"Too much Catholicism is detrimental to a nation's fiscal health"

Before the ubiquitous one-man inquisition pounces upon His Grace with allegations of 'bigotry', this article is reproduced in its entirety from the BBC website. It takes a theme long-advanced by this blog - that the EU 'project' is far deeper than mere politics and economics. It is good that some in the mainstream media are finally catching up:

Discussion among eurozone leaders about the future of their single currency has become an increasingly divisive affair. On the surface, religion has nothing to do with it - but could Protestant and Catholic leaders have deep-seated instincts that lead them to pull the eurozone in different directions, until it breaks?

Following the last European summit in Brussels there was much talk of defeat for Chancellor Merkel by what was described as a "new Latin Alliance" of Italy and Spain backed by France.

Many Germans protested that too much had been conceded by their government - and it might not be too far-fetched to see this as just the latest Protestant criticism of the Latin approach to matters monetary, which has deep roots in German culture, shaped by religious belief.

Churchgoing has been in decline in Germany as elsewhere as secularisation has spread, but religious ideas still shape the way Germans talk and think about money. The German word for debt - schuld - is the same as the word for "guilt" or "sin".

Talk of thrift and responsible budgeting comes instinctively to Angela Merkel, daughter of a Protestant pastor.

Merkel's frequent assertion that "there is no alternative" to austerity policies (while reminiscent to Britons of Margaret Thatcher) has been likened to the famous stubborn statement by German Reformation leader Martin Luther: "Here I stand. I can do no other".

The new German president, Joachim Gauck, who might play an important role in constitutional arguments about the single currency, is also from the Protestant fold - he is a former Lutheran pastor.

The country's population is fairly evenly divided between Protestants and Catholics - as well as those of other faiths, or none - and Merkel's and Gauck's ascent symbolises changes in Germany since reunification in 1990.

Both lived in East Germany, a historically Protestant territory, while West Germany had several influential Catholic political leaders, who, in earlier post-war decades, had joined in broad Catholic enthusiasm for European integration.

Former West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, a Rhineland Catholic highly distrustful of Protestant Prussian traditions to the German east, led West Germany into the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

This created the European Economic Community, forerunner of today's EU. And there was a clear geographical fit between the six countries which signed and the territory of Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire.

Charlemagne, claimed by modern European unifiers as a kind of patron saint, had created a new currency for his territories - the livre carolienne.

Helmut Kohl, who took Germany into economic and monetary union in the 1990s, was another Catholic Rhinelander constantly visiting cathedrals and speaking of the ancient spiritual roots of a united Europe.

There was much talk of the Germans sacrificing their beloved Deutsche Mark currency "on the altar of European unity".

But German reunification at that time also meant the capital moving back to Berlin, away from closer Catholic connections felt in the west and south of the country.

And the eurozone crisis has intensified a deep-rooted debate about whether Germans, shaped by Protestantism, are fundamentally different from Catholic "Latin" countries and their allies.

German banking has, from medieval times, been more cautious than that in Italy and Spain. And sceptical Germans looking at the history of previous currency union troubles point to the 19th Century Latin Currency Union.

Germany, unifying under Prussian leadership through its own customs union, did not join. The Latin Union struggled to survive after a number of countries, notably the Papal States, minted and printed more money than they were meant to.

Politicians or states undermining money have diabolical overtones for angst-filled Germans.

In Goethe's Faust, one of the most famous works in German culture, Mephistopheles persuades the Holy Roman Emperor to issue a new paper currency - despite one of his advisers warning that this is the counsel of Satan.

Order duly breaks down as the Emperors' subjects go on a binge bearing no relation to their real wealth.

Weimar Republic hyperinflation in the early 1920s - when "money went mad" and all moral as well as economic order was seen as collapsing - seemed a diabolical vision made real.

Some in Germany suggest today's eurozone would be better dividing, with some kind of Latin Union on one side, and on the other a German-led group of like-minded countries including perhaps the (Calvinist) Dutch and the (Lutheran) Finns.

The former head of the German industry association, Hans-Olaf Henkel, has said that "the euro is dividing Europe".

He wants the Germans, Dutch and Finns to "seize the initiative and leave the euro", creating a separate northern euro.

A new split along ancient lines? The government in Berlin has begun to plan for what it sees as a hugely significant anniversary in 2017 - 500 years since Luther began The Reformation.

He was protesting against indulgences, a controversial attempt by the Papacy to solve its fiscal problems by persuading Europeans to buy absolution from their sins.

One German commentator, Stephan Richter, has suggested mischievously that the eurozone's problems would have been prevented if only Luther had been one of the negotiators of the Maastricht treaty, deciding which countries could join the euro.

"'Read my lips: No unreformed Catholic countries,' he would have chanted. The euro, as a result, would have been far more cohesive," says Richter.

Richter is himself a Catholic, but an admirer of thrifty economics. "Too much Catholicism" he suggests, "is detrimental to a nation's fiscal health, even today in the 21st Century".

But he believes some historically Catholic countries, such as Austria and Poland, may have come under more Germanic influence due to their geographical proximity. They are "Catholics perhaps, but with a healthy dose of fiscal Protestantism," he reasons.

Commemorations in 2017 will doubtless try to stress that Reformation divisions between Protestants and other reformers and Catholicism were not too great.

But the usually thrifty government under Chancellor Merkel has already promised 35 million euros to mark this birth of Protestantism.

And where will the eurozone be in 2017?

Still intact? Or coming to terms with a new historic divide between the Latins and the preachers of Protestant thrift?

