LONDON — The U.K.’s most senior Catholics have spoken out against the government’s plans to introduce same-sex “marriage.”
In addition, they have urged lay Catholics to raise their voices in defense of marriage between one man and one woman.
As the U.K. government opens a consultation process regarding the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” an unprecedented letter has been sent to every parish in England and Wales. To be read at Sunday Masses across the land, the letter from Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster and Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark — the president and vice president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, respectively — outlined “the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.”
The archbishops said, “Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.”
They continued, “We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.”
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper, the U.K.’s most senior Catholic leader, Scotland’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien, pointed out: “In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women.”
Turning to the family, he said, “All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favor of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal,” but same-sex “marriage” “would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.”
The cardinal also noted that when same-sex civil partnerships were introduced in 2005 “supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.”
The Church teaches that “the matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of the offspring” (Catechism, 1601).
The Catechism goes on to state, “The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution, despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures and spiritual attitudes” (1603).
The government’s permanent under secretary for equalities, Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament Lynne Featherstone, is pushing the legislation with the backing of Prime Minister David Cameron. Following the publication of Cardinal O’Brien’s article, Featherstone said in an interview with The Independent newspaper that such an intervention “adds nothing to the debate. It inflames. On these issues, we have a responsibility in leadership positions to make sure we don’t fan the flames of homophobia.”
Despite the opening of the consultation process, she went on to give a “cast-iron guarantee” that same-sex “marriage” would become law by the next general election in 2015. She added, “The essential question is not whether we are going to introduce same-sex civil marriage, but how.”
Featherstone offered her “absolute reassurance” that churches would not be compelled to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies, despite the fact that government and Parliament had previously offered assurances that same-sex civil partnerships would not lead to legislation for same-sex “marriage.”
Responding on BBC Radio Lancashire to a similar charge that the Church is homophobic, Bishop Michael Campbell of Lancaster said, “The Church is not our creation.”
“The mercy of God is there for everyone, and, ultimately, people have to abide by their conscience,” he said. “But we feel that the proper road for a man and woman is in marriage. Anything else undermines marriage, and it will be at a cost to society.”
He added, “[Marriage is] not something we can bargain over or simply change as we see fit to go along with the spirit of the age. This is no reflection on those people of a gay orientation; we are not out to condemn; we are not in the business of condemning.”
As such, the bishops have backed the launch of a campaign to defend the traditional definition of marriage, urging Catholics to sign an online petition organized by the group Coalition for Marriage. At the time of writing, the petition has already attracted more than 250,000 signatures.
Speaking of the campaign, Archbishop Smith said, “A change is not needed because the Civil Partnerships Act provides for the civil rights of same-sex couples already. Nor is a change desirable, because it would fundamentally change the legal purpose of marriage by removing any reference to the begetting and rearing of children.
“Marriage is a fundamental social institution, and neither the state nor the Church has the right to redefine its meaning.”
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who became a Catholic in 2007, has reportedly told friends that he “strongly supports” the proposal to introduce same-sex “marriage.” Responding to this, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization, said, “If the stories in the press about Blair’s thinking are true, I think he should examine his conscience carefully and realize that there is coherence between the content of faith and the concrete action that must be taken by a politician.”
The alleged statement puts Blair at odds with other Catholic political figures, including Catholic peer Lord Daniel Brennan. The president of the Catholic Union, an association of Catholic men and women from various professions working to provide expertise and analysis on crucial issues of public concern, helped launch the Coalition for Marriage campaign, saying, “We cannot allow social engineering to take place with such Orwellian results that we say ‘parent one’ and parent two’ instead of mother and father.”
Similarly, Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury has urged Christian members of Parliament to follow their consciences rather than their political allies on this matter.
Bishop Davies said, “What the government now proposes to legislate into law constitutes nothing less than a seismic shift in the foundations of our society. We face a mindset which sees progress only as a continuous shifting of our society further and further from its Christian foundations until we have nothing left for family and society to be founded upon (other) than changing political fashions of thought.”
Bishop Davies suggested that “by attempting to redefine marriage for society, politicians will find they have not only undermined the institution of marriage, but obscured its identity for generations to come. For politicians of Christian conscience, this will be a moment to resist the leadership of their own political parties together with every parliamentarian who recognizes the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our society rests. Yet this will also be a moment for our own voices to be raised in defense of marriage.”
