It doesn't need to be formalised in a rule book - it's what most of us believe.

[ Parent ]

I'm from a Catholic family and I don't have any problem with this.  She doesn't say all Catholics should be debarred from holding office.  She asks a question - whether it's appropriate in a democracy for members of the government to allow their allegiance to the pronouncements of the Pontiff to trump the will of the people?  Legitmate question. 

[ Parent ]

What exactly is wrong with Members of Parliament trying to strongly persuade their fellow MP's to back their own view.

That is not 'whipping', it's just democracy.

And it's certainly no different to Nadine Dorries who vigourously tried to persuade MP's to back her view.

[ Parent ]

However, having read Honeyball's comments in full, I wouldn't say they were that bad.

[ Parent ]

 
Indeed there is a difference between inclusivity and sheep-like adherence – but there is also a difference between genuine respect and the oft-trumpted respect for faith-led opinions (usually trotted out by those who in the same breath attempt to justify ignoring deeply held opinions on the grounds that they have arrived at the “wrong” answer, an arrogance which turns the collective stomach.
 
You have raised two examples for your point – firstly you highlight the example of abortion, suggesting that if Catholics hate abortion, then “Solution: Catholics don't have to have abortions”.  What you – I suspect deliberately – miss here is that abortion is not simply a matter of personal morality, impacting as it does on the life of the unborn child, the rights of the father, and the ongoing happiness of the woman concerned.  You might as well state that some Labour supporters (such as myself) object to the Iraq War – solution: don’t enlist in the Army to fight there. 
 
To take your second example of contraception in Africa – I assume you are referring to combating AIDS – you might consider familiarising yourself with the evidence first: by far the most successful scheme in reducing the infection rate is Uganda’s ABC prevention strategy, which stands for Abstinence, Being faithful, and (as a last resort) Condom use.  This has reported a 70% declinein HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reductionin casual sex (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5671/714?ijkey=46cff837218a1ccc424c39db7403bc75c3 44f4c9).  Despite substantialcondom use, no other African – or indeed, Western – country has shown either similar behavioural responses orHIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The nearest result has been achieved in Zimbabwe, where researchers have reported that prevention programmes also based upon the principles of abstinence and being faithful have cut the national infection rate by 2.5%.  While some may try to dismiss this initially modest reduction, this translates into thousands of lives saved and also compares to Western contraceptive-based schemes which far from any reduction, have seen an increase in new cases during the same period.
 
My point is that principled and evidence-based stands taken by Catholic Labour MPs are being too easily disregarded by elements who are only too keen to paint this as simple adherence to a supposedly foreign and irrational belief, a conclusion which is all too easily accepted by those content to clam their hands over their ears and bellow “NO PROBLEM HERE”.
 
Yet what you principally fail to grasp is that Catholics are objecting not to the fact that Church teaching is not being accepted and implemented verbatim, but that their opinions are instantly being disregarded, on the arrogant and erroneous assumption that Catholics are somehow unable to think for themselves.  There is a reason that people of faith hold religious belief, and this is because they have (for the most part) thought independently about metaphysical issues, and come to the conclusion of a particular religious and ethical viewpoint.  As you point out, if persons not of that faith do not like or agree with that teaching, they are not bound by it.  Simple solution, if you don’t like the teaching of the Catholic Church, don’t follow it.  To address once again your first example, nobody was advocating the total banning of abortion (even the rabid Nadine Dorries, who I might point out is certainly not a Catholic, declares herself pro-choice of a sort).  What was being proposed and debated by several Labour MPs was reducing the time limit to reflect the fact that premature babies are surviving earlier, the possibility that they can feel pain in utero, and the spiralling numbers of abortions performed each year (as evidenced by today’s report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7462934.stm).  Agree with the evidence or disagree, but don't patronise us by the simplistic suggestion that Rome say, we do.
 
You also neglect to address the issue of freedom of conscience.  For example, Catholic adoption agencies were one of the largest groups placing vulnerable children in loving and stable homes, until the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) required them to place children with gay couples, something which goes against the Catholic faith (not to mention the Muslim, Jewish and Hindu faiths, if you look at the respective scriptures).  By forcing these agencies to choose between the faith that motivated their work, and the law, the SORs killed this excellent work at a stroke.  What we as a party have got to realise eventually is that the third sector - much of which is represented by faith based organisations - can very often carry out such sensitive and vital work far better than the State can.  This reason alone would have justified an opt-out for such religious agencies – which to my knowledge, had never received an application from a gay couple to adopt (and why would they?).  However, this simple and uncontroversial step was instantly disregarded by certain figures within the Labour Party, egged on by militant groups such as the National Secular Society.  Whether or not you agree with allowing gay couples to adopt is irrelevant – this issue goes to the heart of individuals and groups to object to issues which they feel are wrong, in order to continue with vital community work.
 

[ Parent ]

It's those who claim the party is "anti-Catholic" who "lump Catholics in together under the same umbrella". If s/he wanted to be more accurate and to distinguish, as you do, s/he could have said that the party is anti- some areas of Catholic teaching which some Catholics are faithful to.

[ Parent ]

NB - isn't it something of an anomoly that the issues that are most contensious from certain religious moral positions are regarded as "matters of conscience" but that other moral position are not treated as such? Most of politics is moral in nature - normally loyal Labour MPs who voted against 42 days would almost certainly say that it was a major issue of conscience for them. The same with backbenchers who voted against Iraq, or any one of numerous other examples.

The convention of free votes on matters where the major religons express a strong opinion is a bad convetion which gives the religious special treatment not given to those without faith but no less lacking in ethics. The fact that that's how it's always been done isn't a justification for it.

[ Parent ]

I thought "conscience votes" were those on which the whips calculated that too many Labour MPs would vote against them to be disciplined.  The implication is that the rebels really will "go all the way" and accept the punishment because they care that much about the issue.

I can't say I think much of "rebels" who want to present a note from their mum (or Archbishhop)  saying they can be naughty but mustn't be punished. I am rather more sympathetic to MPs who vote for Party policy as determined by Conference when the leadership is ignoring Party policy.

[ Parent ]