Tony Blair converts to Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter celticcrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lukewarm said:
If he made a confession prior to confirmation and coming into the Church and was absolved by his priest then that should be good enough for anyone. No one is required to make a public statement announcing and denouncing their sins in front of all mankind. Just because he’s a public figure doesn’t mean he doesn’t get absolution like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify my position (and I did do this with O’Tolley) I agree that confession and absolution are as you say.

It is not a matter of sin I am talking about here, it is about scandal. Tony Blair, I hold (along with every Catholic I know here - indeed every Christian of any denomination) needed to make a statement of BELIEF for the sake of the Church.

If he entered the Church without stating “My voting record was not in line with Church teaching and I was mistaken” in a public fashion then the problem is that it looks like the Church has softened. You understand. It looks like we endorse homosexual civil unions, abortion, etc, etc. It looks like Balir has converted the Church and not vice versa. His confession is private, his penance and absolution private. But his political voting on moral issues, if not given public renounciation places the Church in a weakened moral standing, especially with the liberal media. It then also looks like we have one standard for the general public and one for highly public figures. (An evangelical friend noted this.) It just doesn’t look good.

But what’s happened has happened. I’m not having a downer on Tony Blair now. He is a Catholic in good standing and no-one is beyond redemption! I’m more concerned that our leaders here have been too eager to have a famous name on board and may not have thought things through, even with Blair being sincere. I accept, however, that those in charge have access to information I do not. I do accept that. Benedict XVI states that he is ‘satisfied’ with Blair’s conversion which is some salve to me (and I am NOT a Rad-Trad hard liner!) But I would LIKE that public statement. But what I would like and what is right here may be two different things, I accept.

It is in God’s hand. May Tony Blair indeed meet the Father on that day and be embraced by him! If I ever meet him I will gladly give him the sign of peace.

**
 
Jedi, IMO it doesn’t bring any scandal on the Church. If Tony Blair publicly endorses abortion after his conversion then back to the confessional for him, and if he recieves absolution again then who am I to say he has to do more? If he’s right with God he’s right with me…

On a smaller scale I have a ton of past sins that I wholeheartedly regret. If I find my religion again and start practicing my old friends may laugh and say “this guy is a Catholic, I knew him when he ‘fill in the blanks’”. Would it be necessary for me to gather all my family and friends who witnessed many of these sins and make a public confession denouncing all my sins? If it’s not necessary for me, it shouldn’t be necessary for any Catholic. As long as Tony Blair doesn’t come out in support of abortion or anything like that in the future, he’s good to go.

Who cares about what kind of scandal it may bring? The haters will hate, nothing you can do about that.
 
lukewarm said:
Jedi, IMO it doesn’t bring any scandal on the Church. If Tony Blair publicly endorses abortion after his conversion then back to the confessional for him, and if he recieves absolution again then who am I to say he has to do more? If he’s right with God he’s right with me…

On a smaller scale I have a ton of past sins that I wholeheartedly regret. If I find my religion again and start practicing my old friends may laugh and say “this guy is a Catholic, I knew him when he ‘fill in the blanks’”. Would it be necessary for me to gather all my family and friends who witnessed many of these sins and make a public confession denouncing all my sins? If it’s not necessary for me, it shouldn’t be necessary for any Catholic. As long as Tony Blair doesn’t come out in support of abortion or anything like that in the future, he’s good to go.

Who cares about what kind of scandal it may bring? The haters will hate, nothing you can do about that.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re right. But I don’t know a single Christian here in the UK who has been comfortable about it. Not one. It LOOKS like a dual standard and I can tell you that the faithful really have been, well uneasy about the whole thing. As I say, for me it’s not about personal sin or even an individual’s redemption, it’s about the public perception of the Church’s teaching and who is seen to have converted who? Ya see? My ‘gripe’ (if it’s the right word) is with the Cardinal and clergy and not Tony. His was minstered to an and did as requested by the Cardinal’sprivate secretary. Fair to him! I think Cormac is a little naive…

Anyway, I’m offline until the new year. God bless one and all and that includes Tony Blair! And Cormac!
 
Jedinovice said:
Maybe you’re right. But I don’t know a single Christian here in the UK who has been comfortable about it. Not one. It LOOKS like a dual standard and I can tell you that the faithful really have been, well uneasy about the whole thing. As I say, for me it’s not about personal sin or even an individual’s redemption, it’s about the public perception of the Church’s teaching and who is seen to have converted who? Ya see? My ‘gripe’ (if it’s the right word) is with the Cardinal and clergy and not Tony. His was minstered to an and did as requested by the Cardinal’sprivate secretary. Fair to him! I think Cormac is a little naive…

Anyway, I’m offline until the new year. God bless one and all and that includes Tony Blair! And Cormac!
Click to expand...
Given that many parishes RCIA programmes here in the UK are quite liberal in their understanding of our moral obligations as Catholics anyway, I hardly think it’s fair to call it a dual standard. That would imply that everybody else being received into the Church was perfectly dedicated to every letter of the moral teachings of the Church. At least in Tony Blair’s case we know he converted out of personal conviction, not just so he could get married or get his kids into a good Catholic school.
 
