Archbishop Vincent Nichols has once again demonstrated sanity and moderation on the place of the Catholic Church in modern society. While there are many loud, outraged voices raised in complaint in the US and in the UK over alleged assaults on religious freedom and of perceived persecution of Christians, Nichols has correctly pointed out that what is happening is not the “persecution” of Christians, but an attempt to separate the legal and cultural life of the country from its Christian roots. He is saying in other words, that what is happening is a removal from the Church of its previously privileged position. This may be deplorable, unfortunate, or welcome – but does not amount to persecution, any more than the removal of apartheid in South Africa represented the persecution of Whites.
The origins of complaints of persecution in the UK are in a series of high profile court judgements which have consistently found that religious freedom does not give Christians the right to contravene anti-discrimination laws. Recently, the volume has stepped up with complaints against the proposed introduction of marriage equality. (A former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has launched an on-line petition drive in opposition to gay marriage). Archbishop Nichols says that the Catholic Church in England and Wales is against the proposals – but will leave actual opposition to individual Catholics as individuals, but the Church “as a whole” will not join in the campaign.
After a fortnight which has seen the emergence of a “Christianist” backlash – most recently in evidence with an internet petition against gay marriage spearheaded by Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury – Nichols seems to be supporting the movement from a careful distance.
Catholics will be encouraged to sign the petition against gay marriage as individuals, but the church as a whole will not be part of Carey’s campaign even though it opposes a change in the law.
This is in stark contrast to the position of Scottish and American bishops (and may explain why unlike Timothy Dolan, Nichols was not in Rome last week for a cardinal’s red hat). It recognizes though, that while opposition to same – sex nuptials may be the logical implication of one part of current church teaching, it is one that is not accepted by the Church as a whole. Research has shown that a clear majority of British Catholics in fact support marriage equality, and we know from our own experience that active opposition by the Church is deeply hurtful to LGBT Catholics. Nichols’ refusal to get the Church actively involved in opposition is the logical result of following that other part of current church teaching that is conspicuously absent in the war on Catholic queer families in some other dioceses: that we deserve to be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity.
Nichols’ own “respect, compassion and sensitivity” was further demonstrated in his response to a question about the Vatican language on homosexuality.
When asked how to interpret the notorious Vatican description of homosexuality as “a tendency towards an objective moral evil”, Nichols gave me a carefully prepared talk on the roots of Catholic philosophy. “This is a philosophical construct,” he said
……..
He talked about the curious paradox that Catholic social teaching is gaining in influence and authority at the same time as Catholic sexual ethics seem discredited even among the faithful. Yet they are both, he said, derived from the same kind of reasoning and are an attempt to read out objective general truths about what is good for human beings, and then point our conduct towards them.
So, for example, the Catholic teaching about sex is based on the idea that it leads to babies, and this must be its highest good. The trouble is that when Catholic priests explain the purposes of sexuality they sound too often like a Martian at a football match.
Phrases like “abstract moral evil”, he said, are not aimed at any individual. “One talks about objective moral evil, you might say today, that’s racism. No matter what’s intended or understood, that, objectively, is wrong. In a similar way, you can say, in every sphere of life there is objective moral evil. But that does not imply subjective moral guilt. That does not imply guilt on an individual.“
via The Guardian.
This is a carefully phrased restatement of what he said in 2010, at the time of the Papal visit to London: that we must not judge the interior state on another’s conscience, and in effect affirms yet another strand of Catholic teaching that is important for queer Catholics- the primacy of conscience.
However, try as he might to lessen the hurtfulness of current teaching, he is unable to get away from the hard fact remaining – that it rests on an assumption that the primary purpose of sex is mere procreation, and that “homosexuality” in the abstract is seen as an objective moral evil, is “intrinsically disordered”.
Yet it is current church teaching itself that is disordered, and will not last. It is not based on anything more secure than the Church’s own tradition, is not securely founded in scripture, and is in conflict with the findings of both biological and human sciences. It is rejected by an overwhelming majority of ordinary Catholics, and probably by a majority of professional Catholic theologians. Other Christian denominations, especially those whose leaders whose understanding of sexuality is grounded in personal experience as well as mere book learning, are moving rapidly in the direction of full LGBT inclusion in church. It is becoming clear that the Catholic Church’s long tradition of hostility to homoerotic relationships is part of the distorting tradition about which Pope Benedict has written, and has warned us about. The writing is on the wall.
I am certain that a significant number of Catholic bishops know this, and that Vincent Nichols is one of them. The real challenge facing the leaders of the Church today is not facing up to the need to articulate a more realistic doctrine on sexual ethics, but finding a way to admit that for so long, they have been wrong.
Related articles
- Catholic Bishops Divided on Civil Unions
- Soho Masses – Supporting Church Teaching
- Give Thanks for Archbishop Nichols’ Balanced, Sane Response to British Gay Marriage.
- 35 Years as LGBT Catholics: Looking Back, Looking Ahead (3: Internal Contradictions in Church Teaching)
- Sebastian Moore, On The Transformation of Catholic Responses to Homoerotic Love
- Archbishop Nichols, on Catholic Priorities & The English Church
- The Transformation of Christian Responses to Homoerotic Love
- On Faith, Reason and the “Sensus Fidelium”.
