Archbishop Vincent Nichols Gives Scandal And Confuses The Faithful

The enemy in our midst

And so the Pope came, saw and conquered. People were moved, crowds were gathered, even journalists felt stupid (which happens to them much less often than it should) and for some days toned down the Anti-Catholic propaganda.

Still, those accustomed to observe the British Catholic clergy knew that this wind of orthodoxy would not last long, with the local bishops bending to said winds like a birch and coming back to normal as soon as the nuisance ceases.

This is exactly what has happened; but in this case, the desire of the British clergy to show that the Papal visit was just an unwanted nuisance was so strong that the Head Scoundrel, Archbishop Nichols, couldn’t wait more than one day to launch himself in an open attack to the Teaching of the Church. Make no mistake, the message here is emphatically clear: I am still in charge and now it is back to normal.

Nichols is among the interviewed of the usual BBC “let’s be inclusive” interview (he loves doing that); interviewed with him is the also usual token homo, in this case an Anglican professor.

As LifeSiteNews reports, Vincent Nichols denies that – to put it with LSN – “the Church is opposed to the homosexualist agenda”. Please read this again. 1) There are homosexualists (= homosexual activists) around. 2) The Church is opposed to them. 3) The homos complain about the fact. 4) Nichols denies the fact. He denies that the Church be opposed to their agenda.

At this point, Nichols embarks in a defence of what the Church in England has done for them. His words are:

“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”

If this is not enough to let your adrenaline level go through the roof, I don’t know what could. Let us see what this disgraziato is saying:

1) “in this country”.That is as to say: “we are different from the rest of the Church here. We are on your side”. He must know that in countries like Italy the Church has made such a strong opposition when civil partnership were proposed, that the proposal died before a vote. He must know that in countries like USA, Mexico and others the controversies rage and the local Church is invariably on the right side. But he doesn’t care. He clearly says on whose part he is. He speaks for his fellow bishops too. In this he is probably right.
Disgraziato.

2) “we were very nuanced”. This is oh so typical of people like Nichols, who must have lost his faith in his youth. No right and wrong anymore, just “nuances”. Far more convenient. Just compare with those idiots in Italy, Mexico, USA; primitive, uncharitable people unable to be “nuanced”.

3) “We did not oppose gay civil partnerships”. “Gay” is not a theological word. In Vatican documents you find “homosexual”, not “gay”. And he did not oppose them. Vincent Nichols pretends to be unaware that he can be accessory to another’s sin by silence, by consent, by defense of the ill done, by flattery. He pretends to have completely forgotten what then Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote in his letter to the bishops (that is: to him personally):

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
(Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons)

Vincent Nichols is expected to teach homosexual that homosexual activity is not in order. He is not supposed to pretend not to know that homosexual activity is what happens within a civil partnerships and that through it sodomy becomes legalised and made socially acceptable.
There is an hypocrisy here, a brazenness, an open revolt to the Church and to common sense, that is breathtaking and beyond contempt.

4) “What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage”. Please. Every idiot knows that two people of the same sex living together are not “married”, even the perverts pretending to be “married” know it. But this is not the point. The point is that you can’t be so hypocritical as to say that you can accept civil partnerships whilst pretending to still condemn sodomy!

I can picture Vincent Nichols in pastoral visit in Sodom literally saying to the locals “we are very nuanced in this city; we do not oppose your civil partnerships; we recognise that in Sodom there might be a case for those; what we persistently say to you is that these are not the same as marriage”.

To think that this is an archbishop. It beggars belief.

As an Archbishop, Mr Nichols should be aware of the existence of a document called “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” (link under “Church Teaching”). Notice: “unions”, not “marriages”. No nuances here. In this document we find written:

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. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Which part of “clear and emphatic opposition” is Mr. Nichols not able to understand? Which part of “duty” is not applicable to England and Wales? What is so difficult to grasp in the words “gravely unjust laws”?

It doesn’t end here I am afraid. This despicable man goes to the point of implying that homosexuality is not a big deal after all, and that …… Pope Benedict thinks the same! In Vincent Nichols’ word, if a Pope has been consistently preaching the same ( and the Church’s) message both as a cardinal (with letters he pretends not to have read) and as a Pope, but avoids dealing explicitly with the matter for four days, hey presto, he has changed his priorities!!

Nichols expresses himself with the following words:

“I think it’s very interesting, and I don’t think for one minute it’s accidental, that when the pope wanted to raise this question, [in his address at Westminster Hall] where are the moral standards on which we base our activity, he chose as his example the financial crisis. I think that’s very important and not to be overlooked.”