Bishop of Durham to serve on Banking Standards Committee

In today's materialistic world, it is generally considered easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a bishop to serve on a parliamentary committee into Mammon. His Grace has long held that the most effective (and so most useful) politicians are those who are elected to Parliament following a few decades of experience in the real world - former doctors, nurses, soldiers, teachers, farmers and ship-builders are always going to know and understand more than those who leave Oxbridge with a first in PPE, become a special adviser, and are then sufficiently well-connected to be flown into a safe seat to begin their climb up the greasy pole.

Perhaps the same is true of clergy.

A cross-party parliamentary inquiry into the banking industry and Libor scandal has had its membership confirmed with the inclusion of the Bishop of Durham as a non-politically-aligned member from the House of Lords.

The Right Revd Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham, has been invited to sit on the commission titled the ‘Parliamentary Commission On Banking Standards’. The terms of reference set out in the motion which resulted in the commission being set-up requires it to consider and report on ‘professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector, taking account of regulatory and competition investigations into the Libor rate-setting process’ and ‘lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy’.

The Commission will be headed-up by Andrew Tyrie MP, Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee of the House of Commons. The membership of the Commission will be drawn from across parties in both Houses of parliament with six from the Commons and five from the Lords.

Bishop Justin commented: “I am very honoured to have been invited to take part in this important enquiry, which has an impact on all of us because ethical markets are essential to a flourishing economy, and thus jobs. The work commitment is obviously going to be intense, but short-lived. Having started dealing in these markets from the oil industry side in the late 1970s, and with experience not only of LIBOR related instruments but also of a range of derivatives and many other forms of market, as well as being involved in the City of London through work on ethical investing in recent years, this is an area where I hope to be able to make a useful contribution."

Bishop Justin presently sits in the House of Lords, where he specialises in finance and economic matters. He studied Law and History at Cambridge University and then spent 11 years in the oil industry based in Paris (working for Elf) and London, working on West African (principally Nigerian) and North Sea projects. In 1984 he became Group Treasurer of Enterprise Oil plc, a large UK exploration and production company in the FTSE 100. His role included overseeing all the short and long-term financing activity of Enterprise as well as insurance. He was actively involved in the development of the derivatives markets, and their use in connection with loans and foreign exchange dealing. He also sat on the Education committee of the UK Association of Corporate Treasurers. During this time he was also a lay leader at Holy Trinity, Brompton in London.

Amongst other activities, Bishop Justin has been chairman of a National Health Service Trust general hospital. He is the Personal and Ethical Adviser to the UK Association of Corporate Treasurers, and lectures extensively on ethics and finance. He chairs the Committee of Reference for Stewardship, the ethical funds owned by Friends Life and managed by F&C plc. He has published a number of articles in English and French on issues of international finance, ethics and management and also on reconciliation.

It will be interesting to see what contribution the Bishop of Durham brings to this investigation, considering Jesus expressed a certain privilege for the poor, and tended toward the view that rich men don't easily enter heaven.

What is this obsession with unity?

All political parties in a liberal democracy are coalitions of the disparate, if not the diverse, come together to agree upon a broad philosophy of government. Prior to the 19th century, politics was exercised by independent MPs who grouped informally according to type or temperament. It was only during the course of that century that these social networks evolved into what may be considered political parties.

The present Conservative Party was born out of 18th-century Tory-Whig divisions, and still contains staunch defenders of both traditions: it is the 'broad church' gathering that permits the likes of Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell to dwell under the same tent as Kenneth Clarke, or Margaret Thatcher with Ted Heath. It wasn't until 1912 that the Conservative Party merged with the Liberal Unionist Party and formally became The Conservative and Unionist Party. This year is, in fact, the centennial celebration of that union and the birth of the modern party (but don't expect any celebration or commemoration).

And the present-day Liberal Democrats are a fusion of Gladstonian Liberals (there are still a few) with those who are Social Democrat in disposition. There is an ever-present tension between the social liberals and the economic liberals (often termed 'Orange-bookers'), which permits Whig-Radicals like David Laws to break bread with moderate Socialists like Shirley Williams.

Both the Conservative and Liberal traditions embrace the top-down authoritarians and bottom-up libertarians. They both contain their reforming and conserving elements, held perpetually in tension, with diverse views on social mobility, economic liberalism, and overseas intervention, not to mention religion and secularism.

If, therefore, political parties are themselves fragile coalitions of the disparate, it stands to reason that the present Coalition Government, forged out of two already-fragmented parties, will itself be fractured across innumerable policy areas, though agreed on broad economic strategy and most of the reforms being implemented on education and welfare. Division, distrust and unsociability belie outward shows of unity and camaraderie.

This being the case, it would assist if the top-down Tory types would stop demanding that the bottom-up Whiggish element should submit to their authoritarian disposition and conform to a uniform agenda. If the liberals and conservatives in both parties bothered to sit down and listen to each other instead of bawling and bullying in the corridors of Westminster, we might just get some strategic policy direction and coherent philosophy.

But that's the grown-up approach.

The legacy of Margaret Thatcher

This tribute reminds you (should you need reminding) that desperate times call for desperate measures. "Margaret Thatcher came to power at a desperate time in her country's history, when real leadership and bold ideas were most needed. And by applying conservative principles to the challenges she faced, she was able to achieve real and lasting success. Then, as today, she faced an extraordinary set of challenges and a chorus of voices saying her country's best days were behind it. Thatcher's successes are a comforting reminder of the power of a bold, conservative vision at work."

Gimme Five! I'm going to church because of women bishops

This is a guest post by the Rev'd Julian Mann:

How many teenagers in your local Anglican parish church?

Unless you happen to live in the parish of All Souls Langham Place or Holy Trinity Brompton in London or Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle or Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield, you can hug a teenage hoody at a bus stop (or exchange a high five with one) but not generally in an Anglican church.

