respect and preserve our natural environment. The new British Government strongly
believes in pushing decisions down to the local level, and in involving as many people and organisations as possible in working for and achieving the well-being of every community. The great eighteenth-century Tory philoso- pher Edmund Burke called these parts of society the “little platoons”, and argued that responsibility should be spread among them. I call it the Big Society – where we’re all in it together, where everyone pulls together and works together; a more responsible society, where we all exercise our responsibilities to each other, to our families and to our com- munities. One where we don’t just ask, “What are my entitlements?”, but “What are my responsibilities?” Catholic Social Teaching has made a similar case for more than a century, and Catholic organisations work alongside other faith groups in education and welfare to make our country more harmonious and caring. Of course, the state has a role itself in promoting individual well-being, but this work should dovetail with what others do, not subvert it. There has been a lot of exaggerated com- ment that Pope Benedict will this week be visiting a largely secular country. I do not agree with this and there is much evidence in polls and the attendance at religious services to contradict it. But in any case, I believe such comment misses the point. The Pope’s visit should not just be welcomed by British Catholics or people of faith more broadly but by all who welcome what faith groups con- tribute to our society and who understand that, for many, faith is a gift to be cherished, not a problem to be overcome.
See’s broader message can help challenge us to ask searching questions about our society and how we treat ourselves and each other. Cardinal Newman once said that one little deed, whether by someone who helps “to relieve the sick and needy” or someone who “forgives an enemy”… evinces more true faith than could be shown by “the most fluent reli- gious conversation” or “the most intimate knowledge of Scripture”. Cardinal Newman is greatly remembered in Birmingham for his care for its people. During a cholera outbreak in the city, he worked tirelessly among the poor and sick. And when he himself died, the poor of the city turned out in their thousands to line the streets. Inscribed on the pall of his coffin was his motto, “Heart speaks to heart”. Hardly surprisingly, it is the theme of this papal visit. I hope that it will be reflected in the warm welcome that Pope Benedict receives in Britain and in the sentiments that he leaves behind when he returns to Rome.
W
■David Cameron was appointed Prime Minister on 11 May at the head of the coalition Government. He is Conservative MP for Witney, Oxfordshire.
e may not always agree with the Holy See on every issue. But that should not prevent us from acknowledging that the Holy
CLIFFORD LONGLEY
‘The archbishop hinted at a fresh presentation of Catholic teaching on sexuality’
The following quote is from Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, reported in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday. He was asked: “Should the Church one day accept the reality of gay partnerships?” and he replied, “I don’t know. There is in the Book of Nature an inherent connection between human sexuality and procreation; and those two things cannot ultimately be totally separate.” But then he added: “People who are of a homosexual orientation say: ‘Well, hang on a minute. How is the Book of Nature written in me?’” The question lies at the heart of the dilemma that the phenomenon of homosexuality presents to Catholic sexual morality. But the question could apply to all sexual acts, homo or hetero, where procreation is ruled out by the Book of Nature (as the archbishop puts it) such as during pregnancy, after the menopause and, more particularly though less predictably, during a woman’s so-called “safe” period. In such cases the “inherent connection” is tenuous, yet the Church says that in such cases sexual acts between married people are not wrong. Unlike with other mammals, human sexual desire seems to be indifferent to the possibility of fertility. But they cannot be totally separate, as the archbishop says. It is clearly in the interests of the species that it reproduces itself, and the sex drive is there in nature to meet that need. So the connection is not inherent in every act, but statistical, in that the human race needs enough reproductive sex to maintain itself; and it also needs stable partnerships, held together by sexual love, within which to raise children. “The most important thing the
Christian tradition says is, don’t see yourself simply as an isolated individual but as part of a wider family,” the archbishop went on to say. “The moral demands on all of us made by that tradition are difficult …” The old language – of mortal sin, for example – was a misguided attempt to motivate the faithful. “Fear is never a good motivation. The whole point of the Catholic journey is that it is a journey, and we try to hold together high ideals and
understanding. That is the same for people who struggle in whatever way with their sexuality. It’s an aim.” This was the second striking thing Archbishop Nichols had said on the subject of sexuality in recent days. In a radio interview with Mark Dowd, he was asked about the weekly so-called “gay Masses” at Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory in London’s West End. Did the admission to Holy Communion of gay men and women at that Mass imply the Church was condoning sexual activity contrary to its teaching, as alleged by the small group of protesters who picket the Masses? He said: “Anybody from the outside who is trying to cast a judgement on the people who come forward for Communion really ought to learn to hold their tongue.” The Church assumed those who asked for Communion were in good conscience. Here Archbishop Nichols is treading in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor Cardinal Basil Hume. The cardinal issued a statement on homosexuality in 1997 which contained the remarkable sentence: “In whatever context it arises, and always respecting the appropriate manner of its expression, love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.” But he went on to say that sexual acts were not permissible outside heterosexual marriage, and “must be open to the possible transmission of new life”. Archbishop Nichols referred to this principle as “tough” and a “high ideal”, adding, “I’m not sure many people have ever observed it in its totality but it doesn’t mean to say it has no sense.” This interview hinted at the possibility of – and need for – a fresh presentation of Catholic teaching on sexuality, even some further development of doctrine. The “hang-on-a-minute” question is left unanswered, but has to be addressed eventually. And one can detect in his doubts about the fear of mortal sin as a spur to good behaviour an echo of the Bishops’ Conference’s statement “Choosing the Common Good” which said, albeit in a different context, that compliance with rules was not the way to build a virtuous society. “The virtues are not about what one is allowed to do but who one is formed to be. They strengthen us to become moral agents, the source of our own actions.” Is it possible that Catholic sexual ethics could be reconstructed on the basis of those principles, an ethic which finally gives the answer Yes to humanity’s deepest need – the need to love and be loved – rather than No?
18 September 2010 | THE TABLET | 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48