Tony Blair’s approval of same-sex marriage is inconsistent with Catholic Faith – Archbishop Fisichella

Archbishop Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelisation, has publicly stated that Tony Blair’s apparent approval of homosexual marriage is inconsistent with his Catholic faith:

“If the stories in the press about Blair’s thinking are true, I think he should examine his conscience carefully and realise that there is must be coherence between the content of faith and the concrete action taken by a politician.”

Archbishop Fisichella was responding to a report in The Independent under the headline ‘Blair takes on the Pope by backing gay marriage’.

‘Tony Blair has defied the Pope by making clear he “strongly supports” plans for gay marriage, The Independent on Sunday has learnt. The former prime minister, a Catholic since 2007, backs proposals by David Cameron for a new law allowing homosexuals to marry.’

Today the campaign against gay marriage is stepped up with a letter from two archbishops to be read to Catholic congregations across England and Wales at mass. The letter will claim that the new law would undermine the institutions of marriage and the family.

But despite the backlash, the Prime Minister and many members of his Cabinet are fully behind the plans. In a significant boost to Mr Cameron, Mr Blair – one of the best known Catholics in Britain – has told friends he “strongly supports the Prime Minister’s proposal”.

Protect the Pope comment: Soon after his reception into the Catholic Church by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor Tony Blair announced in a gay magazine that he was committed to campaign to change the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

In the light of his latest defiance of the explicit teaching of the Catholic Church and the authority of the Holy Father questions have to be raised about the content and quality of his preparation to be received into the Church. He obviously doesn’t have a Catholic understanding of the importance of fidelity to the doctrine of the Church nor the requirement of obedience to the magisterium of the Church, expressed by the successor to St Peter. That Tony Blair still behaves like an Anglican raises doubts about his conversion.



32 comments to Tony Blair’s approval of same-sex marriage is inconsistent with Catholic Faith – Archbishop Fisichella

  • Surely that is a dreadful slander against the Cardinal! As Archbishop of Westminster he would have been far too busy to instruct a convert. The real culprit should be found and given a really serious penance.

  • Veritas

    Mr Blair is not the only member of the Blair family to openly defy Catholic teaching.

    In her autobiography, “Speaking for Myself” (2008) Mrs Cherie Blair liste her various lovers and admits that she was already with two “boy friends” when she met Tony Blair.

    She then writes on page 65, “You can always go to confession, although I have never confessed to fornication. Perhaps one day in my old age I will.”

    With his wife as a role model for a “practising Catholic”, it is hardly surprising that Tony Blair is a “pick and mix” Catholic. Given his very public profile and his well known voting record supporting abortion, I am astonished that he did not wish to publicly affirm Catholic teaching on faith and morals before he was received into full Communion with the Catholic Church.

    Instead he was received into full Communion in a private ceremony and has always refused to support Catholic teaching on abortion.

  • Simon Fisher

    This is far from helpful, clearly Blair does not undestand the implications of his statements and lacks obedience and an understanding of the church’s teachings. The arrogance to think that he knows better than God.

  • This report in The Independent is of much more importance than its simply being another example of Tony Blair’s anti-Catholicism, which he caught from his wife and which was surprisingly undiagnosed by His Eminence Cormac Cardinal Murphy O’Connor before he authorised his reception into Holy Mother Church.

    It is also highly indicative of the strength of the forces ranged against faithful members of the Church and her leadership — or, rather those among that leadership willing to lead; and it would be both a surprise and a delight if Archbishop Nichols were now to be genuinely numbered amongst them — in the campaign against any redefinition of marriage to accommodate the tiny minority of the roughly 1% of the populace who are, or who claim to be (not necessarily the same thing; there is a glorious history in Scotland of people claiming in censuses to be Gaelic speaking to boost the numbers) homosexuals of one variety or another.

    In the aftermath of Cardinal O’Brien’s robust comments, I sent a Letter to the Editor of The (Glasgow) Herald which, naturally, they declined to publish.

    If you don’t mind a link, it may be seen at:

    If you do not like including links and don’t mind a slight longer than usual comment my letter read:

    Dear Sir

    Tim Hopkins states (Letters, March 7) that the 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that “61% agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, with only 19% disagreeing” and also that it “found that more than 50% of Catholics in Scotland support same-sex marriage, with only 21% opposed.”

