Being a Christian isn't easy
If you're not a Catholic, at this point you're thinking one of two things: 'No thanks, I'll leave the Papists to their internal disputes', or 'Canon Law would be a cracking name for a courtroom series about a priest turned barrister'. But stick with me, there's something for everyone here.
By his own admission, the Dorking and Horley MP was well aware of the Church's opposition to Kim Leadbeater's Bill. He was 'deeply disturbed to receive an email from my local priest four days before the vote… saying if I voted in favour I would be 'an obstinate public sinner' [and] complicit in a 'murderous act'.' Now, that's how I like my priests. Spitting doctrine like fire, not some hippie-boomer Father Mulcahy type spouting happy-clappy 1970s nonsense.
Father Vane explicitly told Coghlan that, were he to vote for Leadbeater's Bill, it would be 'a clear contravention of the Church's teaching' and would 'leave me in the position of not being able to give you Holy Communion, as to do so would cause scandal in the Church'. This man has never come within a mile of an altar with an acoustic guitar.
Coghlan claims that Father Vane 'weakened his argument by wrongly characterising assisted dying' as 'direct euthanasia, which is putting an end to somebody else's life'. It is Coghlan who is wrong. The distinction he posits is not recognised by the Catholic Church.
The Catechism says: 'Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.' Suicide, meanwhile, is 'seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity' and 'forbidden by the fifth commandment'. Saint Pope John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae, defined euthanasia as 'an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering'.
He termed it 'a grave violation of the law of God' and listed it, along with abortion, as 'crimes which no human law can claim to legitimise'. He acknowledged the concept of 'assisted suicide' but turned it over to Saint Augustine, who held that it was 'never licit to kill another: even if he should wish it, indeed if he request it… nor is it licit even when a sick person is no longer able to live'. John Paul concluded that 'any state which made such a request legitimate and authorised it to be carried out would be legalising a case of suicide-murder'.
Even so, was it really necessary to deny Coghlan Holy Communion and announce said decision? Father Vane has faithfully guarded the Eucharist in accordance with Canon 915 and the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) in 'Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion'. The legacy of Pope Francis, however, complicates matters a little. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he drafted the Aparecida Document issued by Pope Benedict XVI, which stated that Catholics in public life 'cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the Commandments', specifically citing euthanasia as an example.
However, as Pope Francis, he preached that 'the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the bread of sinners'. He also waded into the controversy over pro-abortion US politicians receiving the Blessed Sacrament, saying he had 'never' refused anyone Communion and exhorting priests and bishops to 'be a shepherd' with 'closeness, compassion and tenderness'. Did Coghlan cast his vote with this in mind? If so, even those of us who favour doctrinal soundness over Jesuitical cleverness might wonder if there could have been a way around a eucharistic sanction.
Unfortunately, Coghlan puts paid to that when he says he 'supported assisted dying in accordance with my conscience'. He is entitled to his conscience, but it is by definition not a Catholic one. Catholicism is composed of three strands: scripture, tradition and the magisterium, the latter being the instructional authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ. All three are as one on the question of man's creation in the image of God and the sanctity of human life. If you don't believe in these doctrines, then Catholicism is not the religion for you. Coghlan is halfway to that realisation when he says: 'My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP'. Catholicism is not a hobby, it's a living witness shaped by rites, dogma, and authority. If it has 'zero direct relevance' to your work, whatever that work is, you're in the wrong church. I hear the Anglicans put on a nice service.
This sounds harsh, but it should not be mistaken for a saintly passing of judgement on a reprobate. Like Coghlan, I too am a sinner, perhaps sometimes a public one, and while I hope that I'm not too obstinate I cannot shed my birthright as a Scot. I would be in no position to judge him anyway, for I have recently returned to the Church only to learn that this Christianity business is much harder than I remember. So I speak not with the zeal of the convert but with the unbearable burden of the prodigal son drawn home in the full knowledge of his iniquity and his inadequacy. Catholicism is a struggle, it's meant to be a struggle, but it has to be a struggle you want, not one you merely inherit, or identify with, or thole to get your children into a Catholic school.
