Conservative Leader accused of insulting Scottish Cardinal
David Cameron has been accused of insulting Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Apparently, Michael Martin, the first Catholic Speaker of the House of Commons since the Reformation, had arranged a dinner in the Cardinal’s honour, to which the leaders of the political parties had been invited. This was accompanied by further audiences with the Scottish Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of State for International Development.
Mr Cameron, however, suddenly found himself ‘too busy’. According to ‘sources close to the Cardinal’, he was left ‘fuming’, ‘angry’, and feeling ‘snubbed’ – it was considered ‘a real discourtesy’. Mr Cameron needs to tread very carefully. The last Tory to offend the Catholic Church was hounded out of office. Of course, tensions between prelates and politicians are nothing new, but England rid itself of papal interference centuries ago. Yet the Roman Catholic Church is again flexing its muscle. In England, she represents a high moral stability and apostolic continuity where the Church of England is perceived to compromise. Unpalatable teachings such as Humanae Vitae, banning artificial contraception, or Dominus Iesus, dismissing the Church of England as not being a ‘proper’ church, are played down. In countries where Rome’s grip is surer - Uganda, Haiti, the Philippines – there is concerted effort to control government departments, the media, and education, which many papal encyclicals have stated should be subject to the Church's authority. Religious freedom in such countries is virtually non-existent. In Croatia, for example, any expression of Christianity other than Catholicism is viewed with official suspicion, and there has been proposed legislation to filter out all non-Catholic churches, including Protestant ‘sects’ and ‘cults’.

50 Comments:
I like the added comment to the Scotsman article:
"One never reads in the Gospels that Jesus went to Jerusalem to hold talks with a host of "top politicians"... If Cardinal O'Brien was snubbed by David Cameron, so what? Those who preach humility should try and practise humility."
A dinner in honour of an Irish 'Prince of the Church in Scotland' and hosted by Gorbals Mick, latterly of the Scottish Raj in England? Crikey! Not far short of purgatory if you ask me. Little wonder he had a pressing engagement elsewhere.
I think Ulsterman might argue with your definition of Irish as Cardinal O'Brien was born in Northern Ireland which would make him British.
John Fisher it's quite possible to Welsh, Scottish or English, so I'm sure O'Brien could quite accurately be called Irish.
Initial reaction was '... lack of the grace one would expect from a guest...'
But I could be wrong. So I read the piece in The Herald. And was I wrong: wasn't about some priest making a visit, it was about the queen going on an official tour...
No, sorry, wrong again. The Queen (God bless her) is a grand lady - not a lady with delusion of grandeur.
Hmmm....
As the fame and reputation of Cranmer spread across the globe, there is a danger of attracting the less intelligent and those manifestly lacking in erudition.
This is unavoidable.
If anyone has a clue what Mr Vallentinlausen is talking about, please tell Mr Al-Amin.
'British'? - maybe. But I doubt that a catholic born in NI with the name 'O'Brien' would regard himself as such. And oh the irony of an Irish Nationalist (or maybe even Republican!)from Ulster becoming head of the Church in the land that produced the bulk of the later Ulster Plantation footsoldiers. Still, I was only jesting because, by all accounts, Cardinal O'Brien is a little lacking in the jest department.
I think Olly's quote from the Scotsman sums things up rather well actually.
I think it's more cyclic than ironic given that Irish monks helped in the initial Christianization of Scotland.
To Cranmer: The article in The Herald sounds more like a description of a Royal Progress! I found that quite amusing, a little disturbing, and suitable for irony.
I obviously failed - and my comment may thus appear more harsh than intended. Sorry about that.
Mr. Al-Amin has gone suspiciously quiet again. Training somewhere?
On more serious matters, given the absence of a credible CoE and the fragmented array of Evangelicals in existence, the Church of Rome rightly feels that it has a grand opportunity to undo the Reformation. It can quite easily and comfortably posit itself as a bastion of doctrinaire continuity in contrast to the chaos of the CoE and the moral relativism of thesecular majority. No surprise in any of that. Especially with a Catholic PM running the show.
I'm inclined to agree with GC here. This is just a pompous Cardinal, stuffed full of his own self-importance. Who does he think he is? Why should he have any expectation that any of our elected politicians should make time to attend his audiences? It is simply the Church of Rome playing its old game. When there's a weakness, make a move for power. They'll be demanding the abolition of the Act of Settlement again soon.
