1992, the Internal Market and the Sabbath
The trade barriers between the member countries of the European Community are to be removed by the end of 1992 in a provision called the Internal Market. “The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of (the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community).” Our Government is aiming to deregulate the Sabbath trading laws before that date, not only as part of their philosophy of the free market, but in order to allow British businesses to make use of the Continental market on the Lord’s Day. It also means that Continental businesses will be able to make use of our market on the Lord’s Day. This is a new dimension that must be added to the Sabbath trading debate that is expected to resurface this winter.
It also puts the Outer Isles ferries dispute in another light. It is not merely the wishes of Caledonian MacBrayne to have “free movement of goods and persons” on the Sabbath day between the Western Isles and the mainland, but it is also the desire of the framers and supporters of the Single European Act, from which the above quotation is taken. The United Kingdom government have already given their approval to this Act.
“Member States shall conduct their economic policies, and shall coordinate them, in such a way as, in addition, to aim at reducing disparities between the various regions.” The implementation of this Internal Market shall take into account the objective of “reducing disparities between various regions” and it “shall contribute to (its) achievement.” The potential of the internal market is to be exploited “to the full” by European industry, and the Community shall encourage even “small and medium-sized undertakings.”
The weak link in the Internal Market legislation is that there is no safeguard of the Christian Sabbath.
On another note, a possible consequence of the 1992 regulations will be the pressure brought to bear on this country to have elections held on the Sabbath as do some of the Continental countries.
Single European Act and UK Sovereignty
The Single European Act seeks to establish Europe as a single political as well as an economic community. This is why the name of the Community has dropped the word Economic. It is no longer the EEC, but the EC — the European Community. This Act had to be passed by each member state’s parliament, and the UK Parliament passed it in 1987 with very little public debate. What debate there was revolved around the preamble of the Act which says,
“(The Heads of State or of Government) Moved by the will to continue the work undertaken on the basis of the Treaties establishing the European Communities and to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union . . . Resolved to implement this European Union . . . Convinced that the European idea, the results achieved in the fields of economic integration and political co-operation, and the need for new developments correspond to the wishes of the democratic peoples of Europe, for whom the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage, is an indispensable means of expression . . . Have decided to adopt this Act . . .”
Title I, Article I says, “The European Communities and European Political Co-operation shall have as their objective to contribute together to making concrete progress towards European unity.”
Mrs Thatcher has recently spoken strongly against political or monetary union after 1992 and against anything that undermines the sovereignty of member states, much to the annoyance of some other heads of state. We are not so hopeful that she will get her way. However, the Sabbath legislation in England should be retained, strengthened and extended to Scotland. This would be a good bulwark to test our sovereignty in the context of EC law. A case is pending before EC courts to test whether restricted Sabbath trading in England and Wales is contrary to EC law. If the divine sanction will not be allowed by EC law, we would rather know before 1992.
Evangelical is Not Enough
This is the name of a book by Thomas Howard, ex-Protestant Evangelical, turned Roman Catholic sacramentalist. It has recently been re-issued by Ignatius Press, USA. The sub-title is “Worship of God in Liturgy and Sacrament” and the promotional literature states, “In this deeply moving narrative, Howard describes his pilgrimage from Evangelicalism to liturgical Christianity to Catholicism. He examines all aspects of liturgical worship with freshness and vigor, portraying the great beauty and depth of liturgical worship and prayer. He shows why liturgical worship is an invaluable aid to the spiritual life.” Howard justified his step to Rome partly in terms of the poverty and superficiality of much evangelical worship. We note, in passing, that liturgical reform was a precursor of the worldwide decline of nineteenth century Presbyterianism.
When Howard apostatised to Romanism, he had just co-authored a book with J. I. Packer. Among other comments on Howard’s apostacy, Packer said, “I don’t think becoming a Catholic is anything like the tragedy of a person becoming a (theological) liberal and losing touch with objective authority altogether . . . Catholics are among the most loyal and (spiritually) virile brothers evangelicals can find these days.” He suggested that Howard had turned to Rome because authority was to be found there. Howard has said that the sole authority of Scripture is a principle unique to Protestantism and that he, as a Catholic, could not subscribe it. We hope a fuller account will be published in the Free Presbyterian Magazine in due course, D.V.
In God’s Name
The Roman Catholic church has at last got round to trying to limit the damage done by In God’s Name by David Yallop, 1984. This book purported to prove that Pope John Paul I had been murdered after only 33 days in office. But now John Cornwall is to publish shortly a book provisionally called A Thief in the Night after receiving Vatican permission for access to registers, documents and witnesses to which Yallop did not have access. He went to Rome with a letter of commendation from the Archbishop of London, Cardinal Basil Hume. The latter is in a good position to know how damaging Yallop’s book has been. Cornwall studied to be a priest for seven years, then became an agnostic for 20 years before re-entering the Roman fold. He was chief foreign editor of The Observer for 12 years.
If the Romanists were alarmed at the suggestion that Pope John Paul I was murdered, they were probably just as alarmed at the printing of Vicars of Christ — the dark side of the papacy by Peter de Rosa (Bantam Press, 1988). This book reminds us at length of the murky side of the popes, of which there is an abundance of material. These self-styled Vicars of Christ, (blasphemously so named only since Hildebrand changed it from Vicars of St Peter) are exposed for what they were. “It is time to cease treating the papacy in terms of hagiography. The studied silence about the sins of the papacy is a scandal and a form of bad faith,” (p30). “Not long after Charlemagne, for well over a century and a half the whole batch was rotten. They were less disciples of Christ than of Belial, the Prince of Darkness. Very many were libertines, murderers, adulterers, warmongers, tyrants, simoniacs who were prepared to sell everything holy. They were nearly all more wrapped up in money and intrigue than in religion . . . There is a mystery in all this: how, in spite of the popes, the Western church held together for so long,” (p47). The present Pope is the 263rd, so one can calculate for oneself the average ‘reign’ of a Pope. At this rate, the election to the papacy appears to have been a suspended death sentence! In this book the author reveals what has been well known to Protestants for centuries, but which is presented now by an ex-priest to Roman Catholics — his intended audience. However, with the softening of modern Protestants, it may be worth their perusal also. Sadly, it is evident that the author is a theological liberal and that his purpose in opening the eyes of Roman Catholics to the dark side of the Papacy is not simply to make them a little less gullible but is to draw them along the benighted path of liberalism. It is not this that will destroy the papacy.