There is a danger in labeling, be it of a person, their ideas and politics or a position that we don’t agree with as traditional or progressive.

 Too often such an action becomes a rallying cry for the gathering of groups either anxious to be associated with a particular point of view or in opposition to an idea.

This has been evident in recent years within the Church. Many issues have arisen that have brought about such a division. The subsequent argument from two differing points of view is fine if the discussion is conducted with courtesy and care. Too often, and this is especially true of Web exchanges, there has been a degree of vitriol in some postings that fundamentally challenges Christian charity.

 Yet we must recognise that when something of great importance is under debate then arguments will be brought with passion and conviction. Within the Christian family there must be the opportunity to talk with each other as we seek to understand where the Gospel is taking us. We have to accept that no one generation has the final say and that we must experience faith within the developing understanding of the society in which we live. It was not without significance that Edward Schillebeeckx bowed to the empty chair once occupied by Galileo when he too was called to meet with the CDF.

 Over and above all debate must come the recognition that an informed conscience should be acknowledged by all concerned and in some instances that will result in acceptance of disagreement.

 The old dispute of the place of religion in the forming of political judgment is never far from the surface in many countries. We often see it arising in the political life of the US when the personal belief of a politician clashes with the views of a secular society.

 Now here in the UK , over the issue of recent legislation that went through parliament affecting gay marriage, we had many catholic MPs supporting the Bill.

 As a result the Bishop of Portsmouth has provoked criticism from Catholic MPs after saying that politicians who voted for same-sex marriage should be denied Communion, as reported in the recent edition of the Tablet. The issue crosses the political divide and also brings together those who voted either for or against the new law.  

This is very difficult ground and the issue itself is hugely contentious. We cannot legislate for a multicultural and often secular society from the particular standpoint of one faith community. Each of us lives according to our belief, in faith, struggling day by day, often with the many obstacles on the way. But don’t let us have the added problem of interference by an authority that sees the issue as clearly defined when there are so many shades of grey clouding the argument.

 Stephen Pound, a Labour MP who voted against the Bill, is quoted in the Tablet posting: “As a Catholic who happens to be an MP I am constantly fighting against the accusations of a Vatican ‘whip’, and to impose the most terrifying of sanctions in this way guarantees that the unthinking misconceptions that some hold of the Church will be reinforced.”     

 Conscience has led many Christians to oppose a political position, often at great personal cost. In the extreme, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, gave his life for his political conviction that he could not reconcile the politics of Germany in the 40s with his Christian faith. Their courage is humbling and deserves our admiration and respect.

 Let us seek to act out of conviction and not as a result of a threat that limits our personal responsibility. It must always be a matter of conscience.

END