More than a private opinion

British Liberal Democrat MP Chris Coghlan expressed his outrage by posting on X, condemning his parish priest, the Rev. Ian Vane, for disciplining him after he voted for the euthanasia bill in the House of Commons. Coghlan stated that:

My Catholic Priest publicly announced at every mass he was denying me Holy Communion following the assisted dying vote. Children who are friends of my children were there. This followed a direct threat in writing to do this four days before the vote. It is a matter of grave public interest the extent to which religious MPs came under pressure to represent their religion and not necessarily their constituents in the assisted dying vote. This was utterly disrespectful to my family, my constituents including the congregation, and the democratic process. My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP representing all my constituents without fear or favour.

Let’s break this down and analyze the claim.

First, he admits that his priest gave him prior warning four days ahead of time. He consciously defied his church; it was not ignorance. As The Observer documents, both his bishop, Richard Moth, and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in the United Kingdom, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, had already expressed opposition to the bill. Coghlan knew he was going against what his Church teaches.

Second, he seems most concerned that he was embarrassed by the fact that the pastoral action was public. If he is proud of his vote and is so sure his Church is wrong on this point, why be embarrassed? Would he not want his children to see what a hero he was standing up to the religious establishment? His vote was not a private matter; it was quintessentially public.

Third, he proclaims his duty to vote according to the wishes of his constituents rather than those of his church. But why? Presumably, his constituents contain both members of his church and others. Some constituents were no doubt opposed to the bill and some in favor. There is no possibility that his vote reflects the unanimous will of all his constituents and no proof that it even reflects the view of the majority. And, in any case, Britain does not have direct democracy. It has representative democracy where the people elect a representative they trust to legislate. Obviously, he cannot reflect the views of every constituent on every vote, so his record will be examined by the voters at the next election, and he will either be found to be better than the alternative or not. Coghlan surely knows all this very well. Why then bring up the “will of my constituents” argument?

Fourth, he uses a nonsensical phrase “my private religion.” When did Christianity become a “private religion”? Who decided that? Christianity has never been a private matter. To confess that Jesus is Lord is the very opposite of private; it is a public declaration. Christianity says God created the world, humans rebelled against God, and God is in the process of saving His church and overcoming all sin by setting up His eternal Kingdom. What is private about any of that?

There are two important takeaways from this incident.

The first is that this man evidences a guilty conscience. He is acutely embarrassed by his priest and is trying to rationalize his behavior. And that demonstrates that his conscience is still working. This is hopeful because only the one who feels guilt is motivated to repent. Perhaps that is why Chad Pecknold graciously but firmly called him to repentance on X, where Coghlan posted his complaint:

Mr. Coghlan, I’ve taught Christianity and Politics for many years. What you express is not a Catholic but a Liberal view that your faith should be something private. Western civilization was built upon the very public nature of Christianity. Your faith is either Liberal, and you have owned it, or your Faith is Catholic, and you have denied it. There is no in-between. Choose.

The second important point to note here is that to privatize the faith is to deny the faith. When the Devil tells you that you can avoid the ultimate choice between obedience to God and obedience to the world by privatizing your faith and becoming schizophrenic—that is, by following one law in church and a different law in parliament—this is a trick.

You cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus is Lord of all, or he is not Lord at all. Confessing the faith is the most public of all acts and it is the essence of Christianity.