Okay, so that's not exactly what he said, but Archbishop Vincent Nichols should count himself very lucky that the above headline is only on some silly blog and not on the front cover of a major newspaper.

Seriously. What is he thinking?

Pope Francis understands this in practical terms. He has already identified two kinds of behaviour that destroy love in the Church. They are complaining and gossiping. He is a practical man. He knows that we live in a society in which complaining and gossip is a standard fare. They sell newspapers and attract us to blogs because we love hear complaints and to read gossip.

But Pope Francis is clear: they should have no place in the Church.

...

How wonderful it would be if our Church was known to be a place that was free of the sound of complaining and the whisper of gossip!

[link]

I'm not going to name names, but an alarming number of otherwise intelligent people have interpreted the above as "bloggers should have no place in the Church". That's not what he said. The "they" in this sentence has been clearly identified as "complaining and gossiping". It is complaining and gossiping that the Archbishop says should have no place in the Church.

He's wrong - Complaining has a place in the Church.

But James! But James! Pope Francis said... Yes, I know what Pope Francis said and it most certainly wasn't "complaining has no place in the Church"!

Pope Francis definitely did not say "never complain". Rather, he warned against "a life of complaints". He warned against "the risk of closing ourselves off in complaints" because "it dashes hope. Don’t get into this game of a life of complaints". Note that this is not a total ban on complaints. This is a warning against "a life of complaints". A perfectly sensible warning.

Archbishop Nichols turns it in to an outright ban. He says complaining has "no place" in the Church. That the Church should be "free of the sound of complaining".

This is clearly nonsense.

Redemptionis Sacramentum is clear:

It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.

[...]

Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint

[link]

And St Thomas Aquinas in his 13th century defence of blogging...

It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."

[...]

We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help

[link]

Complaining has it's place. It would of course be harmful to build our lives around complaining, just as it would be harmful to build our lives around eating. Yet neither are forbidden.

What is forbidden, explicitly, is for a Bishop to hear complaints and then do nothing about it. But then, that would never happen... right...?

Very good to see Archbishop Vincent Nichols visiting EnCourage in London.

EnCourage is a support group for homosexual Catholics who are courageously (hence the name) trying and live out the Church's teaching instead of trying to change it. They are a very good thing.

Not so good are the Soho "Gay Masses" where Church teaching is far from promoted. One of the young men at the EnCourage meeting bravely told Archbishop Nichols about it to his face...

J------, aged 23 from London, told the Archbishop how he “went to the Soho Masses who said it was ok to live an active homosexual lifestyle, but that is not what I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear that actually you will be blessed and supported in living a chaste life as a Catholic. The message was not there. I know of so many people who have struggled but have not been able to persevere.

[link]

Let's hope Archbishop Nichols takes that on board.

I've been doing this blogging stuff for a while now, so I'm used to the way things generally work when Archbishop Vincent Nichols wants to send a clear message. Usually there is a formal statement of several paragraphs, the statement appears in full on the diocesan website and is often found quoted across the whole Catholic press.

So when I see the "warning" that Archbishop Nichols has given Marriage Care I can't help noticing that no formal statement has been issued as such. There are just a few quotes from a spokesman appearing in one newspaper. It looks a lot to me like a spokesman got a phone call from a journalist and answered a few questions.

In other words - what we see here are a technically correct answers to questions about Archbishop Nichol's role as president of Marriage care and the criteria for Marriage Care to use the word "Catholic". This is hardly Archbishop Nichols going out of his way to fix things.

A spokesman for Archbishop Vincent Nichols, president of Marriage Care, said his role was exercised 'solely on the basis that the charitable objects… are to provide relationship counselling, marriage preparation and relationship education services to 'promote and support marriage and family life in accordance with the Church's vision of marriage as a vocation of life and love'.'

He added: 'It is the legal and fiduciary responsibility of the directors of the company to ensure that the charitable objects of Catholic Marriage Care Limited are observed and fulfilled. The provision of services in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church is also a requirement for Catholic Marriage Care Limited to maintain its continued use of the title Catholic within its designation and to retain the patronage of one of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales.'