As a former Episcopalian, I have some idea of the process of conversion. It does bother me a bit that special measures were taken for Mr. Blair, as converts are normally confirmed at Easter Vigil, so he has been set apart for some unknown reason.

As for previous positions being at variance with the Church I would say ~ first, he is no longer in any position to effect such policy; second ~ I don’t know about the Church of England but it would seem that many of Mr. Blair’s positions in the past are consistent with some, if not all, of the policies of his former faith; last ~ the first reconciliation for Mr. Blair may have been rather detailed, but, as Mother Angelica reminds us, it’s an insult to God to think that our sins are greater than God’s mercy.

Bring all souls to heaven!
 
Well, there are a couple points I can make here, one which I am confident in and one not so much. First, the timing of Blair’s conversion should not suggest preferential treatment. Blair was already a baptized Christian. The Rite requires an Easter Vigil reception for catechumens (unbaptized) specifically. Candidates (baptized Christians) may be brought in at any time of the year.

Now regarding Blair’s (lack of) renunciation of his public record, I wonder how the nature of the sacrament of confession plays into this. I am no expert here, but isn’t the penance of confession in part supposed to be an effort to “make right” the damage the sinner has caused? In other words, I think a condition for absolution would be a penance to reverse the evil done by publicly promoting anti-life positions, or at least not to expand them into scandal within the church. Granted, a priest can choose to give any penance he wants, but I would think in Blair’s case it should be more than a couple Hail Mary’s.

Nevertheless, I am thrilled he has come home. Even if he still has some work to do, at least he has the sacraments to empower him along the way 👍

-Larry
 
MelanieAnne said:
As a former Episcopalian, I have some idea of the process of conversion. It does bother me a bit that special measures were taken for Mr. Blair, as converts are normally confirmed at Easter Vigil, so he has been set apart for some unknown reason
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely accurate. My husband and I were converts from Lutheranism, and we were confirmed on May 28, 2003. (We were supposed to be confirmed on Pentecost, but we were moving out-of-state that weekend so the priest confirmed us a few days early instead.)

As a PP said, only the unbaptized are brought into the Church on Easter Vigil, and Mr. Blair was already baptized.
 
wanner47 said:
That’s not entirely accurate. My husband and I were converts from Lutheranism, and we were confirmed on May 28, 2003. (We were supposed to be confirmed on Pentecost, but we were moving out-of-state that weekend so the priest confirmed us a few days early instead.)

As a PP said, only the unbaptized are brought into the Church on Easter Vigil, and Mr. Blair was already baptized.
Click to expand...
I guess it is a matter of local practice, because where I live, everyone is confirmed at Easter Vigil. I wasn’t quoting from the Catechism, I was speaking from my own experience, as well as those in the my local area.
 
MelanieAnne said:
I guess it is a matter of local practice, because where I live, everyone is confirmed at Easter Vigil. I wasn’t quoting from the Catechism, I was speaking from my own experience, as well as those in the my local area.
Click to expand...
All the Code of Canon Law says is:
Can. 881 It is desirable to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation in a church and during Mass; for a just and reasonable cause, however, it can be celebrated outside Mass and in any worthy place.
Click to expand...
You might want to check things out like this first instead of making assumptions that someone was given preferential treatment just because the practice doesn’t conform to what you’re accustomed to seeing in your own parish. Not trying to be snarky, just a recommendation.
 
Um, if you scroll up, I was not the first to suggest preferential treatment.

The general rule is noted. I can only assume (because I haven’t checked with them) that my local diocese has a rule that results in the local practice.
 
celticcrusader said:
a couple of weeks ago I saw a news article that TONY BLAIR was converting to the Catholic religion sometime in NOV. andI haven heard any thing else lately? has anyone got any more good news on Mr. Blair? :irish2: :knight1:
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard anything about him converting. I have just heard rumors. But Tony Blair converting wouldn’t be nearly as neat as someone like Prince William converting.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
I haven’t heard anything about him converting. I have just heard rumors. But Tony Blair converting wouldn’t be nearly as neat as someone like Prince William converting.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t Prince William have to renounce his right to the succession in order to convert to Catholicism?

If a Prime Minister can’t be a Catholic, I would imagine a King, or future King, could not be Catholic either.
 
Jedinovice said:
It is not a matter of sin I am talking about here, it is about scandal. Tony Blair, I hold (along with every Catholic I know here - indeed every Christian of any denomination) needed to make a statement of BELIEF for the sake of the Church.
Click to expand...
Amazing how much you sound like a good friend of mine who feels the very same way about this. His position is that, because Blair was pushing for stem cell research and other things counter to Catholic teaching WHILE he was actively being prepared for his conversion, there is a legitimate concern for scandal.