I had never heard of Chris Coghlan before now. He might be a fine man and a hard-working MP, but he seems very confused about both freedom of conscience and democracy. If an MP was a member of the National Secular Society, was told he would be sanctioned if he voted to send a Bible to every household in Britain, did so anyway, then had his membership suspended, would Coghlan consider this an 'interference in democracy'? If he would, he belongs in neither the Church nor the Commons.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
The welfare reform vote: All you need to know
Below, the PA news agency looks at what happened, what it means for personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit, and what might come next. – What have MPs agreed to? MPs voted on Tuesday to allow the Government's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill to advance to the next stage in becoming law. Some 126 Labour backbenchers had previously threatened to vote against the legislation, enough to block its passage through the Commons, but in the end only 49 did so. But ministers were forced to offer a series of concessions to persuade the rebels to back the Government. – What concessions did the Government make? Last week, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced a partial U-turn aimed at heading off the rebellion that included three key points. Firstly, changes to Pip eligibility would only come into effect in November 2026, and anyone claiming the benefit before that date would not be subject to the new rules, instead of imposing the changes on everyone. Secondly, people claiming the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would see their incomes protected in real terms. Thirdly, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would conduct a review of the Pip assessment, 'co-produced' with disabled people. But during Tuesday's debate, Sir Stephen offered a further concession, saying any changes to Pip eligibility would only be introduced after his review had concluded, further delaying them. – What do the concessions mean for the Government's proposals? The decision to push back Pip changes to an unspecified date, and leave uncertain the details of what those changes will be, removes a major part of the Government's reform plans. The proposed changes to universal credit remain, raising the standard allowance while halving the health element for most new claimants from April 2026. But the concessions will also pose a problem for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will need to find extra money now the expected savings from welfare reform are no longer expected to materialise. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation think tank suggested the concessions meant there would now be no 'net savings' from the reform by 2029/30, a key year for Ms Reeves' fiscal targets. – What happens next? The Government has pledged to make the necessary amendments to remove the Pip changes from the Bill when it returns to the Commons next week. It is then likely to continue through Parliament, becoming law after it has been approved by both MPs and peers. But wider questions remain for the Government. Not only does Ms Reeves face a fiscal headache, but the Prime Minister could face a political one too as he seeks to repair fractured relations with his backbenchers. And uncertainty will continue to surround the Government's plans for welfare reform. Ministers will still want to reduce the cost of the welfare bill and get more people back into work, while Sir Stephen's Pip review could result in another row depending on what it recommends.
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Starmer ditches Pip benefit reforms in face of Labour revolt
In a late climbdown as MPs prepared to vote, the Government shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes now only coming after a review of the benefit. The move will cause a headache for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has seen a forecast £4.8 billion saving from the welfare budget whittled away through a series of concessions, leaving her to seek extra money through spending cuts, tax hikes or borrowing to balance the books. The Resolution Foundation's chief executive Ruth Curtice said the concessions meant the reforms would now make no 'net savings' in 2029/30 – a key year for Ms Reeves's fiscal targets – even if they did reduce costs in the longer term. The decision to remove the Pip changes from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was announced just 90 minutes before MPs voted on Tuesday night. The legislation cleared its first hurdle by 335 votes to 260, majority 75. Despite the late concession, there were 49 Labour rebels, the largest revolt so far of Sir Keir's premiership. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall insisted the Labour Party was '100%' behind the Prime Minister, but acknowledged there were 'lessons to be learned' after the rebellion. She also appeared to express regret over the handling of the issue, saying: 'I wish we had got to this point in a different way.' But Ms Kendall also insisted it was 'really important we passed this Bill', saying: 'We need to make changes, because too many people have been written off, are left to a life on benefits, when being in good work is so important.' The decision to remove key parts of the Bill is remarkable for a Government with a working majority of 165 and after just under a year in office. