Archbishop Vincent Nichols: I don't know...

Blogged by James Preece on 5th July 2010

I wish I had thought to say this when I was defending the Pope's views on condoms on TV. It would have all been so much easier...

"Stephen Sackur (S): Let's look at some specific issues then... Not so long ago on a visit to Africa, Pope Benedict said that in his view the distribution of condoms can aggravate and does aggravate the problem of HIV Aids. Now there are no scientific polls on this but I would suggest to you that most people in a country like the United Kingdom would fundamentally disagree with that position.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols (N): Yes I would agree with you and I think that most people in this country would disagree with it.

S. Do you disagree with it?

N. No. I don't actually. I wouldn't express it like that.

S. You think that condoms aggravate the problem of the spread of HIV Aids?

N. No, I wouldn't express it quite like that.

So the Pope says something and a lot of people disagree. Archbishop Nichols agrees that they disagree but he doesn't disagree. Does that mean he agrees? No.

Confused?

The interviewer then mentions a German Bishop who says "that condoms are a crucial part of the healthcare alternative" and Archbishop Nichols says "I respect his views."

Then he does a bit of downplaying of the Church's claim to truth...

I think the church is misunderstood when the Church is represented as saying we possess the truth and from here on we'll give it to you. And Pope Benedict would never say that. He would say and I would try and echo that we are searchers for the truth.

Then he lays his cards on the table...

I think there is if you like a critical distance to be held between how the church struggles to understand a revealed truth and how a society is moving. If they're too close there's no light. If they're too far apart there's no light.

Archbishop Nichols says that we as a Church need to keep "a critical distance" from society in general. Not to close, not to far.

Is this why he turns a blind eye to government agencies that refer young girls for abortion in our schools? Is this why he has nothing to say about Greg Pope, the retired pro-abortion MP? Because he doesn't want the "critical distance" too get "too far apart"?

His complete lack of confidence in Catholic teaching shines through when he is asked about gay unions...

S. Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?

N. I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?

"I don't know."

He doesn't know whether we will someday sanction gay unions.

That's because he doesn't know whether the government is going to pass legislation making it a legal requirement to sanction gay unions.

What he does know is that whatever the government do, he will be bound by it. He isn't about to go to prison over it. St John Fisher he isn't.

The full transcript of the interview can be read here.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+28

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

+11

Hestor said...

Preaching a new religion with preaching the Catholic religion into oblivion. Have these prelates no fear of God?

+11

Policraticus said...

Many of the Irish TDs who have just allowed a landslide victory to bring in Civil Partnership legislation [even though its clean contrary to the spirit and letter of the Irish Constitution and its protection of the natural family] argue that the 'right' to same-sex 'union' is a 'personal religious belief'. Yes that's right: 'a personal religious belief!' Now here's a strange thing. Why the new tack in the language wars over furthering gay rights? Haven't Stonewall et al always argued for gay rights as human rights and nothing to do with religious belief??? Well yes thay have but notice now how Tatchell of Stonewall says it's ok for Christians to speak against homosexuality as long as they dont incite hatred and violence. How reasonable of him [them] since as good Christians we cannot disagree with that - so it must mean that he feels safe to argue that, because perhaps there are more and more soundings being taken from within the structures of the Catholic Church that is prepared to equate the doctrinal teaching on marriage [between one man and one woman] with respect for same-sex unions* and of course one method of paving the way for such parity of esteem might be promoting the idea that there is such a thing as 'chaste but close' relationship between people of the same sex? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7132493.ece

And what better way to cement in the public consciousness [both Catholic and non-Catholic] this idea of parity between tradtional marriage and same sex 'unions' than to talk of and view both lifestyle choices as [you guessed it] a 'personal religious belief'
But that may be too big a leap for many poeple to make so you need a cultural bridge that's well timed and in tune with the mood of both Catholic institutional authority and the powerful pro-gay forces of the State - of course! Why not peddle the notion that the great and renowned Englishman John Henry Newman [as it happens the key focus for the forthcoming 'State' papal visit] had a 'chaste and close' relationship with his brother in Christ - Ambrose St. John? But would it really be genuine and authentic to imply that a contemporary relationship between an Oratorian today with a non Oratorian is in any way remotely equal in sanctity to that between two deceased members of the Oratory from the 19th century - both of whom were widely renowned for their goodness and sanctity? Surely not? but then it depends on what your agenda is doesn't it? maybe that same sex 'unions' [chaste or otherwise] are a 'personal religious belief'?

