Conscience and control

Our local MP has hit the news several times since being elected last year, mainly in relation to constituents he’s helping, causes he’s supporting, impact in parliament and so on. The stuff of a good and active MP.

This last week or so has been different. The Assisted Dying proposal recently debated was considered by party leaders to be non party political and a matter for the consciences of individual MPs. An issue with concerns and complications on both sides of the argument. After what I understand to have been a lot of thought and soul searching our MP, Chris Coghlan, decided to back the bill. Somewhat to his surprise this decision led to his parish priest, announcing in public, on two separate occasions, that he would not be permitted to take communion in his church. This seems to me to be an abuse of his (the priest’s) position. Who is he to judge a man seeking to fulfil his duty as an MP thoughtfully, carefully, and prayerfully?

The issue didn't end there. The local press picked it up (there were a lot of people present when the priest made the announcement), and there were also reports in the nationals. The Daily Telegraph poured oil on the flames by accusing Chris of spinelessness and of making a public issue of a private matter, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was the priest who went public.

It is pretty clear that he and others voting on this bill, whichever way they voted, have thought long and hard about the right response to the proposals, the arguments for and against. This, and the fact that the responsibility of MPs is to their constituents and the general good, not the Catholic Church has fallen on deaf ears. This seems to me to be an attempt to coerce and control an MP to do what the Church says, rather than voting with his conscience - and this is completely unacceptable. The way the Telegraph has jumped on the bandwagon is also appalling, though hardly a surprise.

The wider consideration here is the question of the role that faith movements should play in our legislative life. People of faith have much to offer their organisations, I would suggest, much less so. I am reminded of the words of Captain Ryan in my play ‘The Door’ -

‘Faith’s a good thing, but put religion round it, rules and regs, creeds, being exclusive, and we kill the good bit, the faith bit, pull God down to our level and use him to justify whatever we want to do.’

Clearly I put those words in Ryan’s mouth (not to suggest I agree with everything my characters say) but they resonate even more now. I’ve spent my life with people of faith and I know they have much to offer, but their effectiveness is much undermined by attempts at control from ‘above’ (the dangers of hierarchical faith organisations may be a subject for another time) and not if they provide a model of prejudice and exclusion - which seems to be both what is happening here and what many of my local Anglican churches are doing in relation to gay relationships.

Assisted Dying

a dilemma
arguments to be weighed
decisions made

harm avoided
pressure building
waters muddied

by emotional language
assisting dying
or cruelly prolonging?

tests of adequacy
of protections
for the vulnerable

souls searched
finely balanced
conclusions reached

through the lobbies
serious people
led by conscience 

to reach a decision
greeted with joy
and dismay

now the hard slog
making it work
for all