Into the maelstrom

The remarks of Archbishop Vincent Nichols regarding civil partnerships have stirred up a lot of controversy on the Catholic blogosphere this week, led by the respected columnist for the Catholic Herald, William Oddie. I won’t re-hash the debate, but Oddie’s pieces may be read here and here. Archbishop Nichol’s response to the criticism may be found here.

I don’t want to add too much to the debate, other than to wonder whether this is something of a storm in a teacup, I’m not going to deny that the Archbishop’s statement was ambiguous, but I think there is a tendency to be guilty of a lack of charity here. I am quite uncomfortable with the concept of automatically assuming that the leader of Catholics in England and Wales has some agenda which runs contrary to that of the Holy See which he is intent on pursuing. I know all sorts of commenters will now rush to tell me about a whole host of scandals in an attempt to demonstrate that there is a consistent trend and underlying proof that secretly the Bishops are seeking to do xyz, but I am also aware that there is always two sides to every story, and so far, I’m only aware of one side, namely that of the very orthodox Catholic blogosphere. I know that things don’t look great on paper, I am not disputing the veracity of various claims or calling into question the integrity of anyone who comments on these things, but in the case of, for example, the Cardinal Vaughan school, it’s quite difficult to comment from the sidelines, only having been party to one side.

Another thing I will note is that I can’t summon up the enthusiasm for ecclesiastical politics. I don’t know anyone from the Bishop’s Conference and if I’m honest, I don’t really want to know either. Networking, schmoozing, knowing who’s who, isn’t my thing, which is probably something of a failing for a former vicar’s wife. I like to write my blog, talk about Catholic social issues, discuss a bit of politics, what’s going on in the twittersphere and in the media, occasionally venture into a bit of theology, hoping that I don’t launch into heresy, but I’ll only call people to account when I feel able and qualified to do so. I genuinely don’t feel comfortable about publicly questioning Archbishop Nichols, for a multitude of reasons, none of them to do with sycophancy or self-advancement, but simply that I am yet to be convinced of certain things, such as whether the Liverpool Care Plan, is back-door euthanasia for example or whether or not it gives ammunition to the euthanasia lobby, so I’m not going to go down that route. Call me naive but I trust in the Holy Spirit whom I believe has a hand in episcopal matters.

In terms of civil partnerships, I think we have to remember, that were Archbishop Nichols grossly in the wrong here, we’d have heard about it already from the likes of Archbishop Cranmer, who wouldn’t have passed up an opportunity to criticise the Catholic Church if he thought that they were in any way supporting the issue of same-sex marriage. I admire the dead heretic enormously, but he isn’t exactly Rome’s greatest advocate.

The other thing that I think it is worth remembering, is that civil partnerships do solve some issues of natural justice, without necessarily undermining marriage. It is only right and just that people who are not in a marital relationship should be able to have similar access to various legal privileges, formerly only available to married couples, such as inheritance rights, or the right to nominate someone as your next of kin, or name them as a beneficiary on a pension. Though there are arguments to be made for keeping certain things as being exclusive privileges of a married couple, actually it is no bad thing for people to be able to legally formalise close relationships.

Where civil partnerships have failed and are utterly discriminatory is that they are only open to same-sex couples and necessitate an official public ceremony similar to a wedding ceremony. I have two elderly aunts, Auntie A and Auntie B. Unless my parents have finally got around to changing their will, they are still named as our official guardians in the event of my parents’ death. My Aunties were a part of our family when I was a child, they attended every family party or celebration, were part of Christmas, came to look after myself and my sister for a week when my grandmother died and were the first people my parents called to help when we were involved in a horrific car accident when I was ten, which incapacitated my mother for a year, at one stage all of the family were in different parts of the hospital being treated for our injuries with the aunties switching from theatre to theatre to check on our progress.

Auntie A and Auntie B were both teachers at my mother’s school which is how she came to know them. She immediately clicked with Auntie A and a lifelong friendship was born, I don’t ever remember them not being in my life. Auntie A moved in with Auntie B when she was a newly qualified teacher in the fifties and needed temporary lodgings. She never moved out. I honestly have no idea whether or not they were involved in a sexual relationship, but my instinct tells me that they were not. Schoolchildren being what they are, found out that Misses A and B lived together and constructed their own narrative, but I can honestly say, I never witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that. To a certain extent it doesn’t really matter, I’m not interested, it doesn’t affect my feelings towards them. Auntie A is probably one of the wisest and most perceptive women I’ve ever met. Over the past 60 years the aunties have done everything together, they have a lot of mutual interests, probably one of the reasons behind such a close enduring relationship, and are much loved in the local community, still attending Scottish Country dancing together in their 70s and 80s. They have travelled the world over and had an enormously full life. Auntie A once confided to me however were she to have her time again, she would have liked to have got married, that she would have liked to have had a husband and children, something that surprised me.

