The objections to homosexual ‘marriage’ are founded on natural law

 
 

This morning, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, appeared on the BBC’s flagship news and current affairs broadcast, The Today Programme.

You can hear the interview here, in which the Cardinal argues that the recognition of homosexual “marriage” would be in contravention of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. He also draws attention to the fact that as an institution, marriage pre-dates government.

The Cardinal is not the only churchman to have spoken out on the subject, as John Duddington’s CTS bookletChristians and the state explains:

“At present under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 it is possible for homosexual couples to enter into a civil partnership but not to marry. However in 2011 the UK Government and the Scottish Government said that they were to begin consultations on the legalising of same-sex marriage. This is despite the clear statement of the Government, when civil partnerships were legalized, that it had no intention of introducing same-sex marriage.

Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark has said that

‘Marriage does not belong to the state any more than it belongs to the church. It is a fundamental human institution rooted in human nature itself’.

Thus Catholics would argue that any legislation providing for same sex marriages is against the natural law and as such we are bound to oppose any law which allows it.

Pope Benedict XVI, whilst not referring directly to UK legislation on civil partnerships, has referred to what he sees as the danger of the relationship between man and woman

‘becoming increasingly detached from legal forms, whilst at the same time homosexual partnerships are increasingly viewed as equal in rank to marriage’. This trend, he says, departs from the ‘entire moral history of mankind’.”

In an article in The Daily Telegraph this weekend the Cardinal is quoted:

“Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that ‘no one will be forced to keep a slave’.

“Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?”

In his article Cardinal O’Brien said that “no government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage”.

He pointed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where marriage defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. He argued that same-sex marriage would be a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

He described the consequences of such legislation, saying: “If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

“Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?” he said.

About Gertrude

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium.
This entry was posted in Catholic Moral Teaching, Church Teachings and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The objections to homosexual ‘marriage’ are founded on natural law

  1. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Thanks someone…..I don’t know how to add links etc so this is just the ticket….

    Like

  2. Gertrude says:

    We aim to please Whippy 🙂 and this is such an important issue.

    Like

  3. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    I’m with the Cardy on this one…and Bish Tagliatelli and Bish Conti….

    But what’s this about “The Today Pogrom” in the intro? Shurely not…..

    The homosexualist marriage issue is a step too far and will earn that community many more enemies than friends. Just on tactics alone, it’s a BAD THING.

    Must we keep seeing the execrable Elton John’s wedding pics for all eternity?

    Like

  4. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Just spotted your note above , G. Yes, despite my hobbled attempts at making serious points through humour, this IS a very important issue;

    It strikes at the heart of religion and society. It is ultimately life denying and sterile. The concept is also quite funny, it must be said.

    Toad has rightly warned of certainties – but I’ve been and gone and done it again.

    I feel a garrotte de vil coming on – and I’m the star turn!……

    Like

  5. Gertrude says:

    It is quite rare for an issue to to evoke opposition from such diverse backgrounds – from people of faith, and people of none. I understand today that the Bishops’ of England & Wales are to issue a Pastoral letter imminently.

    I’m not sure what David Cameron thinks he is doing, but this will lose him much of the electorate that are left who might have re-elected him if only he ever told the truth 😉

    Like

  6. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    It is a measure of the apparently unstoppable momentum of these matters that Cameron will commit political hari-kiri on this. I understand that his own party members wish to string ‘im up.

    Politicians of all kinds wish to save their hides with the electorate – there must be some other factor behind Cameron’s comments.

    But it’s wrong, plain wrong.

    Like

  7. The Raven says:

    Unfortunately, Whippy, all of the major parties have decided themselves on this path. We have no party to turn to that will not lead us further into this madness.

    The equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, claims that marriage belongs to the people and not to the Church; but there is no social consensus behind the changes to marriage (just as there is active resistance to adoption by homosexual couples), none of the parties put this in their manifestos, there is no mandate for it, but they will carry on regardless.

    Like

  8. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Yes R. We’re going to hell in a handcart as someone once said. And I speculate that Featherstone’s “public” are as bemused as bemused can be on this. Without ‘The News Of the World ‘ to keep them right, how can they form an opinion?

    Spookily enough, I intuit that the much despised Dickie Dawkins might also condemn same-sex marriage, on the grounds that it is biological suicide. Will left-kickers learn to love Mr Dawks?

    In the end we may all be getting our knicks in a twist, for surely only a few will seek this “marriage”. Of course the principle objection will remain…..
    ….Elton John’s ‘music’.

    Like

  9. Jerry says:

    Spookily enough, I intuit that the much despised Dickie Dawkins might also condemn same-sex marriage, on the grounds that it is biological suicide. Will left-kickers learn to love Mr Dawks?

    I doubt that he holds that view Whippy. Anyway, compulsory and universal gay marriage might be biological suicide. But a small minority of people availing themselves of it would hardly lead to an end of child-bearing. And, considered individually, if same-sex marriage is biological suicide, so is being single and chaste. Which Dawkins hasn’t come out against either.

    Like

  10. toadspittle says:

    .
    “He (the Cardinal) also draws attention to the fact that as an institution, marriage pre-dates government.”So does human sacrifice.

    “”Marriage does not belong to the state any more than it belongs to the church. It is a fundamental human institution rooted in human nature itself.”In other words, nothing to do with God.

    “This trend, he says, departs from the ‘entire moral history of mankind’.” The entire moral history of mankind stinks.

    “In his article Cardinal O’Brien said that “no government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.” What is the universally understood meaning of marriage? What about polygamy? Does marriage mean the same in Saudi Arabia as Surbiton? Or the rain forests of Borneo?

    “If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?” Maybe the same thing that will happen to a teacher who wants to tell pupils that the world is 6,000 years old – to get up to date?

    Like

  11. shieldsheafson says:

    Even though a majority of citizens still happen to oppose the redefinition of marriage, the more important thing is that the very idea of ‘same-sex marriage’ is a metaphysical absurdity. What is at issue here is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover what ‘marriage’ is, or whether religion is a good thing or not, rather than the law to stipulate.

    The metaphysics underlying natural law theory that marriage is, not by human definition, but as an objective metaphysical fact determined by its final cause, inherently procreative, and thus inherently heterosexual.

    Like

  12. kathleen says:

    Shieldsheafson:
    That’s a great definition of marriage, and why any other redefinition of it is just impossible.

    Hopefully Toad will finally stop badgering me on the subject now :-).

    Like

  13. toadspittle says:

    .
    There are some (not Toad!) who assert that all metaphysics are absurd. (Wish Badger was still around. He could start toading Kathleen on the subject.)

    But Toad is more interested in Adam and Eve, right now. Seems they might not have been married. An “all bets are off,” sort of situation, he fears.

    Like

  14. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Not only “not married” but nekkid. Sounds like hippie ‘love-ins’ of my youth.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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