Remember a couple of weeks ago on a BBC interview when Archbishop Vincent Nichols as asked about homosexual unions...

S. Some of their [Anglican] 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?

[link]

He doesn't know...

Unbelievable.

Anyway, if Archbishop Nichols is still not sure he should ask the Bishop of Paisley...

The Catholic Church will never celebrate same-sex unions – “not now, not in the future, not ever” – even if the law changes to allow religious celebrants to conduct gay marriages, the Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, has told the Prime Minister.

The bishop has written to David Cameron, quoting comments the Prime Minister made during a Gay Pride reception at 10 Downing Street in June.

[link]

But Archbishop Vincent Nichols doesn't know...

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.

Revealed: The real reason Austen Ivereigh doesn't want me in the same room as Archbishop Vincent Nichols.

Somebody told him I was going to wear this...

Now before anybody accuses me of being imprudent, notice that I (unlike the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham) have seen fit to photoshop in a fig leaf. The original version is, well, not fit for a family blog. In fact, the original version is in full rotating 3D and the camera zooms in on the...

The graphic (and I mean graphic) above is taken directly from the All That I Am Sex Education programme which was produced by the Diocese of Birmingham while Archbishop Nichols was Archbishop there. Despite many letters from concerned parents, he refuses to do anything about it.

This is the title screen on the DVD:

Year 6 (look it up if you don't believe me) means ages 10 to 11. I'm fairly sure the above image wouldn't make it in to a 12 certificate film without the fig leaf.

Go on, somebody tell me that we need to flash 3D animated nudes in front of mixed classes of giggling ten year olds because if we don't do it, they will only see it somewhere else! It's the Catholic way...?

Here are the credits:

For a moment I was almost expecting to see Ed Balls' name there as well.

It's okay though, because the bad guy here is definitely me. What a sicko, putting horrible pictures on the internet next to the poor Archbishop's name.

That's right. I'm the bad guy.

If you want to see it for yourself, the original footage, nudes and all, can be seen here.

The news is spreading across the blogs like wildfire. Archbishop Nichols' office is taking legal advice and considering possible court action against The Times

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster is considering legal action against the Times newspaper over its allegation that he tried to protect a paedophile.

The story, published on the front page on Saturday, marked a new low in relations between the Church and the British media.

The paper alleged that the Archbishop "protected" a priest who abused children at a Benedictine school in west London - even though, as then Archbishop of Birmingham, he had no involvement in the case.

A Church spokesman said: "The attempt to saddle the Archbishop with responsibility for this tragic case is completely unfounded and is an unwarranted slur. His office is taking legal advice."

Sources close to Westminster have confirmed that one of the options being considered is a possible court action for defamation.

[link]

Ah yes, the heroic Archbishop is finally standing up to those media scoundrels.

Oh, hold on.

Does anybody else find it a tad on the slimeballish side that he suddenly finds a penchant for legal action when he is personally attacked?

It's just, I can't help noticing that when the Holy Sacrament of Marriage was attacked by one Terry Prendergast almost a year ago the Archbishop did absolutely nothing.

For those who don't remember, Terry Prendergast is the head of an organisation called "Marriage Care" that receives funds from the Catholic Church and provides Marriage preparation, guidance and other services to Catholic couples. Terry Prendergast said (among other things) that it makes no difference to children whether their parents are married, unmarried or homosexual. What a great attitude for the head of an organisation called "Marriage Care". Archbishop Nichols (who happens to be president of Marriage Care) did nothing.

Defend Marriage? No. Defend himself? Yes.

What a guy.

Yes it is.

A good article on the whole Vincent Nichols writes in The Times, but I still find it difficult to read anything like this without thinking "Good, you've started worrying about child abuse, what about all the other abuse?"

My shame is compounded, as is the anger of many, at the mistaken judgments made within the Church: that reassurance from a suspect could be believed; that credible allegations were deemed to be “unbelievable”; that the reputation of the Church mattered more than safeguarding children. These wrong reactions arise whenever and wherever allegations of abuse are made, whether within a family or a Church. We have to insist that the safety of the child comes first because the child is powerless.