Your local Anglican Church is not alone in experiencing a famine of teenagers. Tim Thornborough in his outstanding article last year in the evangelical magazine The Briefing - Does the future have a church? - distilled the findings of church statistician Dr Peter Brierley: 'The generation for whom church-going was part of their culture is dying off, but the church is missing an ability to replace the dying saints with new ones.' So let’s turn to look at what is going on at the other end of the age spectrum. This is where the stats for all UK churches present a truly frightening picture. Take a deep breath and read on!

39% of churches have no-one attending under 11 years of age
49% of churches have no-one attending between the ages of 11 and 14
59% of churches have no-one attending between the ages of 15 and 19

Does anyone realistically think appointing women bishops will defuse the demographic time bomb?

The arguments for women bishops are varied. They range from the purported leadership deficiencies of an all-male House of Bishops to the claim that to refuse to consecrate women as bishops amounts to denying that men and women are made equally in the image of God.

The Roman Catholic journalist Melanie McDonagh has ably exposed the theological absurdity of that latter contention in the London Evening Standard: 'I’ve got no business, myself, getting involved, given that I’m a Catholic and we don’t actually believe that any of them (male or female Anglican priests) are properly ordained. But I do get a bit restive when I hear the likes of the Rev Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, one of the many media-friendly female clerics, declaring that “the whole point of having women bishops was to say that the Church of England believes that women and men are equal and made in the image of God. I do not want it enshrined in law that we officially do not believe that.” Hang on there. Our lot don’t have women bishops either but I’ve never had any problems on being made in the image of God, thanks all the same, Miranda.'

The Threlfall-Holmes argument could be extended to saying that the refusal to appoint a person to church leadership because they do not have the necessary ability to expound the Scriptures amounts to denying that they are made in the image of God.

God does not confer the public teaching office on all Christians; only on some. In that sense, God is discriminatory. But such divine discrimination in the conferring of his gift of teaching the Faith does not mean for one moment that church administrators, sidespeople, or those on the coffee rota are any less made in the image of God or lesser members of the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Back in the 1990s, one of the arguments put forward for the ordination of women by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, was that the church would put itself out of touch with modern society if it did not have women vicars.

But despite women being ordained priests in the years following the 1992 Synod legislation, the Church of England has continued to haemorrhage young people.

The undeniable fact of Anglican church life is that the above mentioned Christ-proclaiming churches, and many other Anglican evangelical churches around the country, have managed to attract teenagers under the ministry of male incumbents and in dioceses led by male bishops.

But for the majority of Anglican churches, no young people spells no future congregations.

If the Church of England goes ahead with appointing women bishops, the ladies in question will not require the teaching gift because there will be nobody to teach. But estate agency experience would be useful because of the large number of empty properties in their dioceses for sale or let.

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire.

Cameron takes on the Pope

Not content with rebuking the Church of England and publicly rowing with the Archbishop of Canterbury, David Cameron has now decided to take on the Bishop of Rome, successor of St Peter the Apostle, the King of the Vatican City State and worldwide leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is nothing new, of course. English monarchs and British prime ministers have throughout the centuries felt obliged to tell various successors of St Peter where they can go. But the great battles of ages past tended to be concerned with issues of sovereignty: now it is all about sexuality.

Tony Blair challenged Pope Benedict XVI on homosexuality; David Cameron has chosen contraception. In each case, they appear to believe that centuries of Roman Catholic orthodoxy can be overturned by 'the strength of our arguments'. They mistake Rome's Magisterium for the Church of England's General Synod. The motto of the Church of Rome is 'Semper Eadem'; that of the Church of England is 'Argumentum ad Nauseam'.

His Grace, being Anglican, happens to believe that condoms save lives, especially in Africa. And he would much rather a child not be conceived than aborted. For these reasons, in this incontinent age of unrestraint, he believes that contraception should be accessible across the globe. The Church of England accepted birth control in the 1930 Lambeth Conference. In the 1958 Lambeth Conference it stated that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents 'in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife'.

Not so with the Church of Rome, which specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative. Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae of 1968 decreed that all artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. According to the new Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, this is 'infallible teaching'.

That's a shame, because it means it was declared ex cathedra, and so is immutable, semper eadem (take this understanding up with the Bishop-elect Mgr Philip Egan, not His Grace).

And that leaves millions of Roman Catholics all over the world somewhat at variance with their church on this matter. Everyone knows that the papal ban on artificial birth control is largely ignored, and many millions of otherwise sincere and obedient Roman Catholics long for a change of policy. The women in particular (including a few American nuns) might rather like the Pope to listen the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (and the President of the United States) on this matter.

The thing is, of course, that those Roman Catholics who speak out against their church hierarchy are manifesting that very same spirit of protest which ushered in the Protestant Reformation. One either submits to the infallible teachings of one's church, or one disputes and disobeys them. Roman Catholicism is not like à la carte Anglicanism: one may not choose one dimension of the Magisterium and pour scorn upon the rest; one may not prefer one ecumenical council over another; one may not be ‘a pro-abortion Catholic’ or a 'pro-condom Catholic' any more than one may be a paedophile priest. And for Pope Benedict, flooding Africa with condoms is tantamount to murder. This is not a battle the Prime Minister can win.

London 2012 Olympic fascism

"A free man," said Hobbes, "is he that...is not hindered to do what he has to do." Law is always a fetter, even if it protects you from being bound in chains that are heavier than those of the law, like some more repressive law or custom, or arbitrary despotism or chaos.

Still, we must be grateful that McDonald's does not make the law of the land, or they would prohibit all vendors of chips from serving chips, unless accompanied by fish.

That is the absurd menu limitation the Olympic sponsors have imposed upon all 800 food retailers at the 40 Games venues across Britain.

That isn't political coercion; it is enslavement.