I must say I have never found a worse example of falseness and a clergyman more brazenly disrespectful of the Holy Father. This man openly provokes the Holy Father by openly saying that his own homo agenda is shared by the Holy Father himself.
I never thought I’d see the day where an Archbishop of Westminster has the temerity of openly make a mockery of a Papal visit one day after its end.
Disgraziato!

Vincent Nichols has already attracted serious criticism and John Smeaton has said that his words are “fatally undermining (as distinct from denying) the security and even the legitimacy of Catholic teaching on the nature of human sexuality”.

Nichols is an enemy of the Church who doesn’t dare to openly attack the Pope, but prefers to undermine Church teaching through allusive words, a show of independence from Rome (even recognised by his homosexual interlocutor, as you can read) and a “British way to Catholicism” which is, to say it plainly, heresy.

The address where to write your complaint is
clero@cclergy.va

You don’t need to write a speech. Make it simple. Just post the link to the interview, advise that he is giving scandal and ask them to act.
No insults, no ranting, just the facts. In case, please wait until you can write with the necessary composure. I know it can be difficult, but it is the only way to be taken seriously.

Mundabor

Posted on September 26, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. For years I thought Nichols was (at best) dodgy.

    Then I read on Damian Thompson’s blog that his ‘Magic Circle’ days were a thing of the past: apparently, he’s now orthodox and on point.

    Funny kind of ‘orthodoxy’.

    • Thompson is never tired to write how intelligent and to the point Nichols is but I think that he is seeing things, as the Germans say, through pink spectacles. Or perhaps he has decided that it is safer to have him as a friend as he shoots on the others.

      Thompson is also the one who had forecast the end of the homo masses in Soho, but it seems clear now that Nichols is not waiting for the right moment to put an end to them, but to introduce new ones.

      Basically, the only things Nichols had done for the cause of conservatism are a couple of rather good press conferences/declarations in the first weeks and some modification of the arrangements in Westminster Cathedral; no more than a smoke screen (and a thin one, to boot) to be able to better pursue his own heretic, anti-pope, pro-homo, agenda.
      He now feels confident enough to openly challenge the Pope without putting his red hat in jeopardy. Red hat which, I am sure, he’ll receive very soon as by all his strenghts, Pope Benedict doesn’t have the gut to pick a fight with him or the English hierarchy (Nichols in Westminster, Peter Smith in Southwark and soon, no doubt, a red hat for Nichols).

      Anyway, never trust a journalist. They don”t trust each other, either.

      M

  2. Oh my, Mundabor. You have got a problem there in Merrie Olde Englande, don’t ya, mate? He doesn’t looks that old, so probably will be alive for awhile and you will have to suffer his nuances for a long time. Dear Saint Edmund Campion pray for us. Dear Dear St. Margaret Clitherow pray for us. Dear St. Robert Southwell pray for us. Dear St. Thomas More pray for us. Dear Blessed John Henry Newman pray for us!

    • RV,
      I am afraid the chap is rather young and looks like Health itself.
      Bar his conversion to Anglicanism (not improbable, if they have some very good job available; Rowan Williams is much older anyway so perhaps there’s hope) I’m afraid the only alternative will be for some future Pope to give him the boot.

      Whilst Pope Benedict is a good Pope in so many things, as far as bishops’ appointment are concerned he has been, if you ask me, too appeasing. Westminster and San Francisco are two examples of very important dioceses he has left to ominicchi (It; pej.; “little men”), but in other diocese he has also showed that where the enemy is strong, he doesn’t want to pick a fight. Frankly it peeves me that Cardinal Re is generally blamed for this; I can’t imagine that the Holy Father doesn’t know what he is doing when he appoints the likes of Nichols; recently, here in the UK, he has promoted Peter Smith, a man personally known to him as not sound because of a scandal of some years ago. It’ll be interesting to see whether something changes now that Ouellet is in charge.

      A pity, though, because if the Holy Father had been more aggressive in these matters I think his papacy would have been truly excellent.

      M

  3. Oh, Mundabor, tell me about Niederauer! Before San Francisco he was the bishop of my diocese. He hobnobbed with all the socialites and even participated in the Episcopal Church installment of the local bishopette. He did not observe…he participated and prayed at her “installment” as the Episcopal bisphopette of Salt Lake City! He was soft on Catholic politicians who were pro-choice and said there are many matters one must consider when voting. He’s now in San Francisco, and as far as I can tell, is very much the same there. So many lost years…he could have been standing as a beacon of truth against the local Latter-Day-Saints (Mormons). Under him, the local Catholic Church seemed like a social club for Democrats.

    • Well RV,
      I think it is was Benedict who sent him to San Francisco? To have Nancy Pelosi on your diocese and still non excommunicated really says it all… but I am sure there is much I do not know about.. 😉

      M

%d bloggers like this: