Rome and Canterbury in the public forum: different approaches

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the senior Roman Catholic cleric in England and Wales, and on the list to become a cardinal soon, has hit out at the Coalition government’s welfare reforms as ‘a disgrace’, notwithstanding that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is a practising Roman Catholic. Nichols says that the safety net for those who cannot cope is being removed, and that in a wealthy nation this cannot be right. He does not enter the debate about the lure of a life on benefits and the apparent ease of taking this is as lifestyle option with its destructive effects on people. The Church of England had previously warned that the effects of the changes were disproportionate on children. Archbishop Nichols however has ‘upped the ante’ with the tone of his attack. Here is a cleric going all guns blazing into a national policy area of a democratically elected government. He has in the past won victories over governments, notably the last Labour administration when they planned to allow a greater proportion on nonRoman Catholics into state RC schools. Nichols, again using the Daily Telegraph as his medium, threatened to bring out the RC vote against Labour if this went ahead, and it was dropped. We have here a savvy and political cleric happy to shoot from the hip when his interests are threatened. In the case of the schools issue, he was arguing for tight exclusivity, and for use of government money to pay for that. His position is given by Rome and to bat for Roman interests in England – does this rather weaken his position in calling the government policy a disgrace, as if speaking on behalf of everyone?

ArchbishopWelby has the equal and opposite status and problem. He is the leader of a national Church, with a General Synod purporting to represent all sections of the established Church of England, with seats in the upper house of the legislature. He is not appointed by Rome, but by the Queen and national Church, with legal ties to the government. These ties were highlighted recently when the Culture Secretary Maria Miller, now undergoing inquisition her expenses we hear, ordered the Church of England not to conduct ‘gay marriages’ – for the moment, making the Church look like an ethical poodle of the Cabinet.

Legally the Church of England now needs to show its radical autonomy and independence as a church of Christ, not as an agency of the state. As to pastoral care of ‘gay’ people, Pope Francis has won fans by stating the current Anglican position: sympathy but not ethical endorsement. That is where the C of E should stay, not be worried by the pressures and campaigns of Stonewall. Archbishop Welby is anxious that people might think of the Church as racists for its policy, and the Bishop of Oxford is actually using Stonewall as a consulting agency for C of E schools on homosexuality, rather than theological anthropology.On this issue the Pope has the clearer grasp. In 2014 we have to answer the question, Why did we all go to war in 1914? The reason is clear. The war killed some 16 million and seriously injured 20 million people worldwide. Perhaps 50 million died, weakened by war, of flu immediately afterward. Some two and a half trillion hours were wasted in destructive activity and world history was set, not inevitably, on a career of war lasting down to the present. Why did it happen?

Historians look intricately at diplomacy, empires, battles, the narrative of distrust, and tell the story in new ways, but really in relation to the big “Why” question, there is only one argument. Weapons and the military build up caused the war in all the countries concerned.

There is the naval competition between Fisher and Von Tirpitz. The Tsar, having lost to Japan, makes and buys arms on a vast scale for Russia, and to suppress internal dissent. France, still smarting from 1870, re-armed. Britain ploughed money into its navy and other weapons. Germany armed strongly, especially in the last decade, although not really faster than other countries.

The War came immediately because AustroHungary was having a long row with Serbia over a failed Skoda arms deal and the Emperor was assassinated, but Germany wanted to attack Russia before she became too strong militarily. Britain was willing to fight while Germany’s Navy was still weak. France believed it had the best Schneider built weapons, and America was drawn in because it was selling arms in a great weapons bonanza. It all centred on arms, and militarism.

For decades the great arms companies – Armstrong, Krupp, Vickers, Scheider, Krupp, Putilov, Skoda, Nobel-Bofors, Du Pont, Remington, Ansaldo and others had pushed the message that states should believe in weapons. Without wars their enterprise was dead in the water.

Krupp obsequiously courted the Kaiser. Zacharoff left wads of notes on the desks of his purchasers. “Arms will make you strong and safe, and, by the way, we will be selling them to the other side.” And the great powers bought the idea. Arms sales increased by about 10 per cent a year, twice normal economic growth for five decades until Europe was bristling with arms and men marching up and down, and ships were ready for war.

No great intellect is needed to see that weapons sow mistrust and are dangerous. “Let’s shake hands, but wait until I’ve moved the machine gun over to my other hand.” When a match falls into an open box of fireworks, and it explodes, you don’t blame the match; fireworks