    I believe this latter statement to be a terminological inexactitude for I can find nowhere in the Survey any distinction between and among Christians by denomination.

    As to his first assertion, the Executive Summary in its Conclusions merely states: “29. Finally, the increase in support for same sex marriage since 2006 suggests that a majority of people in Scotland would support same sex relationships being treated in law in the same manner as heterosexual relationships.” Note that important word “suggests”: it may or it may not be the case. The reason for this caution is quite simple: of those sampled, 1500 or so, only 21%, 300 or so, were prepared to tick the box on the questionnaire which indicated that they were strongly in agreement with the statement: “Gay or lesbian couples should have the right to marry one another if they want to.”

    It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how many of the 79% of the sample NOT already strongly persuaded that same-sex “marriage” should be allowed in law would accept that proposition were their attitudes to be more thoroughly tested AFTER a free, frank, open and informed public discussion of the matter taking into account ALL relevant issues.

    And, of course, this is the very thing which the gay lobby wants at all costs to avoid, hence their disparagement of anybody opposing them as being homophobic, hateful, a bigot et cetera. Anything to avoid, to sidestep, legitimate discussion and open scrutiny. Tim Hopkins isn’t stupid. He knows that in the SSAS 2010 it was found that between 2006 and 2010 the percentage responding “very happy” or “happy” when asked their reaction to a close friend or relative forming a “long-term relationship” with someone of the same sex had not changed, 37%, while those “unhappy” or “very unhappy” had only decreased from 33% to 30% DESPITE the fact that the media, in all its forms, has, with but very few exceptions, acted as propagandist in behalf of Hopkins and his allies.

    Colette Douglas Home[a Glasgow Herald columnist] being a good example of this (Opinion, March 6). One gem will suffice. According to her, after repeal of Section 2A [28 in England and Wales] not a lot happened. Not a lot? Well, not a lot if and only if you fail to take into account the fact that vested interest groups, like Hopkins’s Equality Network and Stonewall, persuaded government and local education authorities to give them free and frequent access to schools on the double pretext that (1) there was a major problem with bullying in all our schools, primary and secondary, and that this was overwhelmingly of the gay-bashing variety, and (2) that they, and they alone, were best placed to go into schools to deal with it.

    The reality of this is no different here than in the USA where a leading gay activist, Daniel Villareal, freely admitted: “They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

    (This was on his Blog “Queerty: Free of an agenda. Except that gay one”, May 11, 2011. But a word of caution. Anybody wishing to check this on the internet should be warned that the site is quite explicit, I would say offensive, in both the language and images used.)

    So let’s have that thing the SNP administration tells us they are dead keen on, a national conversation, a public dialogue involving all concerned; a meaningful, free, frank and open discussion. And then let us have the only social survey that really matters: a referendum.

    I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient Servant

    Hughie McLoughlin

  • Karla

    Tony Blair does not speak for the Church, he should be ashamed for himself for expressing heretical teaching. I really do not understand how anybody can complement a history of Church teaching opposing gay ‘marriage’ and support for it. Tony Blair needs to have a deep evaluation of his faith.

  • asrajit

    And now that the homosexual organization Quest has openly criticized the statement on marriage by Archbishop Nichols, let us hope that that organization is not given any publicity in any Catholic churches.

  • Fred

    If you e-mail him and point out his errors then he may be suitably penitent.

  • ms catholic state

    I was never convinced by Blair’s ‘Catholicism’! I do know he is a devout believer in God…though which God it is remains a mystery. It could be the one in his imagination. Surely the Pope should excommunicate him over this blatant disobedience and disrespect for the Church he claims to belong to. It seems to me like a slap in the face from TB to the Catholic Church….and all those who naively put their trust in him.

  • Gurn

    Tony and Cherie Blair ought to be excommunicated

    • Fred

      That sounds like ‘a plan’. It will serve to convince the UK that the church really is in the middle ages.

    • Bob Hayes

      Excommunication is an extremely serious measure. That said, I suspect the excommunication of Tony Blair would be very well-received ‘on the street’ – by Catholics and non-Catholics alike!

  • spesalvi23

    Why on earth does somebody convert to an institution without full agreement of their teachings, terms and conditions?
    Being a convert myself, such behavior leaves me completely stumped!

    Sadly, the answer is rather easy: as a politician he has learned that nothing is non-negotiable, there are no principles and everything is relative.

