"He passionately opposed abortion, birth control, homosexuality, the ordination of women and even baseball on Good Friday," sneered the obituary of Cardinal John O'Connor in the New York Times. Seldom has the liberal conscience revealed its illiberal heart more than in that woeful misunderstanding of the meaning of Christianity. It actually manages to exceed the classic piece of liberal journalese in the Guardian a couple of years ago, when a particular politician being profiled was said to be "anti-abortion but against the death-penalty." Was ever a "but" so expressive?
Just as expressive is the "even" in the O'Connor obituary; for, regardless of what you think of the man - and he was very much a curate's egg of a cardinal - he spoke his mind, erratically, foolishly, wrongly at times, as he was often the first to admit. But over-riding all else was his sense of his duty to his God, his church and his congregation: in that order. And what more terrible day could there be in the history of the entire world for such as him than the day when the physical embodiment of that God on this earth was taken, show-tried, tortured, and gruesomely murdered?
Illiberality
He would not have used the word "even" to describe his opposition to recreational sports on the day set aside to commemorate that event; he would have said "especially". For those who actually believe that Christ died to redeem mankind on that day, Good Friday is the most terrible day of the year. To abjure sport on that day would hardly be abnormal, or "even" illiberal. The illiberality would come when and if he attempted to enforce his beliefs on others; and he didn't. Of course, John O'Connor tested more than the liberal "conscience", whatever that elusive organ might consist of. He supported the US war in Vietnam, but had mixed emotions about it afterwards - which suggests that he was, more than anything else, simply a decent man trying to work out which was the least of the many evils which result from war. This is a subject we should be thoroughly acquainted with, being diseased with war for so many years; yet this does not prevent us giving worthy lectures to other peoples on how to conduct themselves.
At this distance, we might all share his perplexity. What was done by the Americans to Vietnam was an abomination; but what abominations might have been unleashed on the world if the great Communist states of the world in the 1960s had got it into their totalitarian heads that the US would not defend its allies against subversion and internal aggression by force of arms? Thoughtful, decent men reluctantly gave their assent to the war against communism. One of them was John O'Connor. He changed his mind many times afterwards, which is one of the worthless indulgences allowed us by hindsight. Being right at the time is the test we all face and, sooner or later, all fail.
Homosexual acts
Cardinal O'Connor will be most chastised for his declaration that he could not give absolution to homosexual men dying of sexually contracted AIDS unless they repented of their sin. Most obituaries, burning with the warm flame of liberal indignation, referred to "sin" rather than sin. Catholics belong to a church without inverted commas. Sin is as real to it as the crucifixion itself; for that church, homosexual acts are sinful, and the rules of the confession are very plain. Unless there is repentance, and a firm purpose of amendment, the priest cannot give absolution. That's the Catholic Church, and that's organisations for you. They have rules. The priest who gives absolution to an unrepentant sinner - and it matters not a damn whether you or I regard him or her a sinner (and I for one do not) - gives no absolution at all. Unless the penitent repents, the absolution is invalid, a mere show, ecclesiastical populism and sacerdotal mountebanking.
Priests absolve. They mediate, but they do not forgive. Forgiveness is within the power of the highest authority of all. No deed ever done by John O'Connor ranked in illiberality, in wanton disregard for decency and respect, with that perpetrated by homosexual activists who broke up a Mass he was saying and mutilated a consecrated host. For Catholics, that is an unspeakable violation of everything they hold dear, the actual body of Christ being trampled into the ground. But illiberal liberals thought it was all rather amusing, mere backward superstition getting what it deserved.
Organised religion
So why do such people seek the good opinion of organised religion when they sneer at the rules, the very ways which bind those religions together? John O'Connor never commanded them to be Catholics; all he said was: we are not a tennis club, nor a bath-house. We are a religion with rules; and here they are. . .
Which doesn't mean rules and ethics can't be changed in time. The Catholic Church once found room in its heart for slavery of all kinds. Very possibly it will in time open to its heart and its ethical soul to expressions of sexuality different from those which it has traditionally condoned. But it, and its fellow Protestant churches, will be nothing unless they reach for the raw and unpopular honesty which guided the deeds of Cardinal John O'Connor.