I still think Archbishop Nichols is wrong about civil unions. But we need to be fair: there’s no way ‘he would make a good Anglican’

The cricket analogy in this article is excellent!

Maybe I should not repeat myself but I have just made a comment in reply to the earlier question asking for clarification from +VN but I am repeating it as it does narrate the latest development:

What is quite clear from most of the comment is that whether you are a Tabletista or worse such as the author of queeringthechurch.com or a Taliban Catholic or just in the middle most people have been given the impression that the “Archbishop praises civil partnerships” – to quote the Tablet headline and more specifically “His comments mark the clearest support that a Catholic bishop has given to civil unions”.In contrast to this the CDF has said:In
those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have
been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and
emphatic opposition is a duty(For Austen Ivereigh to claim that this does not apply to civil unions is just plain silly)On Wednesday His Grace gave the inaugural Thomas More Memorial Lecture on “Religion is not a problem for legislators to solve but a vital contributor to the national conversation” followed by a Question and Answer session.This was the perfect opportunity to reply to William Oddie’s very pertinent question asking for clarification.  We did not get it.His Grace’s lecture can be read at:http://www.catholicnews.org.uk…His Grace suggested three points for action.  The first was to promote community and he suggested that joining something would lead to a community spirit which would eventually lead to a discussion where “the surge of awe, will come to the fore” presumably leading to religion.  One of his suggestions was bird-watching (shades of Fotherington Thomas and tell that to David Attenborough”).  Community is expressed in “a network of stable, lasting relationships in which encouragement, companionship and support are to be found”.  That was as near as he got to the subject of civil unions but one can see where he might be going.  It is rather like praising loyalty and by implication supporting the German soldier’s oath to the Fuehrer.Anyway in the Question and Answer session the question about Civil Unions was put to him in writing in no uncertain terms with the above quote from the CDF being read out.  Effectively he dodged the question repeating something along the lines of what he had said after the Bishop’s Conference.  His answer was that we should concentrate on the proposal that civil unions should be redefined as marriage.  (A proposal that an eminent Professor of Law  at Oxford has pointed out could be achieved by simply changing the definition in the Civil Partnership Act – a one line Act of Parliament could do that).  He said that we should concentrate on that issue alone and forget about civil unions as being done and dusted.  He said that bloggers who had brought the question up about civil unions were “mischievous”.Can he not see that these bloggers and many commentators are serious, sincere and genuine in their concerns and in dismissing them as mischievous is not acceptable from one who is suppose to be our shepherd?We must resist the redefinition of civil unions as marriage but surely His Grace has effectively undermined the situation.  The Government will say “These English & Welsh Catholic Bishops were initially opposed to Civil Unions but they have come round at last and praise them.  They are a bit slow to adapt to modern needs and they do have Rome breathing down their necks.  We may as well pass an Act redefining marriage and eventually the Bishops will come round to our point of view somewhere down the road”.

Once again a very good article Mr Oddie, but the question that I would like answered is why is this weak leadership so prevalent throughout all of English society?

We see it everywhere from our football managers through to our politicians – and even those who hold them accountable. Consider the mild-mannered, polite questioning that the Murdochs receieved from the Select Committee, compared to the grilling they would have got in America. The same can be said for the way our bankers were questioned, compared to the treatment they got in the U.S. There seem to be so few public figures courageous enough to ‘tell it like it is’ these days.

From the Catholic perspective I suspect it has something to do with the years of persecution we’ve received in this nation; peoples’ suspicion of a religion and a faith they now know so little about; and the still very present institutional prejudice that is present against Catholics in England. But I think it goes deeper than those issues: perhaps it is because our national identity is so weak? perhaps it is because our abortion rate is so high (which reflects much on hundreds of thousands of weak men walking away from their responsibilities)? perhaps it is because the Anglicans’ fondness for mild-mannered polite engagement has permeated through to the rest of us… “whatever you do, don’t upset the cart”.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

Unfortunately ‘Who knows what’s down the road’ is not the only concern Catholics have about Vincent Nichols. There are the soho masses, the Vaughan etc etc. Secularism today is militant, robust and very self-confident. There seems very little opposition to it. The given is that secularism is the default ideology and it thrives on the militants in the media and elsewhere and their gullible supporters and on the sad apathy from those confused people who may have a vestige of Christianity somewhere.
In this culture we Catholics need robust intelligent leadership from our shepherds and many bishops are not up to this task. They want to be all things to all men and Vincent Nichols appears to belong to this  clique. He is not a safe pair of hands.
Do we want the robust faith in the Risen Christ that St Paul boldly preached or  the vacuous counterfeit of Christianity now prevalent in the secular West that saps Christians of their meaning and vitality?