  • CathChap

    The church needs to be consistant here. If it is going to excommunicate Blair, then to be fair it must also excommunicate the majority of UK Catholics who lack a Catholic understanding of marriage (including the 90+% who use artificial contraception).

    Do we really want to do that?

    • Deacon Nick

      I’m uncomfortable with this talk of excommunication in the case of Tony Blair and others. Formal excommunication should only be used when every other avenue of guidance and correction has been exhausted. The problem is that it has become very rare for any form of specific guidance and correction to be given by the shepherds entrusted with the protection of the Church, except from the Holy Father and a few other bishops. Christian love doesn’t mean being silent before the error and sin of others. Deacon Nick

      • CathChap

        I agree completely. We have to also remember that TB is no longer in power, so there are no reasons for treating him any differently to any other nominal Catholic.

        Personally, i’d rather have sinners inside the church than outside (and who among us is not a sinner?). It would be different if TB was in a position of authiority in the church, but he is just an ordinary catholic and ought to be treated as such no more no less. perhaps we ought not to be drawing attention to this issue at all.

    • ms catholic state

      CathChap…Tony Blair become a Catholic but then went on to contradict the Church’s stance on homosexuality almost immediately. Surely this must put the sincerity of his conversion into question. Also he is giving scandal to the Church in a public arena by deliberately opposing the Church’s ruling. If this is to continue without censure or correction it will undermine the Church’s authority gravely.

      Tony Blair’s case is different from the vast majority of ordinary dissenting Catholics.

      • harry

        I doubt that excommunication would impress anyone in the UK. It might puzzle some, make others smile, aggrevate a few, but it won’t have any real effect. And more to the point, it won’t happen. £100 on it.

      • CathChap

        Tony Blair’s case is different from the vast majority of ordinary dissenting Catholics.

        is it really? you might have a point if tb had a position of authority in the church or country but he does not.

        Personally, I think it would send out the wrong message if TB were excommunicated for an error on gay marriage and yet he was allowed to remain in full communion with the church despite launching an illegal war in which many have lost their lives.

        gay marriage is an important matter but lets not kid ourselves that it is the most pressing issue of the age.

        • ms catholic state

          TB has a public platform and is a convert. In these 2 respects he differs from the vast majority of ordinary dissenting Catholics. And I doubt that he will be excommunicated….which is just as well considering the vast amount of publicity it would gain for him just as he has almost faded completely from our news screens.

          Having said that….I do think it is high time there was a bar on Holy Communion for those that support abortion.

          • CathChap

            “Having said that….I do think it is high time there was a bar on Holy Communion for those that support abortion.

            I agree completely with that

  • Veritas

    Canon Law only allows excommunication for a very limited number of very serious offenses. So while it is true that it SHOULD only be used rarely – it is also true that it CAN only be used rarely.

    As we all know there are lots of serious sins – sadly too many to count – but only a very limited number of these are punished in Canon Law by excommunication.

    Since the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law by Blessed Pope John Paul, the Code is now readily available in English. So anyone who is really curious can go and check for themselves!

    But I strongly suspect that many people use the term “excommunicate” with more than a touch of poetic license. In a similar vein, the Deputy Prime Minister recently referred to some people with whom he disagreed and he added: “They are literally living in another universe”

  • Which is easier to say:

    “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass-destruction which he can launch on the UK in forty-five minutes”
    “I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches” ?

    • Spesalvi23

      Oh man. Here we go again… Did the captain of the Bismarck sink his own ship?
      Blair CHOSE to join the Catholic Church. Whatever his wife had to do with that is another matter. The man seems like the typical yes Ma’am husband.
      When you join the team on free will, you go by the rules.
      That’s it!! There is no excuse. Period.

      • Fred

        Are there different rules for converts, as against those ‘born into the faith’?

        • spesalvi23

          Clearly, yes. But not in rules in general – more in acceptance and adherence to those rules.
          ‘Cradle Catholics’ didn’t make an active choice to accept the teachings & rules.
          I don’t really thing confirmation is actually used for that purpose – who wants to miss out on the presents?

          For me, as a former Lutheran, it took a lot of heart, soul and loyalty-wrestling before I learned to accept with my mind what my heart had been telling me for years.
          Finally, the decision to convert was made – all connected to doubt and self-accusations for ‘deserting’ the faith I was confirmed in.