Yes - confession removes the sin. But what about the fact that he was telling his priest and Bishop he wanted to convert, then going to work the next day and supporting legislation to encourage embryonic stem cell research? That is a concern. The timing of these events are just not good and are cause for scandal - I can see why there is an outcry for his public statement. It leaves me wondering about those who were responsible for preparing him for his conversion - did they just turn a blind eye to what he was doing in his day job?

🤷 It’s not just as simple as “he went to confession so that’s all that matters” - it is a scandal of the Church looking the other way when he is saying one thing and doing another.

~Liza
 
Jedinovice said:
When the news leaked the Tony Blair was on his way about a month or so back I actually email Cardinal Murphy O’Connor (who actually was my local Bishop and confirmed me and for whom I have always had warm regard.)

I pointed out that allowing Blair to join without a public statement repenting of his voting record (which, by the way, including 100% voting for abortion, lowing the age of consent for homosexual union, homosexual marriage and the infamous SOR regulations which are closing down Catholic adoption agencies plus a few other laws which are now making it for Christians to speak freely and not face legal and/or employment troubles) would weaken the Catholic Church’s moral authority.

I actually ended up with a brief email conversation with Mark O’Tolley, the priest behind Blair’s final conversion (which I did not know at the time!) He promised me, after this discussion, he would take everything I said into account. I did stress to him that I was not opposed to Tony Blair joining personally and accepted each man’s sin is his own to repent of. But because his voting record was so public and so completely Liberal with a capital L, having him join up without an equally public repentance would place us in a compromised moral position with the liberal press going “See, the Catholic Church really allows abortion - you can see that by how they let Blair in!” I’m just waiting for ‘The Tablet’ on that one. (That paper just gets worse! Latest editions almost advocate atheism!)

That he was supposed to join in Easter, and not Christmas, that he was given full entry in a private ceremony done ‘on the sly’ bothers me and every Catholic I know in the UK. I know in the US Blair is held in relatively high regard because of his ardent support for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But in the UK Catholics have a much lower opinion of him, especially as we start to suffer under the ‘new world’ brought in New Labour. It certainly looks like Cormac and co. (much as I love the guy) has given Mr Blair easy entry, enough to leave doubts in people’s mind about Tony’s moral theology. My priest was… not impressed.

So I really, really would like that public statement at some point myself.

That’s all I’ll say now except that I must now hold to my promise to Mark O’Tolley and accept Mr Blair’s entry into the Church in good faith and treat him as any other member (sinner) in the Church! But I would really LIKE that public repentance. If I don’t get it, I must leave judgement of all concerned in God’s hands.

Swallow.
Click to expand...
I think that if he doesn’t feel comfortable doing it he shouldn’t make a public confession.
 
Actually, there is no ban on a Prime Minister of the UK being Catholic, although none has ever been perhaps because a Catholic Prime Minister would undoubtedly have some difficulties to overcome. So why has it taken so long for Mr Blair to convert? Almost certainly because of his sensitivity about the place of Catholicism in British public - and particularly its constitutional - life. The only positions specifically barred to Catholics are marriage to the sovereign or heir to the throne, or becoming sovereign themselves, a legacy of the Act of Settlement that followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the deposition of the last Catholic monarch, James II.

In the last 40 years Catholics have entered many senior positions in British public life, generally without comment except among the wilder fringes of Protestant Calvinism: in the civil service, the Foreign Office and industry, as MPs and ministers in Conservative and Labour cabinets. The current director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, is a Catholic and, briefly, four years ago, with Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the Tories, so were the alternative prime ministers.

.
 
MelanieAnne said:
Wouldn’t Prince William have to renounce his right to the succession in order to convert to Catholicism?

If a Prime Minister can’t be a Catholic, I would imagine a King, or future King, could not be Catholic either.
Click to expand...
Not unless the law was overturned. What is amazing to me is the blatant religious bigotry that exists in the UK. What if the monarch wasn’t even a Christian? If William became a Buddhist would he have to renounce his right?
 
pprimeau1976 said:
What is amazing to me is the blatant religious bigotry that exists in the UK.
Click to expand...
Why is it so amazing to you? Read their history. Intolerance for Catholicism is as British as the Queen (no disrespect intended). It is part of their culture. Doesn’t make it right - but it is what it is. It is up to the leadership of that country to change things, and I think that is a very very long time off - if at all. I can’t imagine ever seeing the Royal Family outwardly embracing Catholicism - not to convert, just to accept as they accept other religions. It’s not going to happen - too much blood, Royal and common, has been spilled in the fight between Catholic and Protestant in the UK.

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
Why is it so amazing to you? Read their history. Intolerance for Catholicism is as British as the Queen (no disrespect intended). It is part of their culture. Doesn’t make it right - but it is what it is. It is up to the leadership of that country to change things, and I think that is a very very long time off - if at all. I can’t imagine ever seeing the Royal Family outwardly embracing Catholicism - not to convert, just to accept as they accept other religions. It’s not going to happen - too much blood, Royal and common, has been spilled in the fight between Catholic and Protestant in the UK.

~Liza
Click to expand...
I understand the history, but that’s exactly what it is…history. It’s 2008, not 1508.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top