The British don’t celebrate Thanksgiving, but Catholics in England and Wales have good cause this week to give thanks all the same, this week. The head of the Catholic Church here, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, has responded to the planned introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples with words that are measured, balanced, and fully in keeping with Catholic teaching on sexuality - all of it, including the bit about “dignity, respect and understanding” that so many of his colleagues elsewhere seem never to have read.

When British PM David Cameron announced his personal backing for the move, it was on the basis that marriage was a statement of love and commitment, which contributes to social stability. Cameron concluded that it was right, therefore, to support marriage for all as a Conservative value. It did not take long for Catholic bishops in Scotland to wade into the fray, loudly expressing strong opposition. At the time, I noted to friends that Archbishop Nichols’ response was remarkable only for one thing: there was none. That was two months ago.

This week, following the bishops meeting in Leeds, he answered some questions on the subject at a press conference. The answers are revealing, and impressive. They are remarkable for, for demonstrating clearly:

• Archbishop Nichols’ response is totally free of the lunatic fringe claims made elsewhere, that simply bring the Catholic Church into disrepute.
• The archbishop’s tone is demonstrates that he is mindful of the full Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality and homosexuality - including the usually forgotten bit about “dignity, respect and understanding”
• The bishops’ stance on same - sex relationships is evolving, and now includes some respect for civil partnerships / civil unions.
• Fighting gay marriage is not a priority for the English bishops.

Archbishop Nichols’ sane response, free of lunacy.

Too many Catholic bishops have responded to debates over marriage equality with hysteria, falsehoods, and double standards. Archbishop Nichols avoided all of these.

• There is none of the hysteria that has marked the responses of bishops in Minnesota and Scotland. He sad that he is “disappointed” in David Cameron and the government. That’s a remarkably mild word, compared with the all-out war that Minnesota bishops have declared on marriage equality, and with it on gay Catholics and their families.
• There is none of the historically unsound claptrap about the supposedly universal, unchanging nature of marriage between one man and one woman.
• There is no appeal to religious liberty to restrict the religious liberty of others.
• There is no offensive claim that gay marriage is harmful to children.

For this, let us be thankful.

Archbishop Nichols’ respectful tone, emphasising equality.

(Homosexual persons) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

-Catholic Catechism, 2358

In avoiding hysteria, Nichols is already showing respect, but he has done much more. He has strongly emphasised the Catholic commitment to equality, and followed David Cameron in ackn0wledging the value of commitment in relationships.

“As a church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all activities of life ….. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.”

As I have noted before, there is an important theological discussion that needs to be held about gay marriage and Christian belief, but this discussion is impossible when those against reduce their arguments to the infantile level of hysterical ranting described above. Nichols’ tone avoids that. While I disagree with his thesis that it is possible to value equality and still hold that “marriage” should be restricted to that between a man and a woman, his tone and commitment make it possible to conduct that discussion in a reasoned and respectful manner.

For this, let us be thankful.

The English bishops’ evolving stance on civil partnerships.

In emphasising the importance of equality, and pointing our the value of commitment in relationships, Archbishop Nichols came close to supporting alternative forms of legal recognition, such as civil partnerships (in the UK and Ireland), or civil unions (as found in some US states). Asked more specifically about these, he stopped short of saying outright “We support civil unions”, but he did clear recognition that they have value - the next best thing.

“We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship… can find their place and protection and legal provision….. We need to make that distinction between the values of equality and commitment in relationships and the actual nature of marriage itself.”

In doing so, he has placed some distance between the bishops’ current position, and that adopted in 2003, when they told the government that civil partnerships “would not promote the common good and we therefore strongly oppose them.”

It could be that this is simply tactical. (The fight to forestall civil partnerships has already been lost). This could be no more than a strategic retreat, in the hope of strengthening their case against full marriage - but I doubt it. I think it is a genuine shift. After half a dozen years, it is more likely that they simply recognise that civil partnerships have, in fact, promoted the common good, and that back in 2003, they were simply wrong. As David Cameron argued at the Conservative conference, commitment in love leads to social stability, a value we can all support.

In common with Barack Obama, their position on recognition of our relationships is evolving.