Well let me rain on your parade. Cameron is a twerp. He has a function which he seems unable to perform with any gravitas. If The Speaker invites him to a dinner with a Cardinal he should attend.
There is no basis for gratuitous insults and there are a lot of Scottish voters who might feel that their interests would not be represented by a Conservative Party under Cameron.
It is time for politicians to treat clerics with respect, and to behave like adults.
I have been waiting to not be the first to disagree with this post but thank you Rick I do not have to bite my tongue any longer, particularly after GC accused me again of being away 'training', which is disrespecful and insulting. I have said before that I do not have to contribute anything to this blog, I can go somewhere else and not be insulted.
All politicians should treat holy people with huge respect, and this means holy people of all faiths. Rick is right that Cameron is just rude, and so he should apologise, and invite the cardinal and imams to dinner with him at the House of Commons. He can then listen to what needs to be done in the country, and make the necessary policies to improve society, which religions know far more about than politicians.
Mr. Al-amin,
Sir, no offence intended. I naturally assumed that during this spot of warm weather you might be hitting the cricket pitch or tennis court. Training as it were.Oh, you are a sensitive soul.
Rick, you are clearly right about the fact that our political class does consistently fail to treat the clergy with due respect. No question about it. But then Blair's Britain is a multi-faith/secular kaleidoscope, the political clas would surely argue.So they don't have to give a toss about the clergy.
Rick, GC,
Alternatively one could say that religious groups are just another set of pressure groups, and as with all pressure groups engage in all too characteristic special pleading.
What does this mean Cranmer?
"If anyone has a clue what Mr Vallentinlausen is talking about, please tell Mr Al-Amin."
Why would I know? It makes no sense to me either and I don't know why you refer people to me for explanation. And Croydonian, religions are not just 'pressure groups', they are deeper and more important, they are the foundations of civilisations and morality, comparing them to those who want to build a Tescos down the road is to trivialise their importance in people's lives.
"It is time for politicians to treat clerics with respect, and to behave like adults."
Presumably that would apply to a similar invitation (summons??) from the likes of the Rev Dr Paisley too then. Or are there clerics and clerics?
al-amin: "What does this mean Cranmer?"
You clearly hadn't noticed that Mr V is Danish - something to do with cartoons perhaps?
Though personally I thought he made a rather good point too.
A-A - that is exactly how I regard them. I agree with some, and disagree with others and pressure groups encompass a rather broader range than you give credit - Scope, the trade unions, the National Trust, Greenpeace, Oxfam, the National Secular Society etc etc. What they all have in common is an interest in steering the direction of policy towards their own agendas.
Meanwhile, how much respect do you give to Sir Jonathan Sachs, for example?
Actually The Rev Dr Ian Paisley is a Member of Parliament something a serving Church of England cleric or Catholic priest is forbidden to undertake.
Yes I see no reason to denigrate Dr Paisley, he represents the largest Unionist Party in Northern Ireland and has been a powerful politician for 40 years. He is however a politician, an elected politician.
There is in the world The Religious and The Political. If politicians are abusive towards Faith then society will be toppled. It may be that men like Cameron believe in nothing, but they should not be abusive towards religion or they will find the ground shifting beneath their feet.
Al-Amin and I do not always agree, but on this we do. You do not ignore religious Faith in a Society unless you wish to live in societies like the USSR or Germany 1933-45; neither do you let The Church dictate policy as in Ireland 1922-1990.
The Church is not just another "pressure group", it is the fact that Man is not merely another animal on the earth but has a Soul and a liability to God.............maybe you don't believe in that Croydonian but playing with religion and antagonising The Covenanters in Scotland brought Civil War to England; and there is nothing in secular politics today to inspire confidence.
The reason people turn devoutly to God is that they have no faith in Man because they meet official corruption, incompetence, and deceit and put their trust in a Higher Power of Justice and Virtue. There are countries where the downtrodden and dispossessed place their hopes and trust in God Above because they haveno affiliation with the temporal power...................that is now sadly true in Britain and much of the West as politics is pursued without morality or purpose.
Cameron has exposed himself and the Cardinal has flushed out Cameron for what he is.
Sir Jonathan Sachs,
None whatsoever.
I do Sir Jonathan Sacks the honour of spelling his name correctly. He is a Chief Rabbi, and I respect the learning of a rabbi. I respect Education.........it is something I was brought up to do.
I do not respect Celebrity or Money, but I live in a society which worships these and despises Education.