According to The Tablet http://thetablet.co.uk/latest-news.php Archbishop Nichols has expressed doubts about man-made climate change, perhaps he has been reading some of Dr Oddie’s blogs on that subject.

I don’t usually respond to comments etc, but I think you make some fair points here.

Yes, ‘nuts’ is probably an unwise term to use. I always try to ‘bring light, not heat’ and it makes things easier when people don’t think you’re out to insult them personally. Terminology matters, and I could have found better terms there.

As for the point about free speech, again I agree, but as somebody who runs a website (and a pretty big one) I have actually found that discourse works so much better when you don’t allow anyone and everyone to comment. Hence, all comments are pre-approved. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that bodies of the media are required to give everybody a platform. Those bodies must decide what their mission is and then make sensible, sound decisions around that.

As for the point about obscene and defamatory comments, I would agree. I am only really talking about a very small handful of comments, but I tend to find that the more, let’s say, extreme, they are, the more rude they are too. People seldom say the more extreme things politely.

As I say, fair point on the ‘nuts’ comment though. I rather fell foul of my own advice there

I just wanted to keep my rudeness within bounds.

Also, “ordination” refers here not to anglican ministry, but to the ordination of women to the priesthood, which we anglo-catholics held was simply invalid, i.e. not ordination at all. Of course, as a Catholic, I don’t (I can’t) believe in the validity of Anglican orders at all: but it’s not something I want particularly to make a point of. 

Now it has been.

As a reader who sometimes comments, and sometimes disagrees with you, Mr. Oddie, I think you’ve wirrten a great post, by charitably trying to understand where the Archbishop comes from.

Allow me, however, to disagree with your conclusion: I think the prelates and priests (and all Catholics, actually) should present the Faith in a way as to attract the attention and interest of readers. Stopping at “it’s just the way it is” makes us seem stubborn and close-minded. Let’s always give reasons for our beliefs, and if there are no reasons, or if the issue is not absolutely essential, have the humility to say so.

Gay couples being legally united and adopting is a prudential matter still not resolved. Who knows whether children raised by homosexuals are really worse off than living in an orphanage or with a single parent? Where is the evidence? So the least we can do is keep an open mind about it: show and voice our concerns and objections, but not in a dogmatic and stubborn way. This attitude is a straight ticket to that “pure and small” Church (or gueto?) that internet traditionalists yearn for.

I have seen RCYouthworkers site and I definitely get the impression they are liberal. They posted on their site recently that doing business with Barnado’s (who support abortions) was possibly alright. This is a zero tolerance issue and it is never ‘possibly’ alright to support any organisation that supports abortion if you are Catholic. It is extremely worrying that RCYW seems to crop up with these liberal comments.

They also seem to have a problem with the ‘right’ of the church. What RCYW seems to fail to understand is that it is never an issue of left or right – it is only ever an issue of being faithful to the magisterium of the church. This is always a zero tolerance issue.
It is extremely worrying that someone so influential in youth ministry does not seem to grasp this point.

I know a number of Catholic youth workers from the 70′s, 80′s and early 90′s, and although maybe they could be accused of not being perfect, even they are growing more and more concerned about the growing liberalism in Catholic youth work in the UK. It seems that the momentum is in the evangelical and pentecostal youth ministries. They tend to have a stronger (if not harder) Christian message in their teaching at grass roots and national level. Despite this they are far more successful at getting the youth to stay in their churches.

Aquinas says the Church is like a stone arch. Remove any one stone (dogma) and it all crumbles. Re protocol : Would it be more correct to refer to an archbishop who questions dogma as a broken arch or a fallen arch ?  Don Gaffney

Debate is good, and I think Archbishop Nichols is a big strong boy who can look after himself. I think these are serious issues, which need to be addressed. But we should avoid insults and anything that tastes of bitterness. They bring the “traditionalist” side into terrible disrepute and put people off. Please let’s be charitable. Clear and straightforward yes, but always charitable. The conservatives do themselves no favours by making nasty comments- it plays into the hands of the liberals who always portray us as twisted old lemons. Keep up the good work, Mr Oddie, and thank you.