Further, His Grace understands that the terms 'Olympic' and 'London 2012' are now subject to such draconian monitoring as would make Orwell blush. His Grace doesn't even know if he may use the terms in the title of the post.

This isn't sponsorhip; it is Olympic fascism. Imagine if Buckingham Palace had sought to control use of the words 'Diamond' and 'Jubilee' throughout the recent celebrations, reserving them solely for 'official sponsors'. The Olympics belong to the world: they are the people's games. To associate them with oppression, directly or indirectly, with or without the intention of doing so, is to deny freedom and negate the ideal.

And, apparently, Israeli President Shimon Peres has had to cancel his planned visit to the Olympic opening ceremony after the organisers failed to accommodate his desire not to travel by car on Shabbat.

One wonders if McDonald's will be serving up halal meat with their protected chips.

Thanks to The Spectator for the graphic (assuming their use of the Olympic rings is legal..)

Why does the Church of England hold Jews in contempt?

There was no appeal for reflection; no pause to consider the hurt which may be caused if the motion were passed, as there was over the Synod vote on women bishops. There was no apprehension; no consideration of how the Jewish minority might feel alienated or offended, as there was over black and Asian minorities over the Synod vote to proscribe the BNP.

No, without so much as a glance at the Psalmody, the General Synod of the Church of England has passed a motion endorsing the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), which is nothing but an insidious front for a pro-Palestinian campaign to propagate the partisan lie that, while Israel is besieged by child killers, infiltrated by suicide bombers, surrounded by Islamist propagandists and endures almost daily missiles launched at civilian areas, she is the aggressor, the terroriser, the occupying force.

The declared vision of the EAPPI is to bring ‘internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation’. Its mission is to ‘accompany Palestinians and Israelis in their non-violent actions and to carry out concerted advocacy efforts to end the occupation’. They ‘support acts of non-violent resistance’ in order to achieve this and, since Israel is the ‘occupying force’, it stands to reason that the EAPPI’s raison d’être is to criticise and delegitimise Israel, a country which contends daily with concerted efforts to wipe its people off the face of the earth.

The EAPPI creed is very simple: Palestinians are victims; Israelis are aggressors; Zionists are evil; the IDF are terrorists. It was spawned by the World Council of Churches which, over the years, has passed motions calling for ‘an international boycott of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories’; lauded Yassir Arafat as a hero for ‘bringing the Palestinian people together’; and called for ‘the right of return of Palestinian refugees’, despite this posing an existential threat to the Jewish homeland. The WCC unashamedly declares: ‘The EAPPI is a central element of the Ecumenical Campaign to End the Illegal Occupation of Palestine.’

Notably absent from their statements on the Middle is explicit condemnation of Palestinian incitement to hatred of Israel and Jews, much of it directed at Palestinian children. Neither is any blame for Palestinian suffering laid at the door of Palestinian leaders who have squandered $billions of aid on bribes and terrorism over decades. Nor do human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority, including the rights of Palestinian Christians, attract much WCC attention.

No, the EAPPI ascribes Palestinian misery to apartheid Israel alone, consistently turning a blind eye to Palestinian aggression, corruption, rejectionism and incitement (not to mention Islamism, homophobia, racism and the oppression of women). The EAPPI is blind to anti-Semitism and deaf to the numerous overtures to peace which have been offered. They are ignorant of Israel’s need for security, and oblivious to the fact that she alone in the entire region is a vibrant, tolerant, multiracial, multi-faith society.

Islamist persecution, widespread throughout the Middle East, is the primary cause of the haemorrhage of Christians from the region. Yet the Church of England myopically concerns itself with Israel. There was no Synod motion to discuss the human rights violations of North Korea, Iran or the Sudan.

Canon Andrew White, who knows a thing or two about the region, is a self-declared friend of Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Muslims. He called on the Synod to reject the motion calling for endorsement of EAPPI. He wrote a month ago:

The motion is unjust and has caused deep pain in the Jewish Community. It neglects the wars against Israel's very right to exist. It overlooks the persecution of Jews in the Middle East that preceded the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Israel-like all countries-is not perfect, but she sincerely wishes to find peace.

It is not clear why Synod is being asked to adopt a one sided "NAKBA" narrative against Israel while our fellow Christians are dying in Iraq, Sudan, Egypt and Syria. There are many wonderful peace-loving people in the Palestinian territories who are entangled in a conflict they do not endorse, but the culture of incitement against Jews and Christians as well as the continuing rocket bombardments on Sderot are factors that Synod is being asked to ignore or at best discount.

Yet the Synod ignored him, indifferent to the ‘deep pain’ caused to Jews the world over. In the final vote, the bishops voted 21 to 3 in favour (with 14 abstentions), clergy 89 to 21 (44 abstentions), and laity 91 to 30 (35 abstentions). In total, the motion received 201 votes, while only 54 members voted against.

The President of the Board of Deputies has issued a strongly-worded statement on behalf of British Jewry, condemning utterly the decision to adopt the motion. ‘The Jewish community does not need lessons from the Anglican Church in justice and peace, themes which originated in our tradition’, it concludes.

Imagine the remorse which would have been published the next day in the pages of the Guardian if such a statement had been made by Peter Tatchell on behalf of Britain’s gays. Imagine the sermons delivered by dissenting vicars, bishops and archbishops all over England if the Synod had ‘ridden roughshod over the very real and legitimate concerns’ of women or black and Asian sensitivities.

The Board of Deputies noted that the EAPPI has recently issued a publication, 'Chain Reaction', which calls on supporters to ‘stage sit-ins at Israeli Embassies, to hack government websites in order to promote its message and declares EAPPI's support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel’.

