The case for catholicism — a response to oliver kamm | thearticle

First things first — I’m one of those pesky Catholics. I believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church, which affirm a reverence for life at every moment, from conception to natural

death, are a profound humanitarian teaching. These teachings have far-reaching applications for a civilised society, from the rejection of war in global governance and, also, capital

punishment to domestic and international outreach to the marginalised and deprived. The point is that the dignity of every human life, little and big — born and unborn — from the delivery

room to death row, is seamless. That said, the weakness of Oliver Kamm’s argument is twofold. It fails to make the case that Rebecca Long-Bailey was not discriminated against because of her

Catholic beliefs on abortion. Second, his argument points to an anti-liberal mind-set far more effectively than any statement made by the MP for Salford. Consider the pejorative language Mr

Kamn used to caricature the position of those who take a different view to him—“despotic”, “moral authoritarians” asserting “inhumane and reactionary doctrine born of religious

obscurantism”. Come, come, Mr Kamm — these are intelligent and decent people, informed by medical as well as moral sensibilites, and every bit as familiar as yourself with the principles of

representative democracy. Indignation at those whose views differ from yours is no substitute for respectful and reasoned debate. Reference to Jefferson and the Enlightenment doesn’t give

legitimacy. Indeed, evoking the “Enlightenment” in an era where ideological colonisation has led to an anti-scientific and truly oppressive political environment is not without irony.

Nonetheless, the debate that it evokes is important precisely because it is happening against the backdrop of a fight for the heart and soul of a Labour Party that’s bruised by electoral

defeat and allegations of discrimination. I lived in the UK when the Abortion Act 1967 was enacted. It envisaged a (very) limited application of the Act, with extensive protocols and

procedures. The provisions which Mr Kamm cites no longer apply. The numbers themselves — some 200,000 abortions annually — demonstrate this reality. Contrary to the intent and expectations

of the “liberals” who were behind the Act, it now amounts to abortion on demand. This raises serious social and healthcare issues that cannot be commandeered by the Labour Party — or any

political party — as a “no go” domain for reflective analysis. In his criticism of the Catholic perspective on non-medical abortion — which explicitly encompasses Catholic politicians — Mr

Kamm fails to mention, even in passing, advances in embryology and imaging which allow MPs to see what was simply not possible back in 1967: the nature and scale of the assault on life and

the impact on the infant in the womb. Surely it is a sound and sensible proposition to review and reflect on any piece of legislation in the light of advances in science. Mr Kamm would have

it otherwise. But that simply won’t do — it is not a defensible position. This takes us to what appears to be the core of his argument. Religious and moral sensibilities should have, it

seems, “zero” place in politics. Really? Does that include the likes of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks? Is it defensible to insist that all his wisdom be left in the cloakrooms of the House of

Lords. The early writings of St Thomas More — especially Utopia — and the accounts of his trial for not bending the knee to the self-serving assertions of Henry VIII show how much politics

is in need of normative values and moral courage. To adapt More’s Defense as he faced execution: “The King’s — or the Labour Party Excutive’s — good servant: but God’s first”. Mr Kamm cites,

and rightly so, appalling institutional and human failings in the Church in recent times, but makes no reference whatever to the incalculable good which individual men and women have done

for the distressed and marginalised over the centuries, precisely because they were inspired by Gospel values. This lack of balance undermines his case. But what does the real damage is the

implication, at least as I read it, that Ms Long-Bailey, or any Catholic who takes their religious convictions regarding the unique and unrepeatable value of human life seriously, are by

definition “illiberal” and disqualified from public office. Why stop there? In such a secularist paradigm, why allow Catholics to vote at all — don’t dismiss the thought. We in Ireland were

impacted by such thinking and, in historical terms, not so very long ago either. Catholics should have the same right as secularists to a place in the public square. They should be allowed

to argue their case in a Parliamentary democracy and to affirm their convictions regarding that most basic of all rights — the right to life. That right is not, and cannot be, sequestered by

a flawed definition of what it means to be “liberal”.