The Priest and the Politican
Parish Priest Ian Vane denies the Lib Dem MP Chris Coghlan Holy Communion. Benjamin Woods writes on it today.
Four days before voting in favour of Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill, a euphemism for suicide, Chris Coghlan, a Catholic and Member of Parliament for Dorking and Horley, received a written letter from his parish priest. Fr Ian Vane warned him that supporting the bill would be “a clear contravention of the Church’s teaching, which would leave me in the position of not being able to give you holy communion, as to do so would cause a scandal in the Church”.
His subsequent vote in favour of the bill, following Fr. Vane’s explicit written letter warning him of the spiritual consequences of doing so, resulted in him being publicly denied Holy Communion at Mass the following weekend. In response, Mr Coghlan has written an article attacking his local parish priest in a national paper for simply following church teaching. In the article, he chose to name the priest, publicise his parish residence, and post photos of him on social media, the rationale for doing so apparently being to whip up a storm against Fr. Vane. However, judging from the reaction on social media, this strategy appears to have backfired with thousands of responses criticising Mr Coghlan on X at the time of writing. From Mr Coghlan’s perspective, Communion is a right and one that a Priest who consecrated it should have no say over, demonstrating a failure to understand Church teaching on the Eucharist.
However, on the central question of banning Mr Coghlan from receiving the Eucharist, who is at fault here, and what lessons can be drawn for future instances like these?
Leadbeater’s bill, which passed its third reading in the Commons with a slender majority of twenty-three, has now progressed to the Lords. It contains within it grave flaws that should raise serious concerns among all of us on issues ranging from drug regulation to coercion.
The principle of the bill itself directly contravenes Church law laid out in the Catechism CCC 2276 to 2279, “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists of putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.” This was further reinforced by Pope St. John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995): “Euthanasia is a grave violation of God’s law.”
With every line, the bill’s implications become increasingly distressing. Especially relevant here are Amendments 12 and New Clause 16. The former of these was an amendment, defeated by MPs, that would have enshrined not just individual but organisational conscientious objection, allowing hospices and care homes such as those run by the Catholic Church to not take part in the killing of the vulnerable. Cardinal Nichols, the most senior figure in the Catholic Church within England and Wales, warned that without Amendment 12 “the absence of robust conscience protections risks compelling Catholic institutions to act against their moral principles or face closure”.
Despite the bill’s proponents pitching this legislation as designed to help only those in unbearable and unrelievable pain, the legislation itself makes no mention of this. New Clause 16 would have resolved this, preventing eligible individuals from opting for assisted suicide on the basis of poverty, homelessness, failures of state services, self-coercion (feeling like a burden to others), or financial stress. New Clause 16 was also voted down.
When Mr Coghlan voted in favour of this bill, he did so in full knowledge of its consequences for Catholic institutions and societies downtrodden. In his article, Mr Coghlan states, “I was told I was complicit in a murderous act for backing the assisted dying bill”. In the eyes of the church, he was correctly informed.
It is undoubtedly the case, therefore, that Mr Coghlan’s voting record is incompatible with church teaching, but does this meet the threshold of denying him the sacrament of Holy Communion?
To do so, his actions would need to be judged to be a mortal sin, as stated in the Catechism, CCC 1415, and the Canon 915, which explicitly denies Communion to those in grave sin.
First, we must ask whether a politician’s vote can, in itself, be sinful? St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in Summa Theologiae that not just the participation in but also formal cooperation with evil, such as opening the floodgates to assisted suicide, is always sinful. A vote for such a bill, cast with full knowledge and consent, as Chris Coghlan did despite his priest’s warning, aligns with this sin, betraying the vulnerable and defying moral law. The answer to the question of whether a parliamentary vote can in and of itself be sinful is yes. The act of enabling evil, such as Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill, is itself a morally evil act.
This belief is supported by CCC 2287 which makes clear: “Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
Of the two types of sin, Venial sin and Mortal sin, for the denial of Communion, it is the latter that must be committed. According to the Catechism (CCC 1857–1860), a mortal sin requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Assisted suicide, by violating the Fifth Commandment (by way CCC 2287), constitutes a grave matter (CCC 1858). As an MP with access to the bill’s details and explicitly warned by Fr. Vane, Coghlan possessed full knowledge of the moral and practical implications of voting yes. His vote was a grave, free and deliberate choice, meeting all criteria for mortal sin.
Mr Coghlan, by voting for this bill, became a willing participant in the erosion of the law’s role as a provider of basic safeguards for the most vulnerable. It is the job of lawmakers not to extend the liberty of the socially, economically, and intellectually independent at any cost but to weigh the extension of liberty for the strong against the removal of the guardrail for the weak. Furthermore, as a public figure, Mr Coghlan’s vote risks leading others to believe in false compatibility with his views on assisted suicide and the faith he now publicly proclaims (CCC 2284–2287) bringing scandal to the church, further justifying Fr. Vane’s action under Canon 915.
The question then becomes what role, if any, the hierarchy of the Church should play in this process. It cannot be sustainable for the weight of these decisions to fall solely on individual parish priests without support from the diocese at large. Nor can it be just for a two-tiered approach where we would deny Communion to certain faithful members of our community for living in sin while permitting it to those who have willingly and knowingly actively enabled the killing of our most vulnerable citizens.
As I write it is the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, on which, during Mass at my local parish, a bidding prayer for the leaders of the Church to protect and defend their clergy was read. Bishops across the United Kingdom should heed that call and place a firm hand on the shoulder of courageous priests like Fr Ian Vane and produce clear guidance to all priests on the application of Canon 915 concerning MPs who vote against the sanctity of life on issues such as assisted suicide or abortion. It is my view for the reasons stated here that this guidance should be the denial of the most Holy Eucharist to these individuals until such a time as they engage in the sacrament of confession and, given the public nature of their vote, perform a public penance. The need for clarity from the church hierarchy is important not just to provide a framework of support for courageous priests such as Fr Vane, but also to avoid scandal.
With the vote on assisted suicide around the corner in Holyrood, sponsored by Mr Coghlan’s Liberal Democrat colleague Liam McArthur, the same applies across Scotland when MSPs come to vote on a similar bill in Holyrood in a few months’ time; this is a message as important north of the border as it is south of it.
Please contact your local Bishop to highlight this case, and the scope for future scandal without clear and public guidance from the Catholic Church across the United Kingdom.
Chris Coghlan, I will pray for you; I urge all who read this to do the same.
By Benjamin Woods (@BWoodzy99)