Weigel thinks UK bishops are using
wrong strategy in marriage battle
Rome, Italy, Dec 9, 2011 (CNA) - Blessed John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel, says he disagrees with the decision by the Bishops of England and Wales
not to oppose legal recognition for homosexual civil unions as part of their campaign to uphold marriage.
“In my experience in the United States, this notion of civil unions has always been a kind of half way house to so called ‘gay-marriages,’” he told CNA on Dec 7.
Weigel added that while a “humane state is going to make appropriate provisions for human relationships, particularly in moments of distress, … those issues can be dealt with without going down this road of saying there is something in the nature of a stable or unstable homosexual union that the state should honor and lift up.”
Weigel’s comments contrast with remarks made by Archbishop Vincent Nichols, President of the Catholics Bishops Conference of England and Wales, following their bi-annual full assembly in Leeds, Nov. 14-17.
“We would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship, a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection in legal provision,” Archbishop Nichols told journalists at a Nov. 18 press conference in London.
But he also cautioned that “to simply slip from that to marriage is not as simple a step as it might look and indeed it has a lot of ramifications and we would want to say these are categorically two different things.” Respecting “a lifelong partnership is one thing and to call it a marriage, if you like to annex the territory of marriage, is something quite different.”
Archbishop Nichols’s comments drew criticism from some high-profile Catholic commentators in the United Kingdom who pointed out that his statement seemed to contradict the 2003 advice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which was then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
In the document “Consideration Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons,” it states that “in those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.”
In an interview with CNA last week, Archbishop Nichols expanded upon his thinking by explaining that while a civil union “gives a same-sex couple the same rights that a married couple have,” the key distinction between it and marriage is that
same-sex unions do not “in law contain a required element of sexual relationships.” [I thought this was a strange, unrealistic and legalistic point brought by Nichols that does not even qualify as an argument in defense of his logic. If 'an lement of sexual relationship' were not present in homosexual unions, then the Catholic Church would have no problem at all, but how many gay couples get together without any thought of sexual relationship with each other? Any Catholic homosexuals who do so are unsung saints, but it is much easier and more pracitcal for a Catholic homosexual who wants to follow his faith to avoid practicing same-sex sex if he/she remains single and celibate, and not part of a 'union']
“Same-sex partnerships are not marriage because they have
no root in a sexual relationship which marriage does,” he said, “and that’s the distinction that I think it’s important for us to understand, that marriage is built on the sexual partnership between a man and a woman which is open to children, to their nurture and education.”
[But 'gay unions' usually - and perhaps even necessarily - imply a sexual relationship between the partners, which is of course not open to procreation because it is an unnatural act!]
Archbishop Nichols was publicly backed this week by a former high-ranking Vatican official, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini.
The 88-year-old former Prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches is quoted in an article entitled “Bufera sul Tamigi” (Storm on the Thames), which was published on the Italian newspaper La Stampa’s website Vatican Insider on Dec 4.
The article claims that Archbishop Nichols is being “forced to publicly defend himself against claims that have been made against him by Catholic groups in the United Kingdom, for his ‘excessive alignment with Rome’ when it comes to family ethics.”
Indeed, the article carries the sub-headline “British Catholic groups accuse the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, of following the Vatican’s guidelines, on homosexuality and civil partnerships, too closely.”
“These unfair accusations made against the President of Catholic Bishops reflect past prejudices and are the consequence of an inveterate mistrust that has its roots in past centuries,” said Cardinal Silvestrini.
[I have a problem with this too-outspoken cardinal, who has been openly critical of Benedict XVI in the past, for instance about Summorum Pontificum and about the Regensburg lecture, too, if my memory serves me right. He made his name as a diplomat in John Paul II's Pontificate, where he also served as Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura, then Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches from 1998-2000, resigning in 2000. In 2003, he turned 85, but although he was no longer an elector, he participated in all the pre-Conclave meetings, and has since been a 'reliable source' for Vatican reporters when they are short of 'news' to report or need a 'headline-worthy' comment.]
The article describes Archbishop Nichols as “a bona fide Ratzingerian” who is “highly esteemed both in the Curia and among the ranks of European bishops.”
[I don't know if anyone could call Nichols 'a bona fide Ratzingerian' - his liberal views, in line with the entrenched bishops of England-and-Wales positions, never would have classed him as an 'orthodox' priest or bishop, and his checkered record as Archbishop of Westminster so far proves that. You can't be 'Ratzignerian' and place obstacles in the way of implementing Summorum Pontificum, for example! I can hear Damian Thompson guffawing at Silvestrini's claim.]
Cardinal Silvestrini argues that some in England still seem to suffer from “a legacy of old tensions with the central government of the universal Church, to the point where even its leaders must be careful not to look too ‘papist.’”
The content and tone of the article has created a degree of puzzlement among some inside the Vatican.
“Why has Cardinal Silvestrini decided to speak out on behalf of Archbishop Vincent Nichols?” asked one senior Vatican official, who spoke to CNA on the basis of anonymity.
“After all, the cardinal is an 88-year-old retired Italian cleric who lives in Rome and has no great knowledge of the Church in England, as far as I’m aware. It’s not surprising he seems to have got the story the wrong way round.”
“Anyway, who are these Catholic groups in the U.K. accusing Archbishop Nichols of excessive loyalty to Rome? We’ve certainly never come across any,” he said.
The official spokesman for the Archbishop Nichols told CNA that they did not want to respond to George Weigel’s comments, Cardinal Silvestrini, or the unnamed Vatican official.
The spokesman did acknowledge that “there is a proposal in the U.K. to change the definition of marriage, and the Prime Minister has said that he will back it as he believes equality and commitment is to be applauded and that’s why he’s in favor of same-sex marriage.”
“But we’re simply saying that quality and commitment do not equal marriage – marriage is something specific to do with the union of a man and a woman for the procreation and raising of children.”
Same-sex civil partnerships became legal in the U.K. in 2004, but the issue of same-sex “marriage” has become more prominent in recent months. The Scottish government is currently wrapping up a public consultation on whether to legalize gay “marriage.” A similar consultation in England and Wales will take place next spring.
William Oddie at Catholic Herald, finds Archbishop Nichols's explanation of his statements on same-sex unions more confusing than helpful, and has written at least three commentaries now on the issue:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/30/archbishop-nichols
www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/12/05/last-week
www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/12/09/i-still-think-archbishop...
He is right to be concerned. Nichols's overall orientation seems to be to seek a compromise at all costs, instead of standing up for what the Church teaches. That's not 'Ratzingerian' at all. How is he different then - and has he not learned any lessons - from the Archbishop of Canterbury who has sought to compromise with his liberal flock all this time and has ended up getting women bishops and gay bishops. The current position of the Church of England is that same-sex unions among laymen is permissible but gay clergy are supposed to be celibate! Current UK law does not yet allow homosexual marriage, though it recognizes homosexual unions.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 11/12/2011 22:29]