Take the recent issues with the CES. What happened when we criticised CES? What happened when people were telling their Bishops that their Catholic schools are allowing people to come in who promote contraception? Was it not exactly the above?

The Bishops go to the schools and are assured that everything is okay. They make the "mistaken judgements" referred to above - that "reassurance from a suspect could be believed" and that "credible allegations" are unbelievable. A cover up ensues, parents get misleading letters - they try to make it look good because when it comes to the promotion of contraception in our schoools "the reputation of the Church mattered more than safeguarding children".

Archbishop Nichols is right when he says "We have to insist that the safety of the child comes first because the child is powerless" which is why those of us who have not only smelled a rat but gone in to investigate and found the entire cast of Wind in the Willows having a tea party, we are not going to be letting this go.

+Nichols continues...

Serious mistakes have been made within the Catholic Church. There is some misunderstanding about the Church, too. Within the Church there is a legal structure, its canon law. It is the duty of each diocesan bishop to administer that law.

Really? You don't say!

Read the whole thing here.

If like me you were wondering exactly what Catholic Education Services and the Bishop's Conference are playing at, if you've ever thought "what are they thinking??!?" then this letter should hopefully explain all.

Not that it will make you feel any happier...

Dear Mrs [name removed on request],

Thank you for your email of 22 February 2010.

The Children Schools and Families Bill which is presently passing through Parliament has been amended in important ways by the patient and thorough work done by the CES. As a result, the policy for Sex and Relationships Education in a Catholic School will be determined by the governing body. This means that the religious character of the school will be reflected in the delivery of the subject to the pupils. Furthermore, parents will have the right to withdraw their children from SRE lessons up to the age of 15 years.

In the face of a Government with a very large parliamentary majority, the CES considers that it gets the best results for the Catholic community by negotiation. I believe that this is the responsible stance for the CES to take and has protected the rights of Catholic parents and families. To oppose the Bill outright would have put Catholic Schools in a position where they would have lost out on the concessions gained by the CES.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon OP

Bishop of Nottingham

Message sent on behalf of Bishop McMahon

Catherine Campbell

Bishop's Secretary

So there we have it. CES have chosen not to oppose the bill because they consider they will get the best results by negotiation.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense at all.

How do you negotiate over a bill you do not oppose? What do you say? "I have no opposition to this but I need a concession because..." Because what? Because you feel like it?

Is Bishop Mc Mahon, or his secretary, or the CES, or whoever it was in the maze of Bishop's Conference beurocracy that penned this letter... Are they saying that they do oppose the Bill but have decided to be silent as part of a deal? It rather sounds like it. If that is the case then it also sounds like an admission that they have knowingly kept silent about serious problems with government legislation, that they have intentionally not publicly taught that which should have been publicly taught.

It would mean that when Ed Balls (a senior government minister) said of Catholic Schools "They must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well." the resulting silence was not an accident.

It would mean that when Ed Balls went on to say "To have the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols in these changes is, I think, very, very important" the resulting silence from Archbishop Nichols himself was not an accident.

Hey guys, if we oppose King Henry VIII he might chop our heads off, better to negotiate some concessions... wot?

"If the Church were to accommodate herself to the world in any way that would entail a turning away from the Cross, this would not lead to a renewal of the Church, but only to her death."

[Joseph Ratzinger]

And it worked so well for the adoption agencies...

Another "round up" style post I'm afraid, there's really very little I can add to the excellent coverage going on across the internet...

As ever, if you read nothing else, read John Smeaton: Faith schools must promote abortion, Ed Balls confirms

Kate points out that the name of Archbishop Nichols has been dragged in to the debate with Ed Balls suggesting that Archbishop Nichols is in favour of the bill. That was two days ago and still no response from the Archbishop. Qui tacet consentire.