And Croydonian, religions are not just 'pressure groups', they are deeper and more important, they are the foundations of civilisations and morality, comparing them to those who want to build a Tescos down the road is to trivialise their importance in people's lives.
We agree !
National Secular Society
Yes, whose Media Spokesman is the author of a plethora of books on Gay Sex...............it is basically a front organisation
If you compare that to a Church you are truly misguided
Actually The Rev Dr Ian Paisley is a Member of Parliament something a serving Church of England cleric or Catholic priest is forbidden to undertake.
Not so. The current MP for Rhondda, Chris Bryant, is still an Anglican priest in holy orders. Catholics are not prevented by the laws of the United Kingdom; they are prevented by the law of the Vatican.
Rick, I made a typo. It happens.
Meanwhile, on rather more serious issues, whichever form of Christianity you adhere to I would not doubt that there are other variants which you find rather less to your taste and would not wish to see influencing policy. And that is before we even get onto other faiths. Given that attempts to unite the C of E and the Methodist churches foundered, the idea that there can be a unified faith voice even amongst Christians verges on the absurd. Where is the common ground amongst, for example, Ismailis, Sikhs, Free Presbyterians and Buddhists?
And if someone from the NSS has written on gay sex - so what? If we run with the 1 in 10 figure, there are many, many more gay people in the UK than there are active adherents to any faith in the UK with the possible exceptions of Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. Do you consider that secularists should not be allowed to lobby in support of their interests?
Do you consider that secularists should not be allowed to lobby in support of their interests?
I shall consider that point. As for Terry sanderson i see you are very unfamiliar with his works - read a few and inform yourself.
I still do not understand your point - I agree with Al-amin that politicians should be polite to clerics and not gratuitously snub them as Cameron has done. You seem to feel it is right to snub people if they hold a religious faith. I did not distinguish between faiths, I merely said clerics should be treated with respect - then it was suggested that Rev Dr Ian Paisley or the Chiref Rabbi should not be treated with respect.
I am clear in my mind what I believe, some of you seem very muddled indeed.
The current MP for Rhondda, Chris Bryant, is still an Anglican priest in holy orders.
The MP for Rhondda on his own Website states that he left The Church in 1991 to join The Labour Party as election agent for Frank Dobson MP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_Disqualification_Act_1975
In 1951 (In Re MacManaway) the Privy Council decided that the 1801 Act not only disqualified persons ordained in the Church of England, but also all persons ordained by a bishop in accordance either with the order of the Church of England or with other forms of episcopal ordination. In the particular case of Reverend James G. MacManaway, this included ordination according to the use of the Church of Ireland. Thus, in broad terms, those clergy who were ordained by a bishop were subject to the disqualification whereas clergy and ministers of religion who were not ordained by a bishop were not subject to the disqualification.
6. The Clergy Disqualification Act 1870, however, provided a procedure which enabled Church of England clergy to relinquish their clerical positions and, after a period of six months, be freed from the parliamentary disqualification. There is no equivalent statutory procedure for clergy of other churches.
The House Of Commons (Removal Of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001
Section 1: removal of disqualification of clergy
10. This section establishes (in subsection (1)) that a person who has been ordained or who is a Minister of religion is not disqualified from being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons. It accordingly displaces the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and section 9 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, and ensures that any other rule of law which might prevent clergy sitting ceases to have effect. It makes provision, however, (in subsection (2)) for the continuing disqualification of any bishop who sits in the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual. Subsection (3) then introduces two Schedules, which contain consequential amendments and repeals of statutory provisions relating to clergy disqualification.
Rick, I think we have a misunderstanding. I am not arguing that faith groups should be ignored - any politician who sets out to snub potential voters would be a fool - but rather that if a faith group is attempting to sway policy, it will necessarily have an agenda. This agenda might, or might not, gel with the principles of a political party, and in some areas there will clearly be a disconnect - it might be on abortion, divorce, sexual orientation, education etc etc.
"...politicians should be polite to clerics (Agreed)... and not gratuitously snub them as Cameron has done."
Gratuitously snub? That's one intepretation; but we would not know about any alleged snub but for the Cardinal's office (or was it Speaker Martin?). The decision to tell the world about it is clear enough evidence of the sort of agenda Croydonian alludes to.
The decision to tell the world about it is clear enough evidence of the sort of agenda Croydonian alludes to.