[link]

We already know all this. We already know that Archbishop Vincent Nichols is the president of Marriage Care based on the charitable objectives, we already know that Marriage Care have a legal responsibility to fulfil charitable objectives and we already know that acting according to the teaching of the Church is a requirement for Marriage Care to use the title "Catholic".

These quotes tell us nothing new. They could have been made five years ago.

The questions is - does Archbishop Nichols have anything to say about the situation now? Marriage Care are offering marriage preparation to people entering in to civil partnerships. Does Archbishop Nichols have anything to say about that?

Is he going to do anything about it?

Archbishop Vincent Nichols is the president of an organisation going by the name of Catholic Marriage Care Ltd. An organisation that "offers support to people in their marriages, relationships and family life".

If you are the sort of person who likes to know where a million pounds comes from, you may be interested to know that in 2009-10 Catholic Marriage Care Ltd received £485,100 in grants from the government. In 2010-11 the "Strategic grant" from the Department for Education was £499,700 and made up more than half of their "Total incoming resources" for that financial year.

If you want to know how Catholic Marriage Care Ltd spend their money, you may be interested in this statement from the Chief Executive of Catholic Marriage Care Ltd. Mr Terry Prendergast...

he said that preparation for same-sex couples took place in private and not as part of a group with heterosexual couples. Mr Prendergast said: “We have offered them focused marriage preparation – private, and not in a group. This is about two people in love and one of our main aims is to support loving partnerships.”

[The Tablet, 15th September 2011, Page 34]

To clarify: Archbishop Vincent Nichols presides over an organisation that offers "focused marriage preparation" to homosexual couples.

A couple of years ago Archbishop Vincent Nichols was asked if the Catholic Church might have to show "flexibility" in terms of sanctioning gay unions. Archbishop Nichol's replied: "I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?"

It turns out that what was down the road was "marriage preparation" for homosexual couples presided over by Archbishop Vincent Nichols. This before homosexual marriage is even legal.

Meanwhile it's been over a month since Professor Tina Beattie (and twenty-six others including priests) signed a letter in The Times stating that "it is perfectly proper for Catholics, using fully informed consciences, to support the legal extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples" yet she remains in place as a member of the CAFOD Theological Advisory Committee. She didn't publicly support same-sex marriage, but she laid the necessary pharisaical framework for the Bishops to accommodate it...

It's a matter of conscience you see... and if a Catholic can support same-sex marriage then why shouldn't a Catholic Priest bless one?

The clear message to the government is that the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales can and will find a way to accommodate gay marriage. There may be a bit of a "struggle" as the Bishops make their submission to the government's "consultation" and there might even be a strongly worded pastoral letter but in terms of actual action? No.

In much the same way as they did with contraception and divorce, the Catholic Bishop's of England and Wales will find a way to accomodate gay marriage.

In fact, they are already doing so.

Well, I hope everybody has had a good Christmas - blogging has been light because I'm spending all day with the fambly doing more important things like going for walks and building lego models with the kids.

I see that Catholic Voices have leapt to the defence of Archbishop Vincent Nichols. This is not because they are the "unofficial" nuChurch media quango and must be because detailed rebuttals to Catholic journalists are the bread and butter of an organisation whose remit is to explain Catholic teaching in the secular media.

Greg Daly bless him presumably wrote this with a straight face...

The bishops were opposed to the scheme as first proposed, and drew on the 2003 CDF document in making a case largely based on the need to defend and promote the traditional understanding of marriage. As codified, however, the 2004 law – while imperfect – does not undermine the unique position of marriage in British law as it does not presuppose that a civil partnership is a homosexual relationship. Treating sexuality and sexual behaviour as private phenomena, it denies homosexual unions a parliamentary imprimatur and does not enshrine them as institutions within the legal structure of the United Kingdom.

As the law continues to treat homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon, it is entirely consistent with church teaching for Archbishop Nichols to support the civil partnership scheme as an existing and legitimate mechanism to help give stability to committed couples of the same sex, while strenously resisting any attempt by the state to redefine marriage.

[link]

See what he did there?

As codified... civil partnerships do "not presuppose that a civil partnership is a homosexual relationship."