- Conscience Formation, Spiritual Formation, and The Holy Spirit
- More on Debates about Same-Sex Civil Unions in Britain: Mystifying Case of Dr. Oddie and Catholic Herald (bilgrimage.blogspot.com)
- The “Gay Civil Unions” Approach of Some Within the Catholic Hierarchy: Too Little, Too Late (thewildreed.blogspot.com)
Excellent comment but I’m surprised by the statement that current church teaching “rests on the assumption that the primary purpose of sex is procreation”. This is neither the teaching of Gaudium & Spes nor even Humanae Vitae. Such formal teaching affirms a two-fold purpose: the procreation of children AND the mutual benefit and relationship of the couple. The one has no priority over the other, otherwise countless numbers of infertile marriages would be invalid or flawed, as I think you’ve probably pointed out in other contexts. It is this principle of beneficial relationship which underlines the stance of the Catholic Bishops of England & Wales’ 1979 “Introduction to the Pastoral Care of Homosexual People” where it cautions clergy, and others in a pastoral role, from immediately assuming culpability in those who commit to same-sex relationships, rather than serial sexual contact.
Martin, I agree that my statement is a gross oversimplification – but that is the way it is often presented to justify the teaching on homosexuality, and as it was presented in the Guardian article:
“So, for example, the Catholic teaching about sex is based on the idea that it leads to babies, and this must be its highest good. ”
I did consider making your point myself to contest the statement (it’s not clear if these are Andrew Brown’s own words, or if this is his presentation of Nichols’. Either way, I decided to live with the simplification, to stick with the main point.
The English & Welsh bishops formally oppose legalising gay marriage, and Archbishop Nichols is trying to put a liberal spin on this: “Archbishop Nichols says … the Church “as a whole” will not join in
the campaign.”
This is contradicted by Peter Smith, Archbishop of Southwark, speaking as Chair of the Bishops’
Conference Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship:
The Bishops’ Conference has formally announced in a press release that they are encouraging
parishioners to both sign the petition against gay marriage and to oppose gay marriage in the public consultation, so it is hard to see how Archbishop Nichols can justify his claim that ‘the Church “as a whole” will not join the campaign’. OK, this is not as bad as the rabid opposition and Catholic church’s own petition in Scotland, but it is nonetheless official church opposition.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News-Releases/Launch-of-the-Coalition-for-Marriage
Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark is also misleading and talking through his mitre when he claims: “it would fundamentally change the legal purpose
of marriage by removing any reference to the begetting and rearing of
children.”
There is no such legal purpose in English and Welsh marriage law. If there was such a legal requirement this would make it impossible for infertile people, women beyond the menopause, or people who do not wish to have or raise any children to marry.
http://lexisweb.co.uk/sub-topics/marriage-and-civil-partnership
‘Procreation’ is simply one of the Catholic Catechism’s reasons for the existence of the sacrament of marriage but even Catholics are not required to procreate if they marry, so “begetting and raising children” is not even a Catholic “legal purpose” of marriage.
Incidentally, I don’t think the reason Archbishop Vincent Nichols did not collect a red cardinal’s hat recently is because of his reputation for relative gay tolerance.
The Vatican needs to keep a limit on the number of cardinals eligible to vote for the next pope and one way it does this is not to create a new cardinal until the previous cardinal for the bishopric has either died or past 80 (a ‘one voter at a time’ preference), but this is sometimes broken. In New York, Cardinal Egan is still alive and is not yet 79, yet Dolan was made Cardinal. Both NY cardinals have poor records on dealing with child abuse.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols’ predecessor Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is alive and 79 (80 in late August, when he will no longer be eligible to elect the next pope), so maybe Vincent Nichols will get a red hat next year. Most Westminster Archbishops have had to wait some years before becoming a cardinal.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin was not made Cardinal either, although his predecessor Cardinal Desmond Connell is alive, and long since ineligible to vote because he’s over 80. Maybe the Irish government’s recent snub to the Vatican by saying no more ambassadors to the Holy See has kept Archbishop Martin waiting.
Yes, there is a difference in emphasis between Nichols and Smith – but both are saying, in effect that while they are opposed to gay marriage, it will be up to individuals to sign the petitions, and neither is saying declaring the all out war that we are seeing in Minnesota, for instance. Much of this is indeed a play on words, but that alone is to be welcomed, for displaying some of that sensitivity that is all too often notably absent.
Thank you for the clarification on the rules around the cardinal’s hat. I obviously wasn’t thinking far enough, and am heartened that it could/should still come in time.
Thanks, Terry, for your clarification.It just shows that we should rely on actual texts rather than journalists personal interpretation/comment, particularl;y when they themselves are not Catholics, or headlines – something you’ve often pointed out. I was hoping that rather than the format of a news report, the interview with Archbishop Nichols would have been carried in full.
I find it rather hypocritical of Archbishop Nichols saying the Catholic Church is not going to be part of campaign opposing same-sex civil marriage. It in fact is now that Archbishop Smith of Southward has invited 80 or more MPs for a meeting on April 18, obviously to admonish them to vote against equal civil marriage.