It certainly is. This is a church with a political mission. The publicity is calculated to humiliate Cameron into future concessions, and I am more than persuaded it will be toward repealing/amending the Act of Settlement. They want a cross-party consensus, and then parliamentary action.
If they mess with The Act of Settlement we can then get rid of the judges and Parliament.............it is tempting. If only the Army was bigger - we have not had a good mutiny since The Curragh.
The publicity is calculated to humiliate Cameron into future concessions
Give me a break......Steve Hilton will tell Cameron what to do as Alistair Campbell pulls Blair's strings.
What does Cameron have to offer anyone ? He will never be Prime Minister he cannot win enough seats and Tories are exotica in the North of England
He will never be Prime Minister
We have a prophet in our midst...
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Rick.
If you receive any advanced notification of religio-political developments, Cranmer would be deeply appreciative of the scoop.
You are indeed fortunate Cranmer for as you foretold your own impending doom amid the faggots of St Giles and thrust your withered hand into the flames of recantation; so you have learned what is to come.
Your luck has turned.
If I may indulge in a spot of prophecy... Rick, with public confidence in Labour's ability to deliver on its core promises in free fall and the imminent arrival of Gordo in No 10, the Conservatives could quite reasonably expect a large share of disaffected voters to come home to the Conservative Party by the next election.Of the 80 most marginal seats, 75 have the Conservatives in second place...
After Labour lost the 1992 election, many people thought they would never see a Labour government again...but we did, alas.
I am not doubting what you say gc and i have no love for this administration. I am however aware that 59 seats in Scotland will not fall to the Conservatives, nor will seats in Northern Ireland, and few if any in Wales.
Outside the South east I cannot imagine many seats in West or South Yorkshire will go Conservative. It was hard enough for the Conservatives to recapture a seat from Labour once held by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee - in 2001 they could not manage a 2% swing.
I have never voted Labour, never will; but I can see no reason to vote Conservative either. In this part of the world they seem so foreign, so obsessed with London issues and not really in tune with this part of England.
For that reason I could only vote for a strong local candidate focused on local issues, not a party cipher. He may be a Conservative, but I doubt I shall ever vote for Conservative as a label and in that I am not alone.
The current constellation is simply not convincing and I found no reason to vote in May. Our Council is Conservative propped up by Lib Dems - after the election the Conservatives had lost 4 seats to Labour and 1 to LibDems.
Anonymous,
While your contributions are always welcome(assuming you are the same anonymous who posted previously), please would you call yourself 'Colin'? If you are female, you may still call yourself 'Colin'.
Namelessness is worse than facelessness: subsequent contributors need to focus their scorn and wrath specifically (in the absence of Mr Al-Amin, though even he appears to found an ally on one issue...)
Mr. Al-Amin, of course, enjoys an active social/sporting life so frequently absents his good self from our midst. The venerable Cranmer is right to argue that the anonymous multitudes need to aquire sound, stolid, workman-like names such as Tony or Barbara.
Scotland is self-evidently a lost cause for the Conservatives, if they hold on to 15-17% of the vote for the Scot. Parl. elections next year it'll be termed as a major coup. As far as Wales goes, the Vale of Glamorgan and at a stretch Conwy look winnable for the Cons. But that's about it.
So why don't The Tories propose a Referendum in England on Scottish Independence ?
The only way to win support in Northern england and split Labour is by showing how much more Scotland gets than Northern England
Hello Colin.
I've always wanted a Colin on my blog.
Now I have one.
Bless you.
Colin, apparently, is an anglicising of Cailean - which means whelp in gaelic. Fascinating, eh?
Colin can become Anon once more
Thank you, Mr Croydonian, for your fascinating research. You might also discover the meaning of the one who goes away from time to time.
And Mr Colin, you may indeed once again become anon, but so might we all.
My pleasure...
It looks to mean 'honest, reliable', and a bit more sniffing around has turned up a Hebrew equivalent in 'Ami', pronounced with a long 'A'.
It must be so exciting down there in Croydon with nothing to do but count passing aircraft to stay awake......but really...........
Ah, you don't know what you are missing Colin. And it is the trams rather than planes that make most of the noise where I am.
Mssrs Colin & Croydonian,
For discussion about the superficial, inane and irrelevant, please go to David Milliband's blog or LabourHome.com.
Sorry your grace. Any plans to comment on what our Episcopalian friends on the other side of the Pond have got up to?
Post a Comment
<< Home