Cardinal Brady should remember the credo 'live and let live'

November 16, 2008

Two men, two wildly opposing views. On the right stands Cardinal Sean Brady, crozier ready to smite anyone who would legitimise gay unions. To his far left is Peter Tatchell, controversial English gay rights campaigner.
Cardinal Brady has indicated that the bishops may mount a constitutional challenge to the government's Civil Union Bill, which will give gay couples a form of marital status. Unsurprisingly, gay groups are outraged.
His Eminence is not the only cardinal to be targeted by gay activists in recent weeks. Last Tuesday, mass was said to commemorate the death in 1890 of Cardinal John Newman, amid Tatchell's claims that the saint-in-waiting was gay.
Tatchell says the founder of Ireland's first Catholic University had a gay union with a priest, Fr Ambrose St John. He bases this claim largely on the cardinal's last wish to be buried beside his friend.
Last month, the church disinterred Newman to move him to a larger place of veneration in Birmingham as part of the beatification process. Tatchell claims the disinterment was to cover up the gay relationship. He has no hard evidence for this.
That Tatchell would "out" a dead cardinal is no surprise. In 1994 his group, OutRage, publicly invited 10 Church of England bishops to "tell the truth" about their sexuality. It also threatened to out 20 gay MPs for their "hypocrisy." One MP died of a sudden heart attack, believed by some to be a result of the campaign.
Outing the dead and invading the privacy of the living has earned Tatchell many detractors.
One can't imagine him being invited around to tea at Cardinal Brady's palace. And yet the two men have more in common than they realise: they are both extremists. As a result, they are damaging their respective causes.
As Primate, the cardinal must be allowed to voice his concerns for society. That's his right. However, he must not challenge the bill for two reasons: it would be fundamentally unjust and will further damage his church.
Earlier this year, a national poll by Lansdowne Market Research showed that 58% of us believe gay couples should be allowed marry in a Registry Office. I don't know how many of that 58% are practising Catholics, but I'll bet there's more than a few. How will they feel about their religion if Cardinal Brady presses ahead with a legal challenge? That the church teaches compassion but won't be swayed by the compassion of its own flock?
The extreme view is that the bill will undermine marriage's special status in the Constitution. Here's a question: if marriage is so important to the church then why won't it allow priests marry? This was possible up until the 11th century. The name 'Taggart' is actually derived from Mac an tSagairt – 'son of the priest'.
Last Monday, the Bishop of Nottingham, Malcolm McMahon – who is tipped to be England's next Catholic leader – said there are no doctrinal reasons for stopping married men becoming priests.
A survey by Newstalk radio earlier this year found that 63% of Irish priests thought the celibacy rule should change. The Vatican does not. Perhaps it believes it would be unable to bear the cost of supporting priests in the same type of union Cardinal Brady is championing.
This bill will not undermine marriage. It will, if anything, endorse the concept of a caring union – gay or straight – as integral to the welfare of society.
The state is simply caring for its citizens by drawing up this bill. Brady should care for the church by not legally challenging it.
When the church undermines the credo of 'live and let live' through extremism, it undermines itself. It alienates those who want to live by that credo.
Although Peter Tatchell is campaigning for civil rights, his extremism has alienated many of the same people.
The cardinal has no right to discriminate against gays, and Tatchell has no right to interfere with the manner in which the church goes about making saints.
Tatchell should live and let rest in peace.
The cardinal should live and let live together.


November 16, 2008