Now Auntie A is approaching her late 70s and Auntie B is ten years older, in her late 80s. Auntie B has increasingly been suffering health problems. Auntie A has become her full-time carer without complaint. Auntie B recently suffered a rectal prolapse which has necessitated very intimate and compassionate care. They are not in a civil partnership because neither of them want to put themselves through a ceremony that does not reflect the nature of their relationship. This means that when Auntie B dies, Auntie A will have no legal claim (not that she wants one) on Auntie B’s estate, despite having jointly contributed to the upkeep and maintenance of the house as well as the household shopping and so on for almost the past 60 years. She also has no social security rights, no tenancy rights and no right to be consulted in terms of treatment, as next-of-kin. I should imagine that being the canny ladies they are, that the correct arrangments have been made, but it seems nonsensical that Auntie A could well face a claim from Auntie B’s various nieces and nephews and could lose her house. It also seems unfair that Auntie A has no legal status. This could all be rectified with a civil partnership, but this option is not available to them as they don’t wish to formally recognise their relationship as being a same-sex one. Auntie A said that she wouldn’t put Auntie B through it and the pair of them would find it deeply humiliating and embarrassing. They don’t want it on permanent record that they were in a romantic relationship and besides Auntie A feels, it would be a lie or a sham.

This is where civil partnerships fail, because they do not give people like my aunties, or several other people, such as cousins, brothers and sisters, or platonic friends similar rights. Civil partnerships frame these relationships as only being romantic or sexual and are therefore discriminatory. But the principle of offering equal legal and employment rights to those in chaste loving relationships is a noble one, just as it is noble that whilst Catholics should not be seen to support same-sex sexual relationships, we cannot assume that all those who are in a civil partnership are necessarily indulging in sexual relationships. Though the Church of England allows its clergy to be in civil partnerships they are, technically speaking, supposed to be chaste and refrain from sex.

Civil partnerships are, excuse the pun, a b*gger’s muddle. The Church of England is in exactly the same position as the Catholic Church. Civil partnerships were seen as a compromise that served the legal needs of the gay community, but were not seen as undermining marriage as they were separate to them. The rules of democracy mean that views that are seen to be in the minority, and opposition to same-sex partnerships is a minority view, don’t hold sway. Most people were concerned that gay couples were not being treated on a par with married couples and held this to be grossly unfair. A much better solution would have been to create a legal process which meant that all couples could go to a registry office and register another person as their official next of kin. If gay couples had wanted all the extra bells and whistles there was still absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this, with a humanist minister or whatever they wanted, but civil partnerships discriminate nonetheless against those who are in a chaste relationship.

There are many arguments for keeping marriage special and according it unique status, civil partnerships should not, for example, include parental responsibility, which should remain as being the exclusive right of married couples, or put more precisely the right of children to be brought up by a biological mother and father, but done properly civil partnerships might not have undermined marriage.

The problem for both the Church of England and the Catholic Church is that neither wished to be seen to deny legal equalities and rights purely on the grounds of sexuality. The homophobe label still carries immense power, it’s Stonewall’s entire raison d’etre. Also at the time of the consultation on civil partnerships, the gay rights groups stated that they were not pushing for marriage, simply that they wanted equality.

This is one of the reasons why the CDF specifically spoke out against civil partnerships in 2003, they could see that civil partnerships were marriage by the back door – the slippery slope and that civil partnerships could very much be seen as an inferior option. Had all parties pushed harder for a wider definition of civil partnerships, then perhaps we would not be in the mess that we are in today.

In any case, it should be remembered that Archbishop Cormac Murphy O’Connor was in charge in 2003 when this was discussed. I am unable to offer comment as to what the church should or should not have done as I was not in communion with the Catholic Church at that time. I was dealing with an unplanned pregnancy and traumatic birth. Had the Church mounted a more concerted campaign, it is unsure whether or not this would have been successful, given how split the Anglican communion was over the whole issue, but the Bishops Conference was very clear in 2003, when it stated that “civil unions would not support the common good and we therefore strongly oppose them”.

Whatever else he might have said, Archbishop Nichols has stated that equality and commitment do not amount to marriage. Surely that is the main thing. Surely what matters now is sticking together to defend marriage, rather than this internecine squabbling, which does no-one any good. We are all part of one body in Christ. Wounds and divisions hurt us all.

*PS I know I will probably regret this and the internet will explode as a result. That’s the problem with trying to please everyone, you please no-one, but my loyalty lies in Christ and the Church that he founded. I am not convinced that hitching my wagon to the “church isn’t catholic enough” train is the way that I might best serve her. Don’t be too horrid in the comments.

12 thoughts on “Into the maelstrom

  1. You really hit the nail on the head with this one! The state is quite right in providing a mechanism for the protection of people in relationships. It’s a secular consideration and certainly has nothing to do with Christian Marriage, in the same way that a civil marriage is a contract.

    I also agree with you that there should be some protection for people like Aunt A & B other than a will because someone only has to die intestate for the remaining person to be left destitute. The idea of a Civil Partnership is a good one but, as you say, is seen as only for those in a gay relationship, whether sexual or not.

    Unfortunately any same sex couple living together now-a-days is immediately labelled as “gay” as is any unmarried man of a certain age!