Vice President of the European Jewish Congress, Vivian Wineman added: ‘To hear the debate at Synod littered with references to “powerful lobbies”, the money expended by the Jewish community, “Jewish sounding names” and the actions of the community “bringing shame on the memory of victims of the Holocaust”, is deeply offensive and raises serious questions about the motivation of those behind this motion.’

A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy said: "We are deeply disappointed that General Synod has endorsed the work of a highly partisan organisation. Christians face rising persecution across the region and yet, by supporting this group, the Church of England has chosen to amplify one-sided voices and to single out Israel – the only country where Christian rights are enshrined and the Christian population is growing.

"We share the concerns of all those within the Church of England who opposed this resolution as being misguided and undermining hopes for genuine understanding and reconciliation."

So, there you have it. In today’s Church of England, the equal right of women to be bishops is worthy of serious reflection; the equal rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and the transgendered are to be respected; the equal rights of black, Asian and minority ethnic groups are to be advanced.

But sod the Jews. They can be ‘dismayed’, ‘completely dismissed’, and ‘ridden roughshod over’. Even after they have ‘suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings’ and have many ‘legitimate concerns’, the General Synod doesn’t give a damn.

As long as they’re happy about their progress on matters of gender and sexuality, and are secure in the eradication of BNP-sympathising vicars, Anglican-Jewish relations are of no consequence at all.

This ‘puny’ Bill

‘Puny’ is the word used yesterday by Sir Malcolm Rifkind of Nick Clegg’s proposals to reform the House of Lords. Nicholas Soames said the Bill was a ‘constitutional catastrophe’ that ‘must be defeated at all costs’. As each political big-beast stood like a sturdy oak to crush Clegg’s constitutional dog’s breakfast, up popped the DPM like an Andrex puppy to cock his leg at the centuries of wisdom they represented.

The case for reform is unarguable. It is absurd to have an Upper Chamber heading for 900 members, swelled by a further 100-or-so by each new incoming PM in order to restore the balance of power.

But a Chamber which is 80 per cent elected by PR and 20 per cent appointed by an ‘independent commission’, bequeathing to the LibDems the permanent balance of power, giving ‘Lords’ a single term of 15 years during which period they will be unaccountable and (because they cannot stand again) at liberty to behave as they wish, is such a squalid constitutional affront that one can scarcely believe that it is coming before Parliament under a Conservative Prime Minister.

It may be true that House of Lords reform is the only thing Nick Clegg requested in the Queen’s Speech, but you can’t honourably barter with the Constitution for short-term political expediency. The Coalition may be tested if Cameron were to tell Clegg where to go, but the LibDems are hardly in a position to walk away and demand a general election when their numbers are likely to be halved.

And this profound change to OUR Parliament is being proposed without a referendum. Moreover, the Government is attempting to ram it through on a 10-day guillotine. Where is the scrutiny, the integrity, the moral justification for replacing (in the words of Conor Burns MP) the distinguished captains of industry, retired senior civil servants and military figures, people from the arts and voluntary sectors, diplomats and bishops with a new phalanx of politicians chosen from lists selected by the political parties and their ever-diminishing memberships?

Why should Margaret Thatcher seek to demean herself by taking part in a petty popularity contest in order to retain her peerage? Why would anyone of stature choose to do so? What discernment have the people to determine wisdom and experience, or discern philosophy from celebrity?

This Bill will simply usher in another 400 party placemen, selected by the political elite for preferment on their party lists. Being democratically elected they will, as sure as night follows day, challenge the supremacy of the Commons, and will do so legitimately.

No true Conservative can support this Bill: it is constitutional vandalism. Rumours are that should the Bill fall, the LibDems will wreck the planned boundary changes. Let them. There is no justification for sacrificing the enduring Constitution of the United Kingdom for a Liberal Democrat coalition obsession. Let them dishonour themselves. Let the political pygmy Nick Clegg throw his toys out of his pram, and the baby with the bathwater. But Conservatives must be true to their foundational philosophy to conserve, and mindful of the Burkean principle that reform must be incremental, not revolutionary, in accordance with the customs and mores of the people.

His Grace agrees with the Baroness Boothroyd: “This Bill has not been thought through. I say to the people defying the whip, ‘Good luck to you, you are doing the right thing by your constituents, by your country and by Parliament’.”

Amen.

Church of England moves to proscribe the BNP

Most will have immense sympathy with an expression of Christian witness which seeks to denounce racism in all its forms, including in the temporal political realm. The Church should be completely intolerant of all those who would foment discord on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour: since the Early Church abolished the Jew-Greek division and declared all to be one in Christ Jesus, there can be no theological rationale 2000 years later for black-brown-white segregation. To be Christian is to be blind to race: all of humanity is equal in the great plan of salvation.

But here we have the Established Church of England intent on enshrining in ecclesiastical law a prohibition on those in Holy Orders from membership of a political party which is not only legally constituted in the United Kingdom, but has won elections to the European Parliament and is deemed to conform to both UK and EU law.

Oh, of course, the party has not been named: the General Synod has simply decreed that allegiance to a party whose policies are ‘incompatible with the teaching of the Church of England in relation to the equality of persons or groups of different races’ would be ‘unbecoming and inappropriate’. So, in theory, all racist or discriminatory political parties are to be proscribed.

But let us be clear: clergy are being prohibited from joining the BNP because the Church is perceived by some to have a problem with racism (too few BME vicars and bishops). Which is fair enough. But the Church is also perceived by a sizeable constituency to have a problem with homosexuality (too few practising gay vicars and bishops). And, moreover, the Church is perceived by an even more sizeable constituency to have a problem with women (none is permitted in the Episcopate).

His Grace has undoubtedly met a few racists in the Church of England, just as he has in the Roman Catholic Church. He has even come across one or two in the Baptist and Methodist churches. He has come across none in the Church of the Latter Day Saints, but that may be because he knows no Mormons.

