The Israel-Iran war is a warning for us all
‘You will hear of wars and rumours of wars’, Jesus told his disciples as he neared his crucifixion (Matthew 24:6). In the darkness before his return, humans...
Read
What does it mean to act with your conscience? The question hit the headlines this week after Chris Coghlan, a Catholic MP, was publicly denied the eucharist by his parish priest for voting for assisted dying.
Opinions rapidly divided. Some said, ‘Well done that priest. More of this, please!’ Others, including the MP himself, were outraged, complaining that such actions ‘undermine the legitimacy of religious institutions in this country.’
I am (as ever) divided on the issue. On the one hand, publicly denouncing the MP before the congregation does seem to be rather uncharitable. Moreover, I wasn’t aware that views on assisted dying were considered as meriting such refusal.
On the other hand, one wonders what the MP in question thought being a Catholic entailed. Not very much, it seems. ‘My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP,’ he wrote. A better articulation of the sacred-secular divide you would be hard pressed to find.
What relevance ‘private’ [sic] beliefs should have on public work isn’t straightforward. MPs, to take this example, represent their constituents and stand on their party’s manifesto. But they are also human beings, elected for their personal character, convictions, and beliefs. It is quite proper to expect those beliefs to inform and shape their duties, especially on conscience issues.
The same logic applies to other jobs. The English teacher who draws on her faith to talk solely about the gospels in her lessons is abusing her role. The one who draws on her faith to explain the foundational role of the Bible in literature and to inspire a lifelong love of books is not.
The CFO who syphons off corporate funds for a local mission to the homeless is breaking the faith-at-work rules. But the one who is scrupulously honest in her accounting while making a case for the company’s local social responsibility is not.
Precisely where one draws the line is open to negotiation. In this instance, some will say that the priest has illegitimately weaponised the sacraments in attempting to demarcate. Others will point out that calling yourself Catholic and then ignoring Catholic teaching on such a core issue is pure cakeism.
Either way, and wherever you end up, the idea that your beliefs are private and have no impact on your work suggests you’ve not thought very deeply about your beliefs – or indeed your work.
Nick Spencer
Senior Fellow at Theos
Nick’s new essay ‘“How much have your religious views influenced your decision?”: religion and the assisted dying debate’ can be read here.
Good debate thank you – I guess I feel very strongly that it is Christ’s table not the priests , and the MP voted as a lot of us wanted – I for one – and I’m as interested to see if the priest would deny the MP if he’d voted no on the climate bill which will affect millions of people and billions of creatures – the climate bill and all things related to the destruction of the natural world is in my world a far more important bill and far more far reaching in terms of the poor the voiceless and all of Gods creation. X
This is a very good article. I do not see any Biblical justification to allow for any area of life to be excluded from the consequences of apprenticeship to Jesus. At the same time, it does not mean that being a member of a human institutional church should require that you agree with all its tenets. There may be some that merit being excluded from participation in The Lord’s Supper, and the principles for such exclusion should be set out clearly. I suspect there is room for discussion on whether assisted dying is necessarily an issue that is as simple as some suggest.
Excellent article, Nick. Thoughtful and thought provoking
Considering that Jesus included Judas in the last supper, who was about to have him murdered…I think the priest in error.
The full quote was “My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP representing all my constituents without fear or favour.” That gives more context.
However, we don’t know the thought behind the statement. It could be “My religion has no impact on my politics”, which is certainly a sacred/secular divide. It could be “I will represent what I think the best interests of my constituents are ( even if that conflicts with my beliefs as a Catholic)”, which takes the role of an MP seriously – surely a good thing.
I like the way Nick seems to raise all the issues in such a concise way! The only comments I would make are that these private member bills are never in party manifestos, King’s speeches etc. and seem to creep in by the back door.
The other point is that any M.P. cannot possibly represent ‘all my constituents without fear and favour’ on these issues of conscience given that all of our consciences are set differently.
Sadly the MP seems to misunderstand the nature of a living faith to have made the comment he did concerning the impact of his faith on his day to day responsibilities.