Meanwhile in the real world we all know exactly how everybody understands civil partnerships - we know they turn up at the registry office dressed in some combination of brides/grooms and they routinely refer to their partner as a 'husband' or 'wife'. We know that they have no intention of going home to live chastely as brothers or sisters and we know that our culture in general considers the existence of civil partnerships to be a sort of legal 'approval' of homosexual acts.

It's okay though because as codified they have nothing to do with homosexual relationships so we can all put our fingers in our ears la la la. Archbishop Vincent Nichols is technically correct to say that there isn't necesarily anything wrong with the way the legislation is codified so he can "support the civil partnership scheme as an existing and legitimate mechanism" just so long as we all pretend not to notice that the country in general considers them to be marriage in name only.

The important thing is not what happens in real life and actually, you know, affects people... No. The important thing is to be technically, legalistically, as codified correct.

Then they call me a pharisee.

Here's the obligatory token gesture...

The Archbishop of Westminster has expressed his disappointment over the Government's plan to introduce gay marriage. "I'm very disappointed that the Government seems to be choosing this direction," Archbishop Vincent Nichols said at a press conference at the Bishops' Conference of England Wales' headquarters in Victoria today. He added: "I respect the Prime Minister's insistence and emphasis on the importance of equality in relationships and the vital importance of commitment, and of course those are things that we recognise as very important for the health of society. But commitment plus equality does not equal marriage. And the distinctive nature of marriage is something that is very important to the wellbeing of society because it is the foundation of family life."

[link]

I think the worst part of this quote has to be the "seems to be choosing this direction" part. As though the Archbishop seriously thinks there's any ambiguity here... perhaps he has received assurances? How did that work out last time?

Things seem to improve towards the end when he says that marriage is "the foundation of family life" but he can't possibly mean it because he continues to do nothing about Terry Prendergast.

I didn't have time to write about this at the time because my daughter was in hospital but it has been very interesting to observe the evolution of the Catholic Voices narrative on same-sex marriage.

Ella Leonard appeared on the BBC news back in September and attempted to defend the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. Not many people would volunteer to go on TV and talk about gay marriage so I have to give Ella Leonard full marks for courage.

The low point is at 3:00 when she says "it's only a word".

Marriage is not "only a word".

Ella Leonard stuck to the narrative for the first half of the interview saying "specific meaning" and "a man and a woman" over and over again until even she was beginning to laugh. To Ella's credit, the interview improved dramatically when she finally went off message (3:34) and said...

"I'm a Catholic it won't surprise you to know that I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman to bring up children to bring children in to the world to bring them up in a way that is useful for society as well as useful for them to develop their faith to develop as good members of society I think that is what marriage is for"

You can see that Ella Leonard has done her homework, she knows the exact year that the 2006 civil partnership act came out, she knows that marriage is mentioned in the universal declaration of human rights. Therefore I find it hard to believe she simply forgot to mention children for most of the interview - either Ella Leonard is very forgetful or else children didn't feature very high up in the Catholic Voices defence of marriage.

I can only think that Catholic Voices themselves had a rethink because a couple of weeks later Austen Ivereigh appeared on Channel 4 news to discuss same-sex marriage. This time the narrative has shifted considerably (skip to 1:00)...

Austen Ivereigh begins by saying "at the heart of the defence of marriage is the biological union of a man and a woman issuing forth in children who are then brought up by those parents this is a uniquely beneficial institution for children" he goes on to demonstrate excellent eye-brow technique around the 3:25 mark.

Unfortunately, even the eyebrows can't avoid a spectacular own goal towards the end of the interview when he says that "gay people bring up children and are very loving and very caring, there are lots of ways of bringing up children which are good and loving and caring". I dare say they are loving and caring, but are they what is best?

So close and yet so far.

You see - the very reason why marriage is such a "uniquely beneficial institution for children" is that it is designed to ensure as many children as possible grow up with a mummy and a daddy because that is what is best for children. That's not just a Catholic view or even just a religious view, that's been the view of countless societies and cultures for thousands of years of human history. Homosexual marriage harms children because it promotes situations in which children grow up without a mummy or a daddy.