          I simply don’t get the point of converting and then trying to change a system to the same system you had converted from.
          What’s the sense in that? If he thinks gay marriage should be accepted, he should have remained Anglican.
          If I had accepted to be part of a political/social organization, instead of being a member of a Devine institution, I would have remained Lutheran.

    • CathChap

      well yes. How easily we are faltered by liers

  • William

    Whilst the Anglican Church can at times appear to be ‘all things to all men’ it isn’t really correct to say that Anglicans support homosexual ‘marriage’, or that Blair’s remaining Anglican would in some way have legitimated his views on this matter. Seemingly some do support it, as apparently do some Roman Catholics. In this event, both deviate from their respective Church’s teachings. That there are liturgical and doctrinal differences between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church cannot be denied and presumably Blair was happy to accept all aspects of Catholic doctrine in the course of his conversion, including that regarding the sacramental nature of marriage between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, the hypocrisy and mendacity of that man is already well-established and this is merely the latest example.
    For the ‘official’ Church of England position, I cannot do better than draw attention to recent comments by John Sentamu, Archbishop of York on the content of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion contained therein. These have the force of law so far as the Church of England is concerned. Even the ‘progressive trendies’ have to comply with such basic requirements. Marriage between persons other than a man and a woman is illegal in Churches. Parliament cannot amend the 1662 BCP or the Articles of Religion. Only the General Synod can propose new legislation on these matters and hasn’t done so for 350 years, other than a failed attempt to introduce a modernised Prayer Book in 1928.
    I take the point that the various aggressive lobbying groups, if successful in obtaining some form of civil ‘marriage’ will undoubtedly move to agitate for Church ‘weddings’. As I understand it, such ‘marriage’ within the Roman Catholic Church would be simply impossible, and impossible and illegal within the Church of England.
    Given the partisan statements already made by certain politicians, it is likely that they will get their way on civil ‘marriages’. Battle will really be joined if there are attempts to extend this to Churches. Given the sad precedent of the now defunct Catholic Adoption Agencies, the vulnerable point seems to be the required civil registration of Church marriages and as already indicated by another poster, potential refusal to register them. Again, the position of the Church of England is somewhat different. Marriage ‘according to the Rites of the Established Church’ is complete in law and the Officiating Minister is also the Registrar. The Rites of the Established Church do not cater for the marriage of persons of the same sex.
    I’m looking for the details of this ‘consultation’ but haven’t succeeded as yet. Surely they will take submissions from members of the public as well as the ‘big battalions’?

    • CathChap

      “Blair was happy to accept all aspects of Catholic doctrine in the course of his conversion,including that regarding the sacramental nature of marriage between a man and a woman.”

      It is perfectly possible that TB regards sacremental marriage (ie Church marriage) as between a man and a woman. His recenty expressed view concerned CIVIL marriage. It is perfectly possible to believe what the church believes regarding marriage and simultanteously think that the Church doesn’t own civil marriage and therefore think that the rules of Civil marriage can be decided by reference to concerns other than Church teaching.

  • Is it possible the Blairs have excommunicated themselves by their consistent, public support for contraception, abortion, and gay marriage? The Blair ‘magisterium’ have repeatedly ridiculed the Church’s teaching on these issues without any real objection from our timid and fearful hierarchy. The latter, it seems, have finally awakened from their liberal reveries to see the destruction that lies ahead. Today’s first reading, 4th Sunday in Lent, from 2 Chronicles 36, could not be any clearer, or more relevant, on the dangers of accomodating ‘the shameful practices of the nations.’

  • [...] Iraq, but the Christian Bush has never apologized. Blair has become a Catholic, not because he agrees with the Church's teaching, but so he could become President of a United Europe, a lust which he [...]

  • Austin

    It was with dismay I read of Tony Blairs attituded to marriage and his support of gay marriage which goes againt the teachings of the Catholic Church, and may I add to all people of the book, marriage as an institution between a man and a woman can be traced back thousands of years, he is content to be seen with the good and the great at religious occassions and to meet and mix with the heirachy of the church, something which the faithful among us have very little chance of doing, he arrogantly thinks he has the knowledge and wisdom to tell the Pope that he is wrong and must do as he advises, to quote Jesus “get thee behind me satan”.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>