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused ministers of 'utter capitulation' and said the legislation was now 'pointless'. She said: 'They should bin it, do their homework, and come back with something serious. Starmer cannot govern.' Earlier, a Labour rebel attempt to halt the legislation was defeated by 179 votes. A total of 44 Labour MPs including two tellers backed the bid by rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell, who described the Bill as 'unravelling' and 'a complete farce'. A previous effort to kill the Bill had attracted more than 120 Labour supporters, but was dropped after the first partial U-turn on the legislation last week, which restricted the Pip changes to new claimants from November 2026. That date has now been abandoned in the latest climbdown, with any changes now only coming after disability minister Sir Stephen Timms' review of the Pip assessment process. Sir Stephen announced the climbdown in the middle of the debate on the legislation. He acknowledged 'concerns that the changes to Pip are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading'. He said the Government would now 'only make changes to Pip eligibility activities and descriptors following that review', which is due to conclude in the autumn of 2026. The concession came after frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations in Westminster involving the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and wavering Labour MPs. Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns and public affairs at the MS Society, said: 'We thought last week's so-called concessions were last minute. But these panicked 11th hour changes still don't fix a rushed, poorly thought-out Bill.' But Jon Sparkes, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: 'The last-minute change relating to the review Sir Stephen Timms is leading sounds positive and we are pleased that the Government has listened.' He added: 'Disabled people should not have to pay to fix black holes in the public finances.' The Government's concessions have gutted the reforms, leaving only parts of the current Bill still on the table. Proposals to cut the health element of universal credit by almost 50% for most new claimants from April 2026 remain in place, along with an above-inflation increase in the benefit's standard allowance. In an earlier climbdown, Work and Pensions Secretary Ms Kendall said existing recipients of the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'.
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
The welfare reform vote: All you need to know
Below, the PA news agency looks at what happened, what it means for personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit, and what might come next. – What have MPs agreed to? MPs voted on Tuesday to allow the Government's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill to advance to the next stage in becoming law. Some 126 Labour backbenchers had previously threatened to vote against the legislation, enough to block its passage through the Commons, but in the end only 49 did so. But ministers were forced to offer a series of concessions to persuade the rebels to back the Government. – What concessions did the Government make? Last week, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced a partial U-turn aimed at heading off the rebellion that included three key points. Firstly, changes to Pip eligibility would only come into effect in November 2026, and anyone claiming the benefit before that date would not be subject to the new rules, instead of imposing the changes on everyone. Secondly, people claiming the health element of universal credit, and new claimants with the most severe conditions, would see their incomes protected in real terms. Thirdly, disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms would conduct a review of the Pip assessment, 'co-produced' with disabled people. But during Tuesday's debate, Sir Stephen offered a further concession, saying any changes to Pip eligibility would only be introduced after his review had concluded, further delaying them. – What do the concessions mean for the Government's proposals? The decision to push back Pip changes to an unspecified date, and leave uncertain the details of what those changes will be, removes a major part of the Government's reform plans. The proposed changes to universal credit remain, raising the standard allowance while halving the health element for most new claimants from April 2026. But the concessions will also pose a problem for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will need to find extra money now the expected savings from welfare reform are no longer expected to materialise. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation think tank suggested the concessions meant there would now be no 'net savings' from the reform by 2029/30, a key year for Ms Reeves' fiscal targets. – What happens next? The Government has pledged to make the necessary amendments to remove the Pip changes from the Bill when it returns to the Commons next week. It is then likely to continue through Parliament, becoming law after it has been approved by both MPs and peers. But wider questions remain for the Government. Not only does Ms Reeves face a fiscal headache, but the Prime Minister could face a political one too as he seeks to repair fractured relations with his backbenchers. And uncertainty will continue to surround the Government's plans for welfare reform. Ministers will still want to reduce the cost of the welfare bill and get more people back into work, while Sir Stephen's Pip review could result in another row depending on what it recommends.
