Same-Sex Marriage is not a subversion of the institution of marriage

Today, Cardinal Keith O’Brien wrote in Sunday Telegraph that same-sex marriage is wrong. As a Catholic, I beg to differ.

I believe Cardinal O’Brien to be a fabricator of untruths. For this I direct you to a paragraph written by the Cardinal:

In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.

I know direct you to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights:

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Nowhere in Article 16 does it say that marriage is an exclusive arrangement between a man and a woman. It just says that men and women (of legal age) can marry. Men can marry men, women can marry women and men can marry women.

Also in Article 16, it states that dissolution of a marriage is allowed. Not so in the Catholic Church. For Cardinal O’Brien to invoke Article 16 is disingenuous and for him to provide an addendum to an international document without democratic support is immoral.

Marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father.

By that logic, and actually the logic of the Church, that infertile couples must have their marriage annulled due to the fact that they can’t produce children – the only product of marriage. But that also means that widows and widowers must be condemned if they so choose to remain unmarried.

This view point comes from a man whose employment revolves around celibacy and being married to the Church. I have no problem with this, it’s an admirable quality to dedicate one’s life to a cause. However, Cardinal O’Brien must also acknowledge the historical context as to why celibacy was forced on the priesthood – to protect the wealth of the Catholic Church from claims to its estate from children of priests. There is nothing in the New Testament (for which Christians derive the majority of their faith and understanding from) to say that those who dedicate themselves to the Church cannot dedicate themselves to a family. To love. Conversely, there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that marriage is a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too.

Yes, those who have argued for civil partnerships have then argued for marriage. Yes, civil partnerships will, for some, be “harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved” because they, as Christians, cannot be physically, mentally nor spiritually satisfied with the legal rights of marriage. This is because, as I am sure Cardinal O’Brien is aware, that marriage is much more than legal rights but of a spiritual and emotional union between the couple and God. To have that denied, when you are a believer, creates insurmountable stress, thus creating all the “evils” that the Cardinal lists.

As a Catholic, I know that attendance rates in Britain have dropped off in recent years and it is unsurprising considering the illiberal behaviour of a surprisingly liberal branch of the Church. The success of the Church has always been down to its ability to adapt, but I fear that those who seek to “preserve” it are in fact destroying it.

The recent Ordinariate will erode the tenements of the faith. The Ordinariate do not believe in the faith of the Church. They don’t accept transubstantiation. They just don’t like women or gays. By appeasing to these types of people, the idea of transubstantiation, the sanctity of Mary (an unmarried woman, I hasten to add) and the emphasis placed on the Angels and Saints will all be eroded to suit a small minority who are bigotted.

The Ordinariate, Cardinal O’Brien, is more corrosive to the Catholic Church as a whole than allowing a few people who love each other to marry. Who knows, attendance rates might go up if they are allowed to marry.

Norway Attacked

It transpired on Friday afternoon that Norway had been attacked by terrorists. With a huge bomb going off in the Governmental quarter of Oslo. An hour later a gunman opened up at the Labour Party Youth Camp at Utøya killing around 90 people in total.

Late on Friday, Norwegian Police released information they had on the apprehended gunman, Anders Behring Breivik. Theory of an attack from Islamists was rejected, even though Abu Suleiman al-Nasser claimed responsibility for the bombings. The theory that it was retribution of Norway’s involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as well as a Norwegian newspaper reprinting the cartoon on Muhammed in 2006, was also rejected.

The press, and others, are asking themselves who is Anders Behring Breivik and why did he choose his target? Obscurely, his Facebook profile was made public and the profiling began. He was a right-wing Christian who was interested in the environment, who’s favourite books include On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. His only Twitter update was a quote from Mill:  “One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests.”

There is doubt, however, to the validity of Breivik’s Facebook and Twitter accounts as they were both activated on the 17th July 2011.

It is possible that the Labour Party was targeted. With bombs going off near their headquarters in Oslo and their Youth Camp targeted in Utøya. But the question is still why? The Red-Green Coalition is Norway is successful, but also an anomaly in Scandinavian politics which has seen a shift to the right in recent years. Norway is not unknown to right-wing violence, but it is on this scale.

Breivik considers himself a Nationalist and an Islamophobe. His targeting of the Labour Party could have something to do with Støre, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, who in the past week has endorsed Palestine’s bid for membership of the UN and opening negotiations with the banned Islamist terror group Al-Shabaab in Somalia.

Breivik is currently being investigated and questioned by Police.

 

 

 

 

Equality Before the Law

In the history series, I have come across a proposal from 1943 on rejuvenating the legal system. I wonder what Legal types out there think of it…? Comments are welcome.

We must provide an efficient legal system which not only protects society against the anti-social activities of individuals, but safeguards individual liberty against the State. In a planned order, where the State has become more highly organised, it is more than ever necessary to ensure that no encroachments are made on the proper freedom of the individual. The Courts must be within the reach of all. No one must be handicapped from obtaining justice because he cannot pay the costs. Probably it will be found desirable to make the legal profession a national service under a Ministry of Justice which will be subject to democratic control.