Be nice!

To be fair, it doesn’t actually take a great deal for a Cardinal in the Roman Church to unsettle my equanimity. Most of the time I can luxuriate in the Jesuitical sophistry of the Princes of the Faith and be quite jocose about their sheer hypocrisy and callous disregard for actual life experience but, sometimes, the joke wears a little thin. One of those thin times was while listening to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor talking about the new single sex parental adoption legislation not being waived for Roman Catholic and other faith adoption agencies.

I am more than prepared to believe that the Cardinal is a decent person. I have heard him speak on various topics and he seems to be quite reasonable for a clergyman: not enlightened, that would be to expect too much, but (allowing for the burden of faith) at least slightly in touch with the verities of modern living.

My previous response evaporated listening to his explanation of the response of his church to its political impotence when trying to change the government’s mind about the inclusion of faith organizations in the anti discrimination legislation.

One of the many reasons for despising fundamentalist faiths, especially the Christian fundamentalist sects, is for those aspects of the human condition they choose to identify as the litmus paper of their beliefs. Before I list the two most ‘popular’ moral issues for unscrupulous faiths; a digression.

My father was a very gifted rugby player. According to family belief, and my reading of contemporary newspaper accounts, he was denied a place in the Welsh team by sporting politics. His talent was, however, widely recognised and he was asked to play for a number of teams. At the time that he was at his prime, just after the war, Rugby Union was an amateur sport: players played for the love of the game not for any cash that they might want to make from the sport. If they wanted money then they could ‘Go North’ and play professional Rugby League for a northern English rugby team. Indeed, such was the attitude of the governing body of the amateur sport to the commercial aspects that, any suggestion that a player might have been paid any money other than expenses, would result in an immediate ban from playing Rugby Union games.

How clean! How pure! Except, of course, it wasn’t. Many good players were paid ‘boot money’: a cash amount deposited in a player’s boot, no questions asked. And sometimes without even that subterfuge. But the public line was that the sport was purely amateur, and if there were ‘rotten apples’ taking money, then they were the corrupt few. Pious duplicity! Wilful self deception. Payment was widespread and everyone who mattered knew it happened. My father was a decent, honest man who believed that a good workman was worthy of his hire.

Although there are few similarities in content to ‘boot money’ there are many comparisons in attitude when I think of the less enlightened churches’ attitudes to homosexuality and abortion.

I do not deny that there are moral questions which need to be addressed about any person’s response to these two aspects of human life. They pose immense ‘problems’ for some people who regard the ‘issues’ of almost equal ‘quality’ and their ‘resolution’ being almost a basic entry requirement of the faith.

I have no intention of exploring the ‘issues’ (and I’m getting tired of using quotation marks), though I would say that the equation of an aspect of human sexuality with a woman’s right to choice is somewhat mystifying.

The two do seem to polarise conservative opinion and allow the more bigoted elements in congregations to concentrate belief in two easily appreciated ‘problems.’ Abortion is murder and homosexuality is perversion. Easy! No grey areas; easy judgements; excellent rallying points. And, of course, the churches have no ‘experience’ of the ‘problems.’ Homosexuality and abortion happen outside the faith, not in it – and we are back to the ‘boot money’ attitude of denial.

It would be facile (if entertaining) to enumerate the number of Popes who were covertly or extravagantly homosexual, but, on the other hand, without the proportion of the present clergy who are hardworking gay Christians, the Church would find it very difficult to survive. The Church knows it has homosexuals as an essential working part of its structure, but finds itself unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge that fact.

The Cardinal tried, in his comments to differentiate his attitude towards gay couples and a straight couple, by talking of an optimum family situation which, to him, would entail a mother and a father, which in turn would, of necessity, predicate a man and a woman. He emphasised that he meant no disrespect to homosexuals, but in this case there was a justification for differentiation. Unfortunately, saying it doesn’t mean that what you’ve said is true. It is disrespect and it does denigrate a gay relationship. It is unfortunate that the Cardinal is forced to tailor ideas to make paradoxes seem palatable.

The Cardinal Archbishop is a public personality; he has a high profile and is not reticent about placing his views on the record, but he is by no means the most objectionable of the demagogues who spread division by offering simplistic judgements to the howling delight of their followers.

‘Boot money’ happened, and now Rugby Union is a highly commercial and lucrative money making organization with individual players getting handsome remuneration for their sport – and quite right too. I wonder if Rugby might indicate a sort of lesson for his Eminance.

Ever the optimist, in spite of the cough!