Mr Pinheiro you ask whether they have wrong moral opinions.  It is not just wrong moral opinions but wrong moral acts which give the bad example.  If a heterosexual couple were indulging in immoral acts, of whatever kind, and holding that they were right in so doing then I would not place children with them.   There are plenty of people trying to adopt so why not choose the best parents?

You go on to ask:

“One piece of data that would be very relevant: are adopted children raised by homosexual parents more likely to be homosexual when they grow up than those raised by heterosexual couples? ”

If we are thinking of a Catholic adoption agency then I would hope that they would want to place a Catholic child with Catholic parents and not with a couple who are openly defying the law of the Church.  Whether the child would turn out homosexual is not the point.   The likelihood that it would not grow up as an orthodox Catholic is more than probable.

Why is it troubling that Catholics rely upon the magisterium?  There are many areas of life where one has to trust authority.  When I board an aeroplane I take it on trust that it has been properly built, maintained etc.  Life is too short to become an expert on everything.  We have the assurance that the Church cannot err in faith and morals and therefore it is quite rational to follow the teaching without going into all the reasons as to why the teaching is there.

“A whole lot has changed in Catholic morality over the centuries”  I think you will find that nothing fundamental – in particular sexual morality – has changed.  It may have developed and we may have a better understanding of the issues but fundamental change no.  You quote the example of usury.  Usury is a sin against the seventh and tenth commandments.  However the actual nature of what is usury is something that needs developing very urgently.  It is not just lending money at interest but lending money regardless of any moral considerations e.g lending money to someone when you know they have little chance of paying the interest.  The recent financial crisis has in large part been caused by usury.  For example lending money for house buying in the United States at very low rates of interest but then putting in a clause whereby the rate of interest rockets after two years in the hope that the borrower will not  notice.  I think you will find that much of our previous law on money-lending was swept away by the Financial Services Act 1986 as was some of the law on gambling (another sin in certain circumstances) all with disastrous results.

I would like to see the Church getting its head round making a study of what usury and gambling are.  They could start with an interesting article by Hilaire Belloc on Usury written shortly after the 1929 crash.

I think to suggest that fundamental principles of morality are negotiable is very dangerous.  Most of us have to struggle with improper sexual desires whether we have heterosexual or homosexual leanings and to be told that we may have been wasting our time resisting those urges because something else is “down the road” is particularly unhelpful.  The failure to give proper support to Humanae Vitae has been the cause of much of the falling away from the Church.

Dr Oddie is quite right about the difference between Anglican bishops and Catholic ones. Many of the key moments which convinced me that Anglicanism was not my home were during sermons or other performances by Anglican bishops. Whilst I sometimes hope for a clearer statement of orthodoxy from Catholic bishops, I’ve never heard anything like the nonsense that came from some Anglicans.

On not trying to appear reasonable to an aggressive enenmy, I’m not sure. Catholicism is essentially based on reason, and while it needs to be careful not to bow to false standards of reason set by a secular agenda, it does need to present rational arguments. And the problem is that it’s very difficult to do this in a live encounter and get every nuance and tone right. Perhaps a division of responsibility? Bishops need to present the faith loud and clear whilst the laity need to get down and dirty with the media…?? Catholicism has a philosophical tradition lacking in other forms of Christianity. We need to use it and the nature of live philosophical debate is essentially risky.

“Sex outside marriage is wrong”. Why is it then that conservative Catholics regularly fulminate against civil partnerships but not against civil marriages of divorcees. The latter are equally guilty of having sex outside of marriage as defined by the Church. Also, as they are living in sin, they  are surely equally unsuitable to be adoptive parents.

Perhaps because the fulminaters can imagine how two people of different sexes in the same marriage can come unstuck; many such Catholics will themselves come from homes in which this has happened. Divorce is wisdespread, and there are millions of divorced Christians – Catholics included – in Britain alone.

