Writing at Bilgrimage, Bill Lindsay writes about the one-sided nature of Catholic reporting of the Papal visit to England and Scotland, noting that

and

Catholicism implies diversity. One of the reasons I was wary of personally committing to either adulation or indignation ahead of the visit was precisely that I recognized a variety of responses within myself, to Benedict the man, to the papacy itself as an institution, and as a symbol of the church. These are conflicts are not just within me - they are fundamental to the complexity of the issues. During the visit itself, I wrote very little (except where it directly concerned me and the Soho Masses), as there were so many different issues being raised, with such a barrage of commentary, that I felt I was suffering serious information overload. Now that the crowds have dispersed and the commentariat moved on to fresh topics, I am beginning to digest the implications and consequences of the last few weeks. As I do so, I will share some of these thoughts, not in any simplistic was it good or was it bad sense, but considering just one or two aspects at a time. As a preview, I share now just some of the thoughts that I have been chewing over.

One of the consequences of the visit that I was not expecting, has been strengthened public recognition of this diversity, and of the real priorities of Catholic belief. One of the best broadcast items ahead of the visit was a radio documentary for the BBC comparing today’s Britain with that of Pope John Paul’s visit, which presenter Mark Dowd summed by saying that the modern Church is more truly “Catholic” in the true sense - that is, diverse.

This recognition of Catholic diversity benefits thoughtful and progressive Catholics, and correspondingly weakens the position of rule-book Catholics who expect simple blind obedience to the Catechism. I believe that UK progressive Catholics generally, and gay Catholics in particular, have good reason to feel their position has been strengthened by the visit, and especially by some statements of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who is the head of the church in England and Wales. In a series of interviews before and after the visit, he has said that the primary characteristic of a Catholic is not blind obedience to Church authority, but a conscientious search for the truth. With specific reference to the Soho LGBT Masses, he insisted that it is not for the priest to judge the conscience of anyone presenting for communion. In a clear reference to our regular protesters outside, he suggested that they “hold their tongues” - in effect, they should shut the f*** up. (This emphasis on conscience supports one interpretation of the Newman legacy which after all was the purpose of the papal visit in the first place.)

There is also clearer recognition of authentic Catholic priorities. In his latest observations, in a panel discussion as part of a broadcast “tour highlights”, Nichols emphasised that Catholic teaching and practice on justice and combating poverty are far more important than conformity with one view of sexual ethics - priorities which progressives everywhere would recognize. He also said that the English bishops do not necessarily disapprove of gay civil partnerships, and that they did not oppose the legislation. This does not fit my memory of events at the time, but no matter - I am delighted to have the assurance of the current head of our national church that they have no objection to the legal recognition of same- sex unions.

Quite apart from the impact on the English church, I have found myself re-thinking my take on Newman and on Benedict himself, given his obvious deep respect for the newly Blessed John Henry. The Newman legacy is a complex and contested one, but I suspect the key to the paradox lies in seeing his concern not as one of either “freedom” of conscience, or as obedience to church authority, but as the importance of conscience as obedience to the truth - which may lie in the Church magisterium, but may not. If so, there will be far closer affinities between Archbishop Nichols and Pope Benedict than the rule-book Catholics can possibly recognize.

There is one further reason for local progressive Catholics to be pleased with the state of the English Church after the papal visit: the rule book Catholics, to judge from their army of bloggers, clearly are not.