But, ultimately, it is obseved that everyone’s a little bit racist.

We know that the Synod motion is aimed at one party in particular, for it was born out of a proposal in 2009 by Vasantha Gnanadoss who warned then of the potential for the BNP to grow in influence. “Passing this motion is a push that is seriously necessary,” she told the Synod at that time.

The peculiar thing is that it is a completely hypothetical move, since no member of the Church of England clergy is presently known to be a member of the BNP. But if one were, why would they now disclose it? And, further, it is not at all clear how prohibiting membership of a racist or discriminatory political party could change a racist or discriminatory heart, with which the Lord is far more concerned.

That the BNP has a racist foundation is beyond dispute. That the Church of England is sexist at the Episcopal level is also beyond dispute. That the Church of England is ‘homophobic’ (to use the vernacular) is manifest to everyone who grasps the basic principles of discrimination. Some would say these discriminations are ‘institutional’.

Yet the Church of England has only voted in favour of legislation to prohibit clergy from joining racist or discriminatory political parties like the BNP because that party’s policies are deemed to be inconsistent with Christian values, notwithstanding that there are many thousands who find the Church’s stance on women and gays equally inconsistent with Christian values.

If it be ‘unbecoming’ and ‘inappropriate’ to associate with a political party which is deemed (by some) to be racist or discriminatory, what about the Rev’d Stephen Sizer?

Or does ‘unbecoming’ and ‘inappropriate’ conduct exclude anti-Semitism?

And what of UKIP?

Surely, if there is neither Jew nor Greek, and if there is neither black nor white, a fortiori there is neither British nor French; neither German nor Spanish, for the Church is universal and completely unconcerned with the artificial confines of the nation state. Surely a political party which advocates United Kingdom independence – that is, separateness from all other European nations – is propagating nationalism and discrimination, and so ought also to be proscribed.

It is now for the Bishops to determine which parties or organisations are deemed to be incompatible with Christian values. To them is given power to bind and loose, and they may do so as long as two thirds of them support the motion. Any ban can be lifted by a simple majority vote should the political party repent and change its ways.

One wonders how long it will be before a bunch of Guardian-reading, liberal-leaning bishops determine membership of the Conservative Party to be ‘unbecoming’ or ‘inappropriate’ conduct for clergy, for, surely, that which became known as Thatcherism was (and is) frequently denounced as being ‘incompatible’ with Church teaching on equality. What of the poor? Was not Jesus the first Socialist?

His Grace can hardly wait to see which political parties or organisations are deemed by the Bishops to be incompatible with Christian teaching and so proscribed. For then we will surely see high-profile court cases giving such groups £millions worth of free publicity. His Grace is loath to quote any BNP spokesman (and, like the bishops, they do all tend to be men). But one of their number has challenged the Church of England, insisting: “We are a modern, forward thinking and progressive nationalist party. We are non-discriminatory and we have a constitution to match. It is high time that was put out there. The Church of England has to keep up to date – they are stuck in the 1970s.”

And since the European Convention on Human Rights gives all people (including CofE vicars, who fall within the broad definition of ‘people’) the right to freedom of political belief, the Church cannot win in the courts: clergy cannot be disciplined for lawful political activity.

For His Grace, if the Church of England were to expend just one tenth of its efforts to the propagation of the Gospel that it devotes to issues of gender or sexual equality, it might just reverse its terminal decline. Racist views and discriminatory undertones are going to exist wherever there is diversity and the freedoms of belief, expression and association. This is not to excuse them: it is a simple statement of fact. But the proscribing of the outward manifestation will not transform the inner life of the believer, which is a work of the Holy Spirit.

According to the latest church statistics, only 2.8 per cent its 114 bishops and 1.4 per cent of the 4,443 vicars come from ethnic minorities. No doubt we are now heading for quotas to address this scandalous under-representation.

What would Jesus say?

Well, for the Church of England, God can undoubtedly speak through the Labour Party, the Guardian, the EU, the Rev’d Giles Fraser, and even an ass (Numbers 22:21-38). But He would never choose to speak through a member of the BNP. No, they have replaced the ‘homosexual offenders’ who were once destined for eternal darkness: the Kingdom of Heaven is not for such as those.

Cry God for Andy, Scotland, and St Andrew!

Not since 1938 has a Briton reached the men’s singles final at Wimbledon. And not since 1936 has one won it. No doubt if Andy Murray triumphs today, it will be hailed a Scottish victory, which Alex Salmond will then appropriate to the armoury of his battle for independence (which also includes Glasgow hosting the Commonweath Games and the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles in 2014, not forgetting Sir Sean Connery and the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn). There’s nothing like national pride to boost nationalist fervour.

Should Murray lose, of course, it is likely to be portrayed as yet another British defeat to be added to the long and sorry decades of national deflation and disappointment, which Mr Salmond will no doubt put down to the London-centric myopia of Wimbledon. The body language in the Royal Box between Scotland’s First Minister and the UK’s Prime Minister will be interesting to watch.

But it would be fitting – not to say rather neat – for Murray to win Wimbledon in the year of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, for Virginia Wade won it for Britain in 1977, the year of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee. Yes, Jonathan Marray won the men's doubles final yesterday (the first for 76 years). But, well, it’s not quite the same national glory when half the team is Danish. Follow up the glorious Diamond celebrations with a Wimbledon victory in the men’s singles, and follow that with a haul of Gold medals for team GB at the British Olympics, and David Cameron might be able to bask in a little reflected glory.

Only joking.

By all accounts Andy Murray is a Glaswegian Roman Catholic, deeply spiritual man, a believer in the One True God and His Son Jesus Christ.