Damian Thompson is equally unimpressed... "Bishop Malcolm McMahon, who holds the education brief in the Bishops’ Conference: not available." "Oona Stannard, head of the Catholic Education Service (CES): not available."

Damian also asks "Archbishop Nichols, tell us: will Catholic schools provide abortion information, as the Government insists?" A question all Bishops will need to ask themselves as they are all ultimately responsible for the schools in their own diocese.

Laurence England asks "Where are they now?" (Bishops McMahon and Nichols that is) while I might ask the same of Bishop Drainey.

Jackie Parkes and Richard Marsden have more on Balls radio appearance this morning.

Fr Ray Blake suggests we should direct more of our ire at the Bishops involved... "There has been serious criticism of the Catholic Education Service, at least on the blogosphere and amongst "thinking" Catholics. Really the criticism should be aimed at Bishop McMahon, and his predecessor Archbishop Nichols, who is responsible for the CES."

For a bit of light relief, read the comments on atheist Free Thinker magazine where they are all terribly dissapointed in Ed Balls saying things like "This is no surprise from our corrupt and lying government; they cravenly give in to the demands of the religious zealots just to chase votes.", they really are deluded.

I have saved the gravest of questions until last: Fr Tim Finegan: Can Catholic schools co-operate in killing babies or not? And I agree with Mullier Fortis: "The Bishops have got to decide whether they wish to follow God or Caesar. To be silent any longer is to cooperate in grave evil."

As many blogs have said already: St John Fisher and St Thomas More, pray for us!

So now Archbishop Nichols is talking about government, but he could be talking a about CES...

Archbishop Nichols said: "Many today tell us that there is a crisis of trust in some of the institutions of this country. They point first to the Houses of Parliament and the political process itself. Then they may well include the financial institutions whose crises have brought such hardship and austerity to people all over the world."

The Archbishop of Westminster stressed: "In political terms this means that we have to refashion a project, a vision, to which all can be committed and which can help to overcome some of the corrosive cynicism of today."

[link]

Speaking as one of the corrosive cynics, I can easily tell you what will help to overcome some of the corrosive cynicism of today and it's not refashioning a project or a vision.

The only thing that can overcome cynicism is clear, public, moral integrity. Unfortunately, Archbishop Nichols doesn't seem to realise that this begins at home and Archbishop Nichols has one hell of a record in that regard...

• When Archbishop Nichols was Bishop of Birmingham he approved the All That I Am sex education project which includes images of computer generated full frontal nudity for children as young as ten years old.
• When Archbishop Nichols was in charge of Catholic Education Services they welcomed the Connexions agency in to Catholic Schools - an agency who refer under age girls for abortions without parental knowledge.
• Archbishop Nichols didn't seem to bat an eyelid when Terry Prendergast, the Executive Director of Marriage Care said that it makes no difference to children whether parents are married (Archbishop Nichols is president of Marriage Care).

It's no wonder some of us end up a tad cynical about whether Archbishop Nichols is really ever going to do anything about anything.

Archbishop Nichols, if you want to do something about cycism, do your job. Until you do you have no business telling anybody else, even MPs, how to do theirs.

Ad Limina a bit stressful was it?

[Image Source]

Pope Benedict sums up everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church in England and Wales...

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.

It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

link

In other words... Goodbye Terry Prendergast?

We are pleased...

Is there anything they wouldn't be pleased about?

You think I'm joking?

Here's an excerpt from the actual Catholic Education Services press release...

CESEW responds to proposals relating to Sex and Relationships Education and parental rights

Whilst disappointed that legal encumbrances mean that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply, we are pleased that the Government has recognised that the right of withdrawal in formative years is most critical and is therefore providing for the ability of parents to opt-out of SRE up to the age of 15.

CESEW will continue to firmly uphold the position that parental rights remain vital, particularly but not exclusively, in those most formative and critical years up until the age of 15.

[link]

I wonder if Archbishop Nichols has anything to say on the matter?

Thought not.

Parents. Betrayed. Again.