*Recall the deacon Frank Wainwright this March in the diocese of Clifton who was instructed to apologise for his comment in a homily that 'marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' as it was deemed offensive and homophobic.

+13

Ted said...

Legislation compelling acceptance of religious blessing of civil partnerships is inevitable in the absence of effective opposition. The prime source from which effective opposition could come would be from the Catholic Church and, in particular, its hierarchy. The only time at which effective opposition could be mounted is before the legislation is introduced. Without the support of the hiararchy any lay opposition is substantially neutered.

Having failed to raise any serious opposition to SORS can one expect the hierarchy to do anything effective about opposing the religious blessing of civil partnerships?

There would not seem to be scope for middle ground in any of the debates as the issues are clear cut - the culture of life .v. the culture of death.

"Who knows what's down the road?" is not opposition of any type and is no defence of the civil liberties of Catholics (or anyone else for that matter).

I suggest we start praying for St John Fisher's intercession.

+10

Richard Reeves said...

I agree that the Church in England and Wales should be launching some serious opposition. However, the problem is that as soon as we do the media will come back at us with thousands of cases of abuse, the majority of them involving cases of priests abusing post pubescent males.
Even the scandal at the Oratory is centred upon an imprudent but chaste relationship between the provost and a 20 year old lad.
If anything the protest needs to be led by lay catholics, especially those in prominent positions.

Policraticus said...

'the problem is that...the media will come back at us with ...cases....involving priests abusing post pubescent males.' [ephebophilia]

remember the former Press Officer of the Archdiocese of Cardiff - a certain Fr John Owen who in March 2009 said on the BBC 'The Big Questions' programme; "most of the offences are being committed by homosexuals." ?

And who despite condemnation from the other panellists, two of whom were sexually abused, insisted he was stating the facts that the "vast majority" of abuse cases in the UK affected teenage boys. Owen concluded: "Now what does that tell you? Now that is a fact."

Fr. Owen was 'disciplined' by the Archdiocese in so far as it very publicly distanced its policy from his comments [even though presumably as Diocesan Communications Officer - he must have been speaking from a base of a degree of inside knowledge of such cases] and by NOT opposing the demands of the University of Cardiff [where he had been chaplain for many years] to have him summarily dismissed.
Fr. Owen was replaced as Cardiff University Chaplain by one Fr. Gareth Jones who was a former novice of the Birmingham Oratory. Presumably then Jones's time in novitiate didn't make him in to a homophobic cleric which presumably would have been under the influence of the [now indefinitely exiled] Fr Dermot Fenlon. Cong.Orat?

Ted said...

Policraticus,

In addition to being the CUC, does Fr Gareth Jones undertake any other ecclesiastical functions?

Auricularis said...

I heard that Fr. Gareth Jones accompanied Fr. Ignatius Harrison to Birmingham, when they delivered the news to the "Birmingham 3". Seems like the Fr. Jones is working against the very place he was a novice at.

Richard said...

Why would he be involved in the visitation if he is no longer a member of the community? Seems very odd indeed. But where is Fr Chavasse? We know where the other three are, but no mention of where he is? Someone said he could be on retreat in Washington, Maryland USA but I don't know of any monastery there.

Janet said...

Perhaps Fr Chavasse will go back to work for the diocese of Shrewsbury. They have an excellent new bishop there, Rt Reverend Mark Davies, who is very orthodox and whom I am sure would appreciate his help.

