OPINION: Have you ever wondered why Britain never had a Catholic Prime Minister?
There is no constitutional barrier preventing it. So why didn’t this happen?
The most likely answer is that there remains a residual suspicion of Catholics that can be traced back to the bloody power struggles between Catholic and Protestant contenders for the throne centuries ago. A man by the name of Guy Fawkes might have something to do with it as well.
Fears that Catholic politicians might secretly pledge allegiance to Rome have never been entirely erased. Until 1829, Catholics were not even allowed to sit in the British parliament.
Britain closest to securing a Catholic prime minister was Tony Blair, who regularly attended mass with his Catholic wife when he was at 10 Downing Street, but waited until he retired before to formalize his conversion.
Blair, who was nothing more than a shrewd calculator of political probabilities, knew that Catholicism would have been an obstacle to his career. In addition, he would not have wanted to jeopardize the fragile Northern Ireland peace agreement by opposing Protestants in the province divided by religion.
By comparison, we in New Zealand are relatively relaxed about Catholic politicians. We had our first Catholic prime minister, Frederick Weld, in 1864, and we’ve had several Catholic prime ministers since then, including Labor hero Michael Joseph Savage, National’s Jim Bolger and, of course, Bill English.
This differentiates us not only from Great Britain, but also from America, which did not elect a Catholic president – John F Kennedy – until 1960. There was no other Catholic in the House. White since then, although Catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the United States.
But while we in New Zealand may view the lingering religious prejudices in other countries as rather bizarre, there have been periods of religious tension in politics here too – particularly in the early part of the 20th century, when the Catholic Church in this country was headed by bishops from Ireland. descent, whose Republican sympathies were at odds with resolutely pro-British governments.
Archbishop Francis Redwood and the Irish-born Bishop of Dunedin, Patrick Moran, were both strong supporters of the Irish administration, a cause strongly echoed by the Catholic newspaper. The tablet, which Moran founded.
The Irish question caused political turmoil when a priest named James Liston, who would later become Bishop of Auckland, was tried in 1922 on the rare charge of sedition. Liston had offended the government of William Massey, a Protestant born in Northern Ireland, by giving a speech on St. Patrick’s Day in which he praised the IRA rebels behind the ill-fated Easter uprising of 1916. Ironically, he was acquitted by an all-Protestant jury.
Even relatively recently, Catholicism has from time to time been suspected of exerting inappropriate influence behind the scenes. Anti-Catholic resentment surfaced during debates of the 1970s over abortion and state aid to Catholic schools. Opposition to the liberalization of abortion laws has often been dismissed as being wholly motivated by Catholics, which it was not.
I remember once interviewing John Kennedy, then the dreaded editor of the aforesaid Tablet, who told me that there was a feeling in New Zealand that Catholics should be watched.
That didn’t stop Kennedy from shaking things up by writing a controversial 1972 editorial supporting the election of a Labor government – this at a time when New Zealand newspapers rarely took political sides, at least not openly.
Kennedy’s editorial probably served to reinforce suspicions that there was a Catholic bloc vote and that Catholic voters did as they were told. It certainly didn’t hurt Norman Kirk and the Labor Party. They came to power, ending 12 years under National.
Again ironically, Kennedy later became a supporter and confidant of autocratic National Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, whose social conservatism closely aligned with his own.
And so we come to the present tense and the 2017 New Zealand Catholic Bishops Election Declaration, which was distributed to Mass attendees recently.
Dear me. What a tasteless, delicate and delicate document to hand.
Under section titles such as “Fair Tax Structure”, “Affordable Housing” and “Caring for Our Planet”, it largely echoes the position of the center-left parties. But he refrains from any rigorous critical analysis, preferring to take refuge in easy generalizations.
He doesn’t come right away and urges Catholics to vote Labor or Greens, but it might as well. In fact, I would have more respect for Catholic bishops if that was the case. At least they would then nail their colors to the mast openly and unequivocally, rather than disguise their soft left leanings behind unsubtle coded signals.
If I were a practicing Catholic I wouldn’t be impressed by the presumption that I relied on the bishops to guide me on how to vote – especially when they seem to be taking the easy option of relying on the big government to resolve all our problems.
Will the bishops’ declaration do anything to restore the Church’s failing moral authority? I doubt. But I also don’t think it will rekindle fears about Catholic leaders wielding too much influence. Those days are long gone.
