Benedict’s ally

From Mr Adrian Hilton SIR – Since Michael Howard (Report, Mar 18) dismissed me as a parliamentary candidate (I did not resign, as you reported), I have received hundreds of letters and emails from Christians of all denominations, and from people of all faiths and none. Your allegation of “bigotry” (Leading article, Mar 11) achieved its aim, and your paper is to be congratulated on its inquisitorial zeal, but I’m afraid, according to Pope Benedict XVI, you targeted the wrong candidate.
Rather like the fact that the new Pope may not recognise himself from those journalistic caricatures of “Rottweiler” or some kind of “terminator-enforcer”, I have to confess that neither I nor those who know me recognised the Adrian Hilton you created for your readers. Your articles contained at least 20 inaccuracies and distortions, and one of my (Catholic) friends, a deacon in his church, was moved to communicate his disapproval of your portrayal of me directly to his bishop. Your reporting led some of your readers to totally misunderstand what I have written, which is nothing to do with the Buttiglione episode (about which, like all of your readers, I feel a profound disquiet), but everything to do with the fusion of the EU’s secular-humanist philosophy (and therefore its fundamentally “anti-Christian” worldview) with its unaccountable and “infallible” mode of government. Buttiglione’s insistence that the personal-religious can co-exist with the public-political while being at odds with each other is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. The alternative, as meted out by the European Parliament upon Buttiglione, or by The Catholic Herald and the Conservative Party upon me, is for the thought police to patrol our consciences and opinions, to ensure that both conform to the prevailing religio-political zeitgeist.
I have just received, via your publication, a pamphlet from the Catholic Union of Great Britain, asking “What kind of society do we want?” It cogently expresses all of the priorities for Catholics – defence of the unborn, opposition to cloning the human embryo, respect for life, protection of the sick and elderly, the maintenance of the sanctity of marriage, the importance of stable family life for the security of children, respect for our traditions and institutions, the elimination of global poverty, the preservation of trial by jury, tough controls on drugs, and a sincere desire to reassert “Christian values” in an increasingly secular and relativist age.
As a committed Christian, I can and do therefore agree with all and every one of these priorities. In fact, I would go as far as to say that these are the very concerns which drew me towards politics in the first place. I respect people of all faiths, and view them as equals; a democrat could not do otherwise. I am therefore left wondering why articles which your co-religionist Charles Moore found “intelligent and thoughtful” were paraded by you as “bigotry”, causing me to be dismissed as a parliamentary candidate, thus ensuring the survival in Slough of an atheist, feminist, proabortion humanist, who has consis tently promoted a hedonistic “rights of man” agenda over and above man’s moral responsibility before God. Listening to the Pope at his inaugural Mass, I rather think he might consider me an ally in his quest to combat the “spiritual wasteland” that comprises the modern world, in which case the strategy of The Catholic Herald must remain a profound mystery.
Yours faithfully, ADRIAN HILTON Guildford, Surrey