  2. You’re right, civil partnerships are disciminatory. Encoded in their very structure is the idea that gay parnters aren’t good enough to be recognized as married. Or that damage will ensue if they are.

    If you have already explained how marriage is undermined, let me know which post and I will read it. But I can’t see how it can be done any worse blow than by celebrities, or drunks, or abusers, or anyone else who fundamentally defeats the purpose of marriage but is still socially accepted as ‘married’.

  3. Although I agree with you that our basic stance should be one of being charitable to the intentions of Bishops (indeed, rather one of humble submission) there do seem to quite a lot of ambiguities flying around particularly in the area of sexual ethics…

    On civil partnerships, I don’t think I agree with you. In essence, the institutions of law are about enabling human flourishing, not just about what people happen to want to do. We’ve evolved contracts to allow socially useful economic relationships and marriage to support child rearing. Previous stages of society have managed to do without enshrining friendships (sexual or otherwise) in law: what is it about our stage of society that civil partnerships are needed to serve the common good in a way they weren’t before? (Particularly when -as we’re currently seeing- introducing them blurs the distinction between those relationships which are simply friendships, and those (marriage) which are oriented towards the raising of children.)

    In any case, as introduced, civil partnerships were clearly intended as a gay analogue of heterosexual marriage. If their nature had been expanded in the way you envisage, I’m not sure they would have (even temporarily) satisfied the gay lobby -which was their whole political purpose.

  4. Yes, I have to agree, with almost all of this article. I quite agree that civil partnerships do respond to an issue of natural justice (inheritance rights, etc – and more), and I quite agree that they should be open to chaste relationships too. I quite agree that civil partnerships are not, and must not be seen as the same as marriage – which is precisely the point that Archbishop Nichols is making. As such, I think the attacks on him are somewhat unwarranted – and that this is something of a storm in a teacup. The enforced closure of Catholic adoption agencies was a real scandal: nothing that I am aware of that Nichols has said about civil partnerships is.

  5. This is very interesting as i never considered that a civil partnership discriminates towards the romantically involved – but it does of course!
    This brings up the extreamly unpopular (some would even say abnormal) idea of chastity.
    My friend runs a group for gay catholics who have decided that their faith is more important than their sexuality, but none the less do not shy away from the reality of who they are. So they live as openly gay chaste catholics.
    Hats off to them as i think this is possibly the most contrevertial stand point (from every way you look at it) i have ever encountered!​group/​CourageReparationOnline/

  6. My husband knew the Archbishop personally, in the early 1990s when he was Cardinal Basil Hume’s personal secretary and my husband’s family were friends of the Cardinal, and according to him the Archbishop was always a very ‘traditional-minded, rather conservative man, but with great compassion and empathy for others’…Now, read that as you will, but it sounds to me that some people just read too much into his recent statements. Caroline, I also had 2 aunties who lived together, both had been teachers! So, your story struck a cord! One, my Auntie Truus was my godmother when I became a Catholic in 1989, and my auntie Trudy was one of the first people to hold me when I was born! They were definitely ‘straight’, but would have both been 106 now (Trudy died aged 89 and Truus died aged 94) and when they were young it was quite normal for unmarried young ladies who wanted to set up home, to move in together. I have a picture of my auntie Truus in 1935 when she became a ‘consecrated Virgin’, for whatever reason she couldn’t become a nun and this was her way to dedicate her life to Christ. Trudy was her best friend, they were both teachers and it made sense to live together and share the bills. Both did a lot for the local Catholic community in Apeldoorn (Holland) and they were enormously admired and respected (when my auntie Truus died, there were 800 people at her funeral!). In those days living together with someone of the same sex did not always mean you were homosexual. I remember asking them outright in my teens and they were shocked that I could even THINK that, it had never occurred to them. I think it’s a sad sign of the times that if you have a very good friend of the same sex people immediately jump to that conclusion these days…I just thought it was lovely to hear someone else say they had aunties like that too, it really brought back happy memories!

  7. Excuse me if I speak as someone you presumably would label a heretic (unless that epithet was particular to the late archbishop), but I feel that those one might describe as the “more catholic than thou” bloggers are remarkably Protestant and individualist in their regular and frenzied bashing of their bishops (an activity that as Catholics they should surely not be engaged in!)

  8. Thank goodness for a sane and sensible assessment of the Archbishop’s comments. He was not departing from the Church’s teaching. He was upholding Christian marriage. He was also acting as a pastor in showing he understood the real difficulties of a secular society trying to deal fairly with those who cannot truthfully enter into a heterosexual relationship. It does seem that some Catholic bloggers would be more at home with the Pharisees than the Disciples.

  9. Caroline:

    Thank you for your post, to which I have referred/linked in my own remarks on this subject. I think your analysis of the discriminatory nature of civil partnerships is very much to the point.

    It is worth asking whether or not the forum of the press conference is in fact the best way for a Bishop to exercise his teaching office. A pastoral letter might well be a more successful format, and, if done carefully, would avoid the confusion that seems to have resulted in this case from a press conference.

  10. I rather liked this. And rather agreed with most (not all) of it.

    Ioannes (you know me from the Juv twitter lol)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s