For this, let us be thankful.

Fighting gay marriage is not a priority for the English bishops

The press and web headlines over Nichols’ press conference were all about his “disappointment” over David Cameron and gay marriage. What we easily miss, when reacting to headlines, is that he was responding here to direct questions. As the most senior bishop in the church of England and Wales, and speaking on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference, he was effectively bound to state his opposition to same-sex marriage. That he did so in such mild tones is notable, but should not surprise.

At the time of the papal visit last year, when journalists questioned him on the Church’s earlier opposition to civil unions, he insisted that fighting against same sex partnerships was not a priority for the Catholic Church. Instead, he referred to things like education and the relief from poverty as being more important. This is amply demonstrated by a look at the news pages from the website for the Catholic Church in England and Wales. The only item impacting the political sphere to even feature on the page, is an address by Archbishop Nichols to politicians, pointing out that budget cuts are disproportionately hitting the most vulnerable.

In the specific coverage of the bishops’ conference, the website lists the resolutions that were adopted:

The resolutions from the meeting covered the following issues:

• “Safeguarding” (that is, against abuse)
• Education
• Social Action (developing and strengthening the work of Caritas)
• Bishops’ Conference Strategic Framework
• Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee
• The International Eucharistic Congress 2012

So: the proposed introduction of gay marriage in the UK was discussed at the conference, but does not merit a formal resolution - but a proposed Mass in every parish to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee does. Gay marriage is not even mentioned by the Archbishop, until he is directly questioned in a press conference - and then, all he can say is that he is “disappointed”. Gay marriage is not a priority for the English bishops. Protecting the vulnerable, education and social action to relieve poverty are. The contrast with Minnesota (where gay marriage is already explicitly prohibited in state law, and is not even on the table for introduction) could hardly be starker.

For this, let us be thankful.

Positioning the Church on the Side of History

In a notable editorial, the Tablet points out the obvious wisdom in the English bishops’ cautious stance. It is no longer a question of whether the UK will have full marriage equality, but when. The political momentum is unstoppable. It was David Cameron, as leader of the Conservative party, who endorsed it at his party conference - and was wildly cheered. Opinion polls show overwhelming support. Leaders from the three other national parties represented in parliament have all expressed some degree of support. The Scottish Nationalists have already embarked on a route to unilateral introduction in Scotland. We also know that ordinary Catholics are more supportive of legal recognition for same-sex unions, than the population as a whole. Any attempt by the Church to oppose it, is bound to be defeated.

The price of such a defeat, in damage to the Church’s prestige and authority, needs to be factored into the bishops’ calculations. Undoubtedly one of the reasons left-wing politicians across the globe have been picking the fight is the advance the cause of secularism – in which they have succeeded.

What would make defeat more certain would be to conduct the debate in ways that give credence to the charge that Roman Catholicism is indelibly homophobic. It was wise, therefore, of Archbishop Nichols to position the Church as sympathetic to the case for civil partnerships – in essence gay relationships recognised by law. In a welcome display of pastoral sensitivity, the archbishop has put distance between the bishops’ position now and what they have said before, and even more so between it and the 2003 Considerations Regarding the Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons which provocatively described civil partnerships as the “legalisation of evil”.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols has come down on the right side of history, and has avoided bitter divisions inside the English Catholic Church.

For this, above all, let us be truly thankful.

Related articles

• Maryland Archbishop “Out of Step” With Catholics on Marriage Equality.
• Catholic Petition on DOMA, Gay Marriage.
• Gay Marriage: At London “Catholic Voices” Discussion, Gay Catholics NOT Welcome.
• Gay Marriage: Bishops’ Orwellian Newspeak.
• Catholics and Gay Marriage: Hostile Rant Meets Strong Response.
• Catholic Bishops, Gay Marriage: “the Outer Fringes of Crazy Town”

• In the “Marriage Amendment” Debate There is More Than One Catholic Perspective (The Wild Reed)
• “On This Issue, Archbishop Nienstedt, You Are Wrong” (The Wild Reed)
• Responding to the “Continued Harm Our Bishops Cause” (The Wild Reed)