Whether or not you agree with his stand, I would make one point to those arguing that the Church has no right to interfere get involved with such matters. At the most elemental level, one of the major aims and functions of all churches is to teach and guide the people a state of morality. (That their track record in this area is spotty is immaterial; that's the goal.) If churches cannot speak to what they see is a moral wrong, who can? Politicians? Give me a break - they're spending too much time picking our pockets and buttoning their flies. The media? Don't make me laugh - profit drives them more than morality.
Even in a democratic society, with complete separation of church and state, the church still offers a useful function as a moral flywheel. Politicians spend a lot of time looking at the pragmatic. (And we need to be most grateful for pragmatic politicians as opposed to dreamy ones.) There is still a need for an independent critic on the sidelines saying, when appropriate, "But this is wrong!"
It is when religion crosses over the line from criticizing and critiquing to actually ruling as a theocracy that we need to start worrying.
As to the separation of state and church, it's interesting to note that Cardinal O'Brien is in a nation in which the heads of state and church are formally, legally one and the same. Not even Iran goes that far, I think.
|