Gay people OTOH are relatively rare. Probably more Catholics have heard of condemnations of “homosexuality” (it’s an unsatisfactory word, but it has the advantage of familiarity) than have met a gay person. Gay people still have oddity value; they are still sufficiently unfamiliar for Catholics to be ignorant of what to expect should they come across one. And divorce does not have the cachet that comes with being a “sin crying to heaven for vengeance” – “the sin of Sodom” seems to be remembered, while the others escape notice. It is not even 50 years since sodomy was decriminalised; and there are various myths about gay people that don’t help them to be accepted without further ado. Myths about AIDS being a “gay plague” probably didn’t help. And the present Pope has spoken far more about gay people than about divorce. In addition, “conservative” Catholics – another unhelpful label – are fairly like to adopt the position that being gay is worse than being divorced; that gay people are a far greater threat to marriage, for that very reason. And another reason given for the attention devoted to gay people is that they are active in trying to have “the gay lifestyle” accepted as socially normal, whereas there are no “Divorce Pride” marches. In short, gay people are unfamiliar, are objects of suspicion, & have a very bad reputation: they are in much the same category as Freemasons, Jews, Communists, liberals, Protestants, atheists, & other such favourite objects of Catholic suspicion. If people are warned against “the enemy” by informants they trust, how likely is it that they will investigate whether “the enemy” really is as described ?

Of course, of course.

The ex-Vicar of S.Thomas, Oxford liked to say things like that, too – and look where it’s got him. No wonder your Ordinariate has been such a spectacular flop.

Do many here recall the debacle between the Westminster Snake Pit, Central Hall and Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, from earlier this year. Well, this attitude of accommodation to the world is the root, a most highly visible cause, and the mainstay supporting the clash between oversight in the church and the faithful holding such oversight to account. Clearly, and swiftly, heaven acts again to show the reasons for this clash; a test on faith, fiery bright and burning too, as any purging furnace – judged not by other men but by a divine light shone on the antagonists’ own words (and what a terrifying judgement they face, all the pastors into whose hands the care of souls is set .. when these pastors, obdurately and consistently, prove unfaithful).

http://www.proecclesia.com/page_newsletter.htm

Yes, I know there is a world of difference between the embarrassing lack of fidelity to Catholic Truth among so many in oversight of the church catholic today and the embarrassment that swirled around a Vatican Office – which could have been avoided, even if PEeP (rightly) believes it need not have arisen – nonetheless, they are merely symptoms of an enduring dis-ease not the mortal disease itself.

‘The Church should fear the sin of its own members more than hatred against Christians, Pope Benedict XVI said.While the Church has suffered from persecution throughout its history, it “is supported by the light and strength of God” and will always end up victorious, he said.Overcoming trials and outside threats shows how the Christian community “is the presence, the guarantee of God’s love against all ideologies of hatred and selfishness,” he said on the feast of the Immaculate Conception today.“The only danger the Church can and should fear is the sin of her members,” the Pope said.’Church should fear sin of member more than persecution, says pope, Carol Glatz, Catholic Herald, 8th Dec 2011.

Here, in these few insightful words, the awesome Benedict XVI lays bare the sin of so many in charge of overseeing, administering and witnessing the Faith in its catholic orthodoxy – including Archbishop Nichols, it would seem – and that is: a penchant for accommodating faith to passing human ideologies (whether of outspoken hatred and selfishness or not). 

Of course this is unfair to his Grace, the Archbishop is – I trust – an honest man as well as a struggling Christian, neither of which any soul can rightly complain against (if that soul is also honest and struggling in, for and under Christ). Rash judgement can indeed and all too often lead to unnecessary tears before bedtime, whether at Westminster, with faithful witnesses, or in the onlooking critic; yet toys need not be throw from the pram, nor little feet stamped below red-faced, no-one-understands-me, tantrums. The danger, rather, is in allowing the sun to go down on our anger – this is doing wrong, and all wrongdoing is sin – in this, if nothing else, the ideology of ‘self’ has prevailed throughout the history of the church catholic (and its conflicts) and that from the very earliest days of the Faith .. it does so in Archbishop Nichols’ habitual conformity to a now-relevancy-viewpoint ideal as it does in the saintly flaws of traditionalism-correction-incontrovertiblity in idea as witnessed by PEeP (for we are not babes to be fed on milksop, but adults, called to gird ourselves for battle .. in spirit).

Being against homosexual adoption is not a “fundamental principle of morality” at all. It is a particular judgment, a practical conclusion, ideally flowing from more basic precepts which are themselves conclusions from first principles.

