.
Discussing the work of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, the Newsweek article says in part:
"To me what is important is that the whole faith area gets some what I would call muscularity, and certainly strategy." What, then, of the inherent tensions in his endeavor? For at its root, "interfaith understanding" runs counter to any religion's understanding of itself as the best or only path to God. Blair firmly says he wants to put doctrinal issues aside. Religious people must recognize "that other people feel that they have the one true faith, and you see how you can come together." Beyond this, he won't expand.
I think that Newsweek's interpolation that "interfaith understanding is counter to a religion's self understanding as the best or only path to God" is inaccurate - it is careless in the way it states the idea of truth in religion, and in religions, and it shows a lack of any real understanding of the idea of "dialogue". It does, however, raise the question of dialogue quite clearly. If Mr Blair wants to "put doctrinal issues aside", though, he will not promote interfaith understanding. Such an approach might be attractive to people of vague and unclear, or even no religious beliefs; but it is not "interfaith understanding".
Newsweek included a beautiful phrase in their report:
In a way, Blair's foundation is the culmination of his life as a double agent....All this work comes out of Blair's conviction that as globalization pulls the world and the people in it closer together, religion could pull us apart. "We have an obligation to present spiritual faith as something that is positive and progressive and solves problems and does good, rather than something that people only read about because people are killing in the name of it," he says.
One can detect elements of the pragmatic, New Left enterprise in the references to "progressive" and to "solving problems". And, as someone who has taken a public stand on one of the issues mentioned in the Newsweek article, it is good to see the rather different approach of Mr Blair being seen for what it is.
5 comments:
Along with many other Catholics I was, and remain, deeply disturbed at Tony Blair's reception into full communion. I believe (along with others) that the manner of his reception was deeply flawed in relation to the moral teaching of the Church. As a public figure he should have been made to state his full acceptance of all the Church teaches and he should have been asked to specify certain teachings because of his previous and public rejection of those things.
Sadly, we were forbidden to utter any public concern over his reception, and we were left to wonder if he really has converted. We will soon know the whole distressing story because he will be unable to keep it bottled up for long. In my view, the only reason that there was not a massive scandal in the British Catholic community is that so many Catholics could not care less - they are simply not bothered. Because of this indifference, Westminster escaped unscathed. Truth, however, can not be hidden or abused. History will show that this was the great scandal that never reached the pews, but which remained underground, as it were, to fester.
When I was in Quebec for the International Eucharistic Congress last June, I managed to surprise a lunch time companion by pointing out that not everyone in England had been pleased with Tony Blair's reception in to the Church, and that some of us found it all a bit embarrassing.
I have never been quite sure in my mind how I think his reception should have been handled. I do certainly now think that there is sufficient evidence for a fairly neutral and low key statement from the Bishops of England and Wales indicating that, on a number of issues, Mr Blair does not represent a Catholic point of view. This could be done quite gently, but clearly, and would remove the element of scandal.
I am, of course, not British, but trying to imagine the same in the Netherlands, I think I would also have preferred a clearer presentation of what the Church considers essential doctrine for all the faithful, instead of "it doesn't really matter what you think, you can be Catholic anyway."
But there is also the reality that many people who sincerely feel and profess they are, indeed, Catholic, hold views similar to those of Mr. Blair. It should be our constant aim to ensure they grow in the faith, and I try to remind myself as I contentedly bob around in the little bubble of orthodoxy provided by my friends, that grumbling about another person's struggle with Church teaching might not be the most effective way to do this.
Unfortunately, I honestly don't know what would. I hope Mr. Blair has a very good spiritual director.
By the way, on re-reading, it struck me that Newsweek used "eschew orthodoxy" to describe Mr. Blair's attitude towards abortion etc. Again, this might be because English is my second language, but that sounds more like "I do not wish to follow the leaders of my religion" than "I have carefully thought over many subjects and my opinion on some of them is different than the teachings of the Church".
I do assume the latter is the case, and this is simply another example, probably even unconsciously formulated, of the general public's opinion that you must be mad to follow that old man in Rome, although sometimes agreeing with him on your own terms might be allowed.
I am at a loss as to how his reception into the Church should have been within a private ceremony when my experience has been for RCIA candidates to have been called upon to make declarations publicly; usually, but by no means exclusively, at the Easter Vigil.
Post a Comment