We’ve heard nothing from Cardinal Keith O’Brien: he may very well be clutching his Rosary Beads today, but the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu has used his Pulpit-in-the-Sun to compose a prayer for the occasion:

Loving God we are so filled with hope by the Wimbledon final today! Guide Andy Murray in the choices that come to him with every ball. Make us all the best that we can be, by your Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, to the glory of God our Father. Amen.

That's nice.

Of course, such a prayer would be utterly otiose if Murray were rubbish at tennis. One must be a very fine player indeed to reach a Wimbledon final, and that is all that counts. But when God-given gifts of sporting prowess, mental capacity and physical endurance are complemented by spiritual faith, great things are possible – even against the Goliath of tennis Roger Federer.

As the nation holds its collective breath – that is, the whole United Kingdom – the Scot will point to the heavens muttering his private prayers in unison with his fellow countrymen. But the English, Welsh and Northern Irish of all faiths and none will also be uttering incantations of hope. We will feel his pride, wonder at his flourish, and clench our teeth as he struggles and grimaces for every point.

We long to celebrate in delirium, to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Just for today, Andy Murray is the heart of the nation. May God be with him.

The Saltire should replace the LGBT flag flying over Whitehall

This is the flag which (for the first time) is presently flying over Whitehall at the request (on the command?) of the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, in honour of Gay Pride.

As much as God loves lesbians, gays, bisexuals and the transgendered, His Grace is persuaded that, in honour of Andy Murray's momentous achievement in becoming the first British man to reach a Wimbledon final since 1938, the Prime Minister ought to give the order for the Scottish Saltire, the Saint Andrew's Cross, to fly over Whitehall and No10 Downing Street over this weekend.

Surely?

Solicitor advocate says Law Society is ‘intellectually dishonest’ on gay marriage

You may recall that the Law Society recently banned a conference on family issues to be addressed by a senior High Court judge because debating gay marriage supposedly breached its ‘diversity policy’. The Society is now being sued by Christian Concern. His Grace can't help feeling that this guest post will assist their cause.

It is written by lawyer Gerard Stubbert, a Jesuit-educated hereditary Leftie (evidence, if any were needed, of His Grace's commitment to harmonious ecumenical, cross-party relations). Mr Stubbert originally qualified at the Bar (Gray's Inn) and is a solicitor-advocate. He has acted or appeared in a number of cases with a religious element, involving spats in mosques, gurdwaras, schules and churches (Roman Catholic and Anglican). On the matter of the Law Society and its stance on same-sex marriage, he writes:

Over 150,000 solicitors support same-sex marriage. I know this because the other week I picked up my copy of the Law Society Gazette and saw that the top story on the front page was headlined ‘Society supports same-sex marriage’. That was rather baffling. Given the nature of lawyers such unanimity seems improbable. Perhaps it was a majority of the 150,000 odd solicitors who supported same sex marriage. Or perhaps not, as I don’t recall the Law Society asking my opinion. I’m not the only solicitor who was surprised.

Perhaps our elected Council had a vote on the issue, and it will be in the minutes. That is not as easy to check as you might imagine. The minutes are available, in the Law Society library in Chancery Lane. But they are not on the shelves to be perused by members, as is the case with Hansard in some of the better libraries. To gain access is quite a rigmarole. However, I have seen a copy of the minutes of the last Council meeting and same-sex marriage was not discussed.

So how does the Law Society arrive at an official position on an issue?

The Law Society is governed in much the same way as the country as a whole. Every few years we have elections; those who rule us take large sums of money from us, and then largely ignore us. Oh yes, when it comes to representing our interests to the wider world, they usually make a mess of it. So it is very much like the governance of the country as a whole.

Who then decided that solicitors would come out so strongly in favour of same-sex marriage? I’ll come back to that, but a blog post by Council member Keith Etherington on an incident some while ago is illuminating. On 16th May he blogged his enthusiastic support for the decision of the Law Society to cancel at short notice a meeting organised by the World Council of Families.

So what was the Law Society’s objection to this meeting? According to the report in the Telegraph, the letter cancelling the meeting said that ‘it is contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same sex marriage’. Try as I might I simply can’t identify which part of the Law Society’s diversity policy makes compulsory support for a change in the law to enable same sex marriage. Let’s look and see what Des Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society, said: “We are proud of our role in promoting diversity in the solicitors’ profession and felt that the content of this conference sat uncomfortably with our stance.” Now that is much clearer. Let me explain.

‘We’ refers to the small group of elected solicitor officials and non-elected non-solicitor senior management who run the Law Society on a day-to-day basis. Their role in promoting diversity in the solicitors’ profession appears to be adding more questions to the interminable forms we must complete, because there is little they can do to change the culture of a firm which is hostile, and there is nothing they need to do where the firm is already committed to equality; this is pure management-speak. It is the final phrase ‘the content of this conference sat uncomfortably with our stance’ which is most interesting. So this was a conference which was actively against same-sex marriage then? Er, well, no it wasn’t. The keynote speaker was Mr Justice Coleridge. Sir Paul Coleridge recently established a charity, the Marriage Foundation, which supports traditional marriage as the best environment for raising children. It most specifically does not oppose same-sex marriage. It is inconceivable that a sitting judge, particularly one of such seniority and experience, would expressly campaign one way or the other about contemplated legislation. The content of the conference included debate. So what the Law Society apparatchiks objected to was debate.

Let’s turn now to the authorship of the Law Society’s response, and its content. It was written by the Family Law Committee of the Law Society. Almost everything they said was questionable one way or another, and I could dissect it line by line, but His Grace would never forgive me if even one of his readers died of boredom, so in my comments I shall restrict myself to the first three sentences:

The Law Society agrees with removing the ban on same-sex marriages to enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.