As for your discussion on usury, I won’t get into it now; but be aware that what the official magisterium condemned for centuries was not your deeper understanding of the issue, but something rather more basic: lending at interest in each and every case, regardless of moral context. You can redefine usury, making it something more narrow. What you cannot do is to pretend that it was this narrower definition that ecclesiastical authorites had in mind in centuries past.

Finally, I’m not agasint trusting the magisterium. I’m not against adoption agencies choosing not to allow homosexual couples. What I’m criticizing is not trust, but blind obedience; two very different things.   Trust and respect don’t preclude frank rational discussion, or even disagreement on particular points.

If God gave intellects to all (and not just to the members of the curia), why should we forsake ours when it comes to the most important questions of life: the meaning of life and morality?

Faith, Hope and Charity can exist without fanaticism, arrogance and blind obedience.

But truly Catholic and Papally-endorsed Anglican; which is more than any of your lot may validly claim Poppy

True, in all – or almost all – respects; and thank you for the sincerely faithful correction.

You misunderstand me, I suspect – through my own fault, in the charity I desire to show to His Grace; it is not that of covering up his sin, but in exposing it – along with my own, and that of us all (in part or whole). My poorly expressed, loving, remarks seek not to stand in judgement on him, but as a recollection – in mind of His Holiness –  that the real danger to the Faith of the church catholic is us, and our choice of doing wrong .. freely and even knowingly entered (and sadly, as often as not, indulged). In this I would refer to a far better expression of this truth of Faith offered by Saint Augustine in Book 12 of The City of God – on seeking to find a efficient cause of evil in the act of will; there is none, it is a deficiency not efficiency that marks out this sin; a defection from the Supreme Existence, Good himself, God.

Archbishop Nichols is good, just as God made him; like his conferes at Westminster he is also called to do good, in ministering for Christ; in this he is, as they are, like us all, so often defective .. repentance, therefore, is the key, not merely superior authority (which can lead the workhorses of church to refreshing water, but cannot make them drink).

One feels – far too often – that the hierarchy in so many places could do with refresher course in the Faith, at Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice as a fine (if humanly flawed) start. One almost wants to take Archbishop Nichols (and others) aside, hand him a Penny Catechism and say: ‘Now, Vincent, we are going to go through the teaching of the Faith together; So, join me, and – Why Did God Make Me? He made me to .’ Yet this, even where sincere if impracticable, is part of the mortal disease, not only the symptomatic dis-ease with current leadership (clerical and lay) in witnessing the faith; His Grace is not a babe, nor are we, needing to pretend at teachers and scholars .. here the harsher judgement must rest on the Archbishop, for it is into his hands that the care of our souls have been committed.

PS: His handling of the needs of genuinely committed Catholics, in sincere orthodoxy of faith, who happen to share a same-gender sexual attraction is woeful. He means well for this woefully maligned (if often self-defeatingly political) group of souls also committed to his pastoral care, and every bit as much so as you or I; yet he does them (not only himself) grievous harm – for willing good and yet doing evil is not so unusual a paradox, under the rule of law. Here – if anyone would want my opinion, which I doubt – I must disagree with the public venom of the tradition-for-tradition’s-sake mentality so often the only public face shown toward these fellow sinners called to repentance; and, of course, I shrink from the writhing of the poisonously worldly Snake Pit (while snakes are good as God’s creatures, and even blessedly helpful if treated with individual care, fiery images of Christ as these human souls ought to be, still on being cast into their collectedly hostile midst, all the loathing of a far from irrational phobia will rise up); in reality, as with Vincent Nichols, it is the men and women who need, desire and seek an up-building love in pastoral care from us all who must also, of themselves, step forward to witness the Faith not a political agenda, and so correct His Grace in the forms of his kindness toward them (background sniping noises merely distract), just as he must, of himself, begin to show that he is not a Cranmer but, if necessary, a Becket in witnessing Christ to our world (either way, such sacrificial life – please God not such a death – is the call given to him .. whether it pleases or not).

How nice for them, Paul. And I’ve got the first three discworld novels signed by Terry Pratchett.

because they are deranged and will not listen to sense.

Case in point,your response to this post…only affirms our opinion of your state of mind…

Cheezy smiles….displaying lots of teeth…:-)