Yet in 2009 Terry Prendergast, the executive director of Catholic Marriage Care said very publicly that "there is no evidence that suggests that children do best with heterosexual couples" Archbishop Vincent Nichols, said nothing. He also did nothing and Terry Prendergast remained executive director of Catholic Marriage Care. "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent".

If you were wondering when the argument over gay marriage was lost, that was it.

This is where the Catholic Voices find themselves between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they don't want to contradict the Archbishop and his silent approval of Prendergast's views. On the other hand they saw how the iron first of tolerance smashed the adoption agencies and they don't want to see a repeat performance.

Who knows what's down the road?

I reckon the people at the Royal Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RSOG) already know that maternal mortality is a problem in developing countries. I reckon they've probably worked out that this is a bad thing and that something ought to be done about it. It is, after all, one of the Millennium Development Goals.

So it won't suprise any of you to hear that when Archbishop "not keen" Vincent Nichols gave the annual Sir George Pinker memorial lecture to the Royal Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that was basically all he told them.

Telling people things they already know is his speciality.

Meanwhile the Royal Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists policy is that "abortion and contraception are an integral part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services."

Did Archbishop Vincent Nichols care to tell them that abortion is a bad thing and that they ought to do something about it? Er... nope. Of course not. Telling people things they don't want to hear doesn't make you popular.

Which is, of course, what being an Archbishop is all about?

No?

h/t John Smeaton

Bloggers are the problem.
Bloggers are the problem.

But like much of the establishment, Britain's senior clergymen have surrounded themselves with legions of press advisers whose jobs it is to make sure their paymasters don't put their foot in it – predominantly by keeping their heads below the parapet.

"I'm not sure he'll say much on that," says the press man for Archbishop Vincent Nichols when asked whether the leader of Catholics in England and Wales will broach the topic of abortion. "We're not really keen on an 'archbishop versus the politicians' headline'."

[link]

Bloggers are the problem.

I published this blog entry this time last year but I think it is worth posting again...

In 1535 St Thomas More and St John Fisher were executed, but the Archbishop of Canterbury would remain the Archbishop of Canterbury until 1555. While the king was cutting Catholic heads off, prelates like Archbishop Thomas Cranmer were making cosy arrangements with the government and helping to build the new religion.

Sound familiar? In 2010 the government no longer cuts heads off but so called "equality legislation" has closed the Catholic adoption agencies and once again, Catholic teaching on human sexuality threatens to become the flashpoint. Asked whether the Church might bless same sex partnerships, Cranmer's successor, Archbishop Vincent Nichols answered "I don’t know. Who knows what’s down the road?"

Like Cranmer, Nichols is waiting to see which way the wind blows. If the government makes Catholicism illegal, the Bishops Conference of England and Wales will simply adapt Catholicism...

But... but... Cranmer was a protestant! Was he indeed? Was he a protestant in 1533 when he was appointed a Catholic Archbishop? Interesting.

Anyway, I mention all this because today was the anniversary of the start of the Pilgrimage of Grace. On 13th October 1536, Robert Aske lead nine thousand who were joined by priests and forty-thousand men from York, Durham, Lancaster and other areas. The insurgents and took York and arranged for the monks to return to their houses and Catholic observance was resumed. No doubt at the time people referred to them as Taliban Catholics and wrote articles asking "What is it about riots that make people so angry?". Just as today people seriously think it is blogs that make people angry and not, you know, all the stuff there is to be angry about.

Robert wrote to the King "In all parts of the realm men's hearts much grudged with the suppression of abbeys, and the first fruits, by reason the same would be the destruction of the whole religion in England." Today, the suppression of the Birmingham Oratory is a similar step. Eventually the King sent a Jack Valero type character to make a load of promises so the protesters went home and, once everybody was dispersed, the promises were broken and the leaders arrested.

These days the dissolution is more subtle, institutions remain standing in name only while individuals are bundled away. Has anybody heard the Birmingham Oratory say a single thing in defence of Catholic teaching since the three left? I haven't. Has heard Catholic Bishops on the radio scoffing at Catholic teaching? I have.

For our part, we don't need to march on York, we can (thank goodness) march virtually across the web. Nobody is going to cut our heads off, though they might force my wife to stop blogging...

You can find out more about the Pilgrimage of Grace here.