He said that this was necessary “in order to proclaim the God-given meaning of marriage, not only for the sake of this generation, but for the sake of all generations to come.”
James Kelly is a columnist for The Universe, the highest-circulation Catholic weekly in Britain and Ireland, and a researcher at the University of London.


Comments
Post a Comment
So, if they approve same sex “marriage” what happens when a royal in line for the crown enters into one? Or will it be not allowed in that situation?
How about public excommunication of any “Catholic” politician who votes in favor of gay marriage?
From: Guy McClung; PO Box 2553; Rockport TX 78381
Rockport Pilot Newspaper; Rockport, Texas
Letters to Editor: published March 7, 2012
I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us- Out of the monogamy closet.
Dear Editor:
As the dark ages of heterophobia are waning, our society is evolving, for the good, to the point where it can now accept me and my ilk. I cannot deny it any longer-I am coming out of the monogamy closet. Yes! I am faithful to my wife and I always have been since the day we were married over 38 years ago. I have always felt different around those who, with absolutist certainty, preached: self-fulfillment, freedom, liberty, self-worth, if-it-feels-good-do-it, I-gotta-be-me, do-it-my-way, grab-for-all-the-gusto-you-can, grab [another partner]-now, do-not-judge, my-morality-is-good-as-yours, and I-choose-my-morality. Why they want to impose this on me I do not know.
I knew deep in my heart and in my soul I was different. This is something I can turn on and off, it is a matter of my choice, my free will. It is innate in me. This is the way I was made by God and so I have come to believe it cannot be bad. I knew I was free to choose, it felt so natural. And I chose – over and over, again and again - to love my wife, and only my wife.
I know many will heap opprobrium on me, and some will even condemn me. So, I would like to begin a dialogue with those who are not like me, even though the grip of monagaphobia for some is overwhelming and the response from some monogaphobes is often shrill, scary, and even violent. Hopefully such a dialogue will spawn a movement to have the right to monogamy recognized legally and, if necessary, enforced by the government with concomitant retroactive compensation for past injustice, with future preferential treatment.
If it comes to legal action, no doubt many judges, fine judicial legislators, on courts at all levels and on the U.S. Supreme Court, will easily discover the Right to Monogamy hidden in the interstices of the Commerce Clause and in the penumbras of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, buried there long ago by our Founding Parents. I anticipate City Councils across our land will pass hate speech legislation so I and those like me will no longer be assaulted with “one-wifer!”
I look forward to Monogamy History Month – surprisingly there were monogamists who played major roles in our nation’s storied birth and growth, although this included relatively few politicians and journalists. Monogamy Challenged parking places will facilitate my visits to Wal-Mart. I relish the thought of the educational materials to be produced by organizations funded with my tax money for kindergartners that will portray monogamy in a tender, welcoming, accepting light and provide instruction, in graphic detail, about the mechanics of monogamy. I cannot wait for “Tommy Has One Mother and One Father,” “See How Happy Sally Is With Her [One] Mommy and [One] Daddy,” and “The Illustrated Joy of Monogamous Sex.”
Monogamy has become the love that dare not be mentioned, for some a stifling, dirty thing. But, in private, I have quietly reveled in it, glorying in the love of my one wife while keeping my mouth shut for fear of reprisal. I can no longer be silent. Now I dare … I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us.
Guy McClung
Momof11 really needn’t worry about next in line to the royal throne in the UK being affected if they celebrated their own gay civil marriage. It’s just not going to happen and even if it did, it would make absolutely no difference to the next two heirs to the throne becoming King when the Queen dies. Far worse in UK law would be for either to become Roman Catholic. Then they definitely would lose the right to become King. Both Prince Charles (first in line, married for a second time to a woman (his latest is called Camilla), and Prince William (Charles’s first son by his first wife Diana, and second in line to the throne, recently married a woman called Katherine). Let’s assume they both got divorced and married a gay civil partner. There’s no UK law that would bar either from the royal succession.
Thanks for your concern for the future of British royalty. In the UK we’re not losing any sleep.
If the heir to the throne “married” another man, the Queen would be succeeded by two queens. Seriously, though, the situation is that as far as the Established Church is concerned, there is no distinction between religious and civil marriage. If this measure is passed, as it no doubt will be, the first “gay” CofE wedding will not be far behind.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.