A FORTNIGHT ago, in this column, I touched on the frustration of being a practising Catholic at odds with the Church's dogmatic, intemperate and ultimately self-defeating stance on issues relating to sexuality. Little did I imagine that Cardinal Keith O'Brien - once seen as on the liberal wing of the Church - was preparing to illustrate my point in such spectacular fashion.
Surely, I can't have been the only Catholic to listen in open-mouthed disbelief as the leader of the Church in Scotland used a sermon to mark the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act to insist MPs who continue to support it risk losing the right to H
oly Communion.
Of course, the Church has every right to wage a war of words against an act it sees as a crime against humanity; the fact that its leaders focus on terminations to the exclusion of virtually everything else is distressing, but not undemocratic. Where the Cardinal overstepped the line last week, however, was to resort to what is at best emotional blackmail and at worst a threat to the political system. By pressurising Catholic MPs in this way, the Church is swapping its role as lobbyist for something altogether more sinister. If it gets away with this, how long before the threat of "excommunication" is extended to the position of Catholic MPs and MSPs on other issues such as civil partnerships or sex education? It doesn't take a great leap, either, to imagine it dangled over ordinary church-goers. If Catholic MPs who support the abortion law should surrender the right to Communion then why not the Catholic voters who endorse them?
But the most offensive aspect of the Cardinal's attack is the way it reduces Communion - believed by Catholics to be a sacred gift from God - to a bargaining tool in the political process. And they say MPs are cynical.
I hate the fact abortion has become a Catholic issue. I don't understand why you have to be religious to see terminating a pregnancy as a moral wrong and a social ill. But I am with the Church in as much as I think the social acceptance of abortion undermines the value of early life and leaves many women depressed and unsupported for years to come.
It is also pretty clear the current Act is flawed. Legalised to help the desperate, abortion is increasingly being treated as an alternative method of contraception, to the extent that - according to the latest figures - 13,801 were carried out last year in Scotland alone. But there is a big difference between believing abortion is wrong or undesirable and believing it should be outlawed completely.
This is the rocky moral terrain in which Catholic politicians find themselves. While Church leaders have the luxury of being ideologues, MPs must operate in the real world. And they have to balance their hatred of abortion with the knowledge that it will never be "abolished"; that prior to the introduction of the 1967 act, tens of thousands of women a year needed hospital treatment in relation to botched terminations.
Of course, there will be ambitious politicians who simply swap their religious convictions for a seat at Westminster. But many others who "give advocacy" to the abortion laws do so for legitimate reasons. They may be conscious of the need to represent all their constituents (not just those who share their philosophical perspective) or they may feel the best way to tackle the scale of the problem is to campaign for reductions in the time limit.
In the meantime, the Church continues to be inconsistent in its approach to how political it should be. Earlier this month, Pope Benedict took the opportunity to attack "liberation theology", which emphasises the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor through activism. "If the Church were to start transforming herself into a directly political subject, she would do less, not more, for the poor and for justice." But if it's not within its remit to be active on social justice issues, how can it justify its blatant attempt to hijack the political process over abortion?
Add to this inconsistency the lack of sensitivity Cardinal O'Brien displayed to both the victims of Thomas Hamilton and women who have had abortions when he compared the scale of the "trade" to "one or two Dunblane massacres a day", and you have one counterproductive day's work.
Leaders like O'Brien are hopelessly out of step with the Catholic laity. You only have to look at the attitude towards contraception to understand that. A quick glance around Scottish parishes suggests the majority of families are disregarding the rules on birth control, without feeling the urge to excommunicate themselves.
The problem with most Catholics (including myself) is that, while they don't take the Church's pronouncements on sexual issues particularly seriously, nor do they speak out against hardline leaders.
I don't believe I am the only one in my parish who feels ambivalent about the abortion law; or who feels queasy when they see images of placard-wielding pro-lifers picketing abortion clinics, but I can't be sure, because it's something I seldom hear discussed. Yet when a cardinal threatens to withhold a God-given sacrament from politicians who fail to toe the line, it is surely time for us to voice our disapproval.
Not that I believe it will make any difference. Catholic leaders expect ordinary people to take their lead from the top not the other way around. It has been said Pope Benedict would rather have a Church that consisted of a handful of 'true believers' than one that embraced 'cultural relativists' like me. If he and his cardinals keep up these hardball tactics, if they continue in this affront to democracy, they may well get their wish.