The opening phrase of the sentence is intellectually dishonest. There has never been any such ban, for the simple reason that if something is previously unknown to society, religion and the law, it cannot be described as banned. The final phrase displays confusion, surprising in a group of lawyers who practise in the family courts. The marriage is the exchange of vows which is at the heart of a wedding ceremony. Although it was commonplace to exchange such vows in front of a priest, it was not necessary and only became a requirement for Catholics by the Council of Trent in 1563, and for Anglicans later still by Lord Hardwicke’s Act of 1753. A marriage by simple exchange of vows, sometimes incorrectly called a common law marriage, was possible in Scotland until 2006. A marriage between a Catholic and a Baptist at a register office is a valid sacramental marriage according to both Roman canons and the canons of the Church of England.

The current situation prevents equal access to a civil contract for same sex couples.

That is just plain wrong. The current situation specifically provides equal access to a civil contract, a civil partnership, for same sex couples, which mirrors the law relating to married couples in all respects except one – there is no adultery ground for divorce. I would have thought that one or two of these family law practitioners might have noticed all the references to civil partnership in the Family Procedure Rules. It follows that ‘(i)t therefore constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation’ is complete tosh. The current law does indeed provide for a civil wedding ceremony for all couples regardless of gender.

If the Law Society considers the social questions unarguable, then what do they have to say about the legal issues? Well apparently there aren’t any. That’s because Law Society President Lucy Scott-Moncrieff says there aren’t any. She is obviously the best qualified lawyer to express a view, specialising as she does in mental health issues. Yes, yes, I can hear you now, chortling that a mental health specialist is ideally qualified on matters concerning the European Court of Human Rights, but there is a serious point here. An unidentified judge of ECtHR – suspected to be the outgoing President Sir Nicolas Bratza – has expressed doubts about whether a ‘religious exception’ provision can survive an application to ECtHR. It is informative to look also at cases within the UK. Most of the widely reported recent cases raising religious issues were either trivial or simply misconceived.

But the Catholic adoption agencies case is an altogether different story. The Equality Act 2010 lists certain ‘protected characteristics’, namely age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. Strangely, it remains entirely legal for an adoption agency, as a matter of policy, to refuse to place a black child with a white couple because they consider that it is in the interests of the child to be placed with a black couple. This is entirely in accord with the ethos of the Children Act 1989 which requires that in any decision process the interests of the child are paramount. It is, however, entirely illegal for an adoption agency to refuse, as a matter of policy, to place a child with a gay couple because they consider it is in the best interests of the child to be placed with a straight couple.

So much for the interests of the child being paramount. All of the ‘characteristics’ referred to in the Equality Act 2010 are protected, but some are more protected than others.

The consequences of getting the legal minutiae wrong are far-reaching. Catholic and Non-conformist churches would be unable to offer marriage unless the couple had already married in a register office. For the Church of England it is more complicated. Because of the right of people living within a Church of England parish to demand a marriage in the parish church, that recourse would be unavailable. A change in the law would be required to remove this right, and would be the first step away from the Church of England’s ‘high church, low church, no church’ position and toward disestablishment.

The consequences will be far-reaching even if the legal minutiae are dealt with correctly. It will create what is known as a ‘limping marriage’, recognised in some jurisdictions but not in others. Property rights which arise out of such limping marriages also limp. Limping marriages can create property disputes which cascade down the generations. Then there is the question of capacity to marry, which is determined by the ante-nuptial domicil (broadly speaking, the permanent residence before marriage). Nationality can also come into it, for example British nationals lack capacity to enter into a polygamous marriage. This mean that if Syed travels to his grandparents’ home village in the Punjab and marries, the marriage is not potentially polygamous; perhaps more importantly, if Syeda travels to her grandparents’ home village in the Punjab and marries, that marriage is not potentially polygamous.

Our civil partnerships are an elegant and effective way of granting gay couples equal rights. They have the enormous advantage that they create legal rights independent of the status of marriage. Let us assume that Uganda fails to introduce the death penalty for gays, but does pass a law that Ugandan citizens have no capacity to enter into a same sex marriage. Our gay Ugandan asylum seeker marries in London his boyfriend from Colorado. After years of connubial bliss, the guy from Colorado pops his clogs unexpectedly, having failed to make a will. Like most married couples, their finances are inextricably entwined. The estate of the deceased includes land in Colorado, and his estranged half-brother lays claim to it. The case will turn on the validity of the marriage, whether it is recognised as valid in Colorado, and whether a Ugandan national has capacity to enter into a same sex marriage. My guess is that the winner will be an attorney in Denver. Civil partnerships neither abolish covetous half-brothers nor reform greedy lawyers, but they do minimise the risk from either.

Pretending that there is nothing to debate or, worse still, shouting down those who raise concerns with cries of ‘Homophobe!’ or ‘Bigot!’ does not necessarily do any favours for our LGBT friends and neighbours. Simply because there is no debate, I have never heard any explanation of why same sex marriage is better than a civil partnership. Equality does not require uniformity. In a recent interview in the Telegraph, Sir Derek Jacobi, who has been in a relationship for 35 years and in a civil partnership for 5 years, expressed himself to be content in a civil partnership. I hesitate to quote Iago (not one of Shakespeare’s more appealing characters) but I do wonder whether this campaign ‘robs me of that which not enriches him, but makes me poor indeed’.

That it is a tiny percentage of the population, a minority within a minority, who would take advantage of such a change in the law is not a reason to not consider it. But such a fundamental change, with all its legal and religious implications, does require consideration, and consideration does require debate. That it is the ‘right on’ thing to do is not for me persuasive. But to paraphrase Roberta Flack, I’m not in favour, but I’m open to persuasion. So persuade me.