CKNW Editorial
for June 29, 2000

Whenever I want to get into trouble I need only talk about religion – which along with sex and politics are the only things really worth talking about. Last Friday I wrote in the Province why I, as an Anglican, didn’t want formal reconciliation with the Catholic Church. The published letters to the editor, while disagreeing with me, did not take my article to be anti Catholic, which it was not.

I know something personally about the "anti" part of religious debate and I want no part of it. When, over 22 years ago my son married a Catholic, an Anglican priest I knew in Victoria begged me to do everything I could to stop the marriage which, besides being an impossible task, was quite the opposite of what I wanted. I was pleased that my son would have a closer connection to religion – in the event he converted – and that my grandchildren would have a religious upbringing. I gained a wonderful daughter-in-law and three marvelous grandchildren from this happy union. Far from being anti Catholic I undoubtedly have a hidden wish that I could become one.

My problem is that I am anti-authoritarian to my bootstraps. And I am a democrat. I cannot accept any earthly authority as being inspired by God to be infallible in matters of doctrine although I often envy those who can. I cannot accept any church where there is not equality, at least in spirit, from the top to the bottom, irrespective of sex or sexual persuasion. And my brand of Christianity is far too simple for any church other than the Anglican and perhaps the United Church brands to accept. I believe that Christ’s message was to love God and to love one’s neighbour as oneself and that this is a big enough challenge without trying to link that message to the hundreds of specifics contained in the many books of the Old Testament ancient priests decided should compose it. This simplicity may be wrong and I may eventually pay a heavy price for it but that’s my faith … a faith best encapsulated by Elizabeth I when she said "there is only one Lord Jesus Christ; the rest is a dispute over trifles." In short I accept the right of my priest, the bishops and Archbishop to advise me, as opposed to instructing me, on matters spiritual and no more.

But it’s also on a heavy matter of faith that I could never be reconciled to Catholicism – nor could I accept most other Protestant faiths as well. But with Catholicism the main obstacle is the Communion or Mass. I cannot bring myself to believe that the host becomes the blood and body of Christ. I profoundly believe that if a person died just after communion and an autopsy were done it would show bread and wine no matter how deep the faith of the deceased communicant. I believe in the enormous symbology and commitment represented by the Mass, but no more. But I respect the Catholic’s right to this article of faith – I don’t mock or disparage that faith – I just can’t accept it myself.

But this isn’t anti Catholicism any more than refraining from cheering for Tiger Woods makes one anti golf. It is simply the reasons for a personal decision taken by one of God’s most profound sinners.

The anti-authoritarian stance I take spills over into the government. I accept, of course, that we must all accept authority granted by the democratic process but say that I resist any attempt to have that authority mandated by any church or religious group. Of course I expect every politician to bring their personal views into government as long as they understand that a mandate to a Christian to govern, like a mandate to a Sikh to govern, contains no licence to impose religious beliefs.

I say this knowing that governments base their fundamental law upon codes of law which are commonly held by many religions. We’re all opposed to murder, rape and pillage. But those laws arise not from the State’s duty to God but to its citizens. Christ himself stayed out of politics and when a trap was laid for him said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s." We should not draw from the coincidence of similarity between state laws, and God’s laws as seen by religions, any divine obligation of the state.

The line is, admittedly, a thin one. But I grew up in the day of the Lord’s Day Protection Act where professional sports was banned on Sunday for religious reasons … as until fairly recent years were commercial activities. I grew up in an era where in many provinces you couldn’t get a drink and where you could it was only beer and then, in some provinces, you couldn’t even have a drink in the same room as your wife or girl friend. Because these religious impositions lasted so long and were fought so fiercely by so many churches I have a strong resentment of religions attempting to mandate conduct through political pressure.

I respect the right of religions to tell their adherents what to do and how to behave. I respect the right of individuals to accept whatever religious mandates they wish. I just reject their right to dictate anything to me … what I would not accept from my own church I’m scarcely likely to accept from another.

In conclusion, I wish I would hear from Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and other members of the Canadian Alliance what we heard from John F Kennedy in 1960 in answer to the charge that if elected he would owe allegiance to Rome. I can only paraphrase but he made it clear that whatever personal beliefs he had his only obligation as President was to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Kennedy had it right on … I wish I was as sure of Mr Manning and Mr Day.