From the editor’s desk

A welcome modest concession

The key subtext to the recent row over the right of Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate against homosexuals was the widespread public perception that the Catholic Church is a homophobic institution - a position reinforced by gay lobby groups, which regard the Church's defeat over the adoption issue as a singular triumph over a powerful enemy.

This ought not to be the case. It would be wise of the bishops to consider what they might do to change this perception, before it does more harm. But it will not be easy. For instance, even the modest concession made by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to allow a regular Mass in London specifically for Catholic homosexuals will bring angry denunciations from the vigilantes of conservative orthodoxy. He will no doubt be delated to Rome, even though he may well have taken the precaution of consulting Cardinal Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in advance. Perhaps being denounced in turn by Catholic homosexual organisations for not conceding enough will help him deal with such protests, though that might also reinforce the unfair impression on the Left and in the gay community that the Church is "up to its gay-bashing ways again". The message of the cardinal's gentle and sincere protestation in The Sunday Times - "Me, a gay-basher? Dear God, no!" - will travel only so far.

To the bishops, their position makes perfect sense. They are against "unjust" discrimination against homosexuals, but say they cannot compromise their principles. Last year's submission to the Government on behalf of Catholic adoption agencies asserted that they already applied non-discriminatory policies in employment. Is that the general rule in the Church now? Would a headmaster in a Catholic school who came out as gay still keep his job? Or a lay church official? Or would a nod and a wink be the best they both could hope for? This is not a sphere ruled by clear principles. This is fudge, motivated by a risk-averse strategy of not upsetting the dicasteries in Rome, coupled with fear of a tiny minority of self-appointed guardians. 

As disclosed in a letter to The Tablet recently, the bishops of England and Wales tried in vain in 2002 to persuade the Vatican to drop the word "evil" from a draft document on homosexuality. Why, then, did they stand back and watch the damage to the Church's good name, and to theirs, that followed from the publication of that infamous document with that word still included? Could they not have talked to their own good people about it? What could the Vatican have done to them?

Lay Catholics do not live in a bubble immune to trends in secular opinion, though they rightly judge such trends as good or bad according to the insights of their Catholic faith. Many will understand and indeed share Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor's concerns that the Government's anti-discrimination regulations will enshrine in law an equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual couples as prospective adopters. But they will also know that in the past their Church has stood on the wrong side of the debate about the treatment of gay people, and spoken with a cruel and un-Christian voice. Are the bishops able to hear that message? And what do they make of it?