+11

Policraticus said...

So if a former Birmingham Oratory novice [G Jones] was good enough to replace the institutionally-deemed outspoken Owen [as CUC] why should it be necessary for the former novice master [Fenlon] of the former novice [G Jones] to be institutionally-deemed better out of the way so that 'the Pope is now able to come' ? [Fr. Duffield Provost of Birmingham -Catholic Herald front page. July 3 2010]

But wait a minute..... a former novice 'involved in the Visitation'??? a former novice 'alongside Fr Harrison'???

Can someone explain to me how that is ok in canon law? How does that ensure that proceedings are objective and without bias?

+10

Ted said...

One would imagine that, like any other system of justice, an impartial tribunal would be a prerequisite and that any member of the tribunal who could not offer impartiality would be obliged to recuse himself.

+10

Richard Reeves said...

"Can someone explain to me how that is ok in canon law? How does that ensure that proceedings are objective and without bias?"
It doesn't inspire confidence, and he hasn't been qualified as a canon lawyer for long either. Perhaps one of the best qualified canon lawyers in England is Fr Gerardo Fabrizio, judicial vicar of the Birmingham Archdiocese. He studied at the Gregorian University in Rome, and did a specialised course afterwards in jurisprudence. I believe Fr Fenlon also taught him in seminary at Oscott. He should be approached as a matter of urgency to see what can be done for these three holy men. It seems as though something rotten has happened at the Birmingham Oratory, and the stench is getting worse.

Policraticus said...

Apparently, Gandhi loved Newman�s prayer "Lead, kindly Light"

And in the movie 'Ghandi' the scene below somehow encapsulates the persecution of the Oratory Three....

Gandhi: At first I was amazed�
When you�re fighting in a just cause
People seem to pop up, just like you,
Right out of the pavement
Even when it�s dangerous or�

Anglican clergyman: Perhaps we should�

Ghandi: Doesn�t the New Testament say:
�If your enemy strikes you on the right cheek Offer him the left?�

Anglican clergyman: The phrase was used metaphorically� I don�t think our Lord�

Ghandi: I�m not so sure I have thought about it a great deal And he meant you must show courage. Willing to take a blow, several blows to show you won�t strike back nor will you be turned aside And when you do that it calls on something in human nature, something that makes his hatred for you decrease. And his respect increase. I think Christ grasped that and I have seen it work.

Anglican clergyman: You�ll find there�s room for us all.

Ghandi: They will imprison us.
They will fine us.
They will seize our possessions.
But they cannot take away our self-respect� If we do not give it to them.
I am asking you to fight
To fight against their anger, not to provoke it We will not strike a blow, but we will receive them.
And through our pain we will make them see their injustice.
And it will hurt, as all fighting hurts.
But we cannot lose. We cannot.
They may torture my body,
break my bones,
even kill me.
Then, they will have my dead body, not my obedience.

Pilgrim Parent said...

30 years ago Cardinal Hume questioned on TV the Church's teaching on Humanae Vitae, now on TV Archbishop Nichols says he doesn't know 'what is down the road' on the Church's teaching on gay unions.

Cardinal Newman's views on contraception have been debated 'as it wasn't around then' and also great emphasis is being made of his friendship with another priest (with, I presume certain implications). It would be amazing to hear him speak for himself on these issues.

Without the clear voices of the 3 Oratory experts to speak out, we have the scary scenario of a beatified Cardinal Newman being 'quoted' to justify any deviation from Church teaching. The 'who-knows-what's-down-the-road-crew' seem to neither respect the dead, nor the seamless garment of Church teaching.

Hestor said...

The "seamless garment" argument is something that the likes of Nichols and his cabal seem to respect: by placing global warming myth with the fight against abortion on a same level, the priorities have been woefully distorted.

Jackie Parkes said...

Comment removed at Jackie's request.