So, extending marriage to same-sex couples - a rare public post.
That letter from the Archbishop of Westminster...
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,
This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships. Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.
Because, in the multi-cultural country with a nominal State religion that ISN'T Catholicism, surely it's the Catholic option that matters the most?
The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion.
Um, no. The roots of marriage lie in property rights, and ensuring that the family silver goes where you want it to. Children were sometimes a condition of the marriage not being annulled, but neither was it without the realms of possibility for the husband to father children elsewhere for inheritance purposes.
Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of
our society.
These days, having children is NOT A CONDITION OF MARRIAGE! If it were, I know of two married couples who would have their marriages annulled by the State, no questions asked. For crying out loud, we don't need more children!
There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.
Well, I should imagine that the main reason people get married these days is BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES TOGETHER! If it were just about the children, marriage would not be necessary - the human race managed perfectly well before we got the idea of wearing daft outfits in front of a relative stranger and making a bunch of promises.
The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: ‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.’ (para.1601)
These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I can't talk about Catholic covenants and sacraments, other than to wonder vaguely about the ristualised cannibalism that forms part of the celebration of Mass. I also wonder how a man who is contractually forbidden from marriage (or exercising his libido with another person, for that matter) can talk about the astonishing power and richness of the relationship between spouses.
We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity. This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.
This same God who encouraged gencide, rape, slavery and the isolation of mentrual women? Yep, that's a loving God!
In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.
You don't need to be married to have children! I know I've stated this before, but consider this. My parents married in July 1975. I was born in January 1976. You do the maths. In that case, marriage was my mother's escape from a cruel and domineering father, not a call for holiness.
Also, stability? I know of no fate more cruel than to be trapped in a marriage when the passion has faded, the romance died and the love a faint memory. My maternal grandparents were married for over 58 years, until my grandfather's death in January 2010. In 2000, a year before their golden wedding anniversary, my mother mocking remarked, "Cor! Imagine being married to the same person for fifty years!" My grandmother rolled her eyes and nodded in resignation.
In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.
What does this have to do with marriage? Are you saying that the bride whose husband is killed in a car crash on the second day of their honeymoon will feel the loss more than I would feel the loss of my beloved boyfriend of nearly 10 years? If so, your opinions are more offensive than they are thoughtless.
The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.
Actually, yes it does so discriminate. Not all humans are created/grown/develop the same. We have different needs, different abilities, different desires. To have different classes of legally-recognised relationships for people based on what amounts to biological differences is inherently discriminatory. After all, we no longer punish children for being left-handed, do we?
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. 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.
Yes, it would be a profound step. As was the step when Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church so that he could divorce and remarry. As was the step when the United States allowed mixed-race couples to marry.
In this day and age, the purpose of marriage is to legally recognise and honour a commitment between two people to love each other for the rest of their lives, or until they can no longer stand each other. It provides for seamless inheritance rights of property, which at least is one fewer thing to worry about in the event of a personal tragedy. It provides reciprocal power of medical decisions if one spouse is unable to make it for themselves. It does NOT come with a requirement to have lots of children.
Extending marriage to same-sex couples would have zero effect of the marriages of people already married. It would not prevent future mixed-sex from getting married - it's not as if there is a finite number of marriage certificates in the world.
With every blessing.
Most Reverend Vincent Nichols
Archbishop of Westminster
Thank you for your blessings. I'll think for you.
I mean, this is the church that covered up years of institutionalised child abuse, and even voted into its highest office the man responsible for such! A church that is slient on child poverty. A church that denied my grandmother the sacrament for forty years because she dared to marry a man outside her faith. A church that is not campaigning tirelessly for the abolition of divorce, which is surely a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage. A church that doesn't folllow its own rules for the composition of vestments, or allowing people to marry (when was the last time you heard that someone with a tattoo was denied marriage?).
This is a church that is doing all but scream, "Marriage is MINE and YOU CAN'T HAVE NONE!" at the non-hetero community, and really, I think we're all over that form of debate by now.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,
This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships. Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.
Because, in the multi-cultural country with a nominal State religion that ISN'T Catholicism, surely it's the Catholic option that matters the most?
The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion.
Um, no. The roots of marriage lie in property rights, and ensuring that the family silver goes where you want it to. Children were sometimes a condition of the marriage not being annulled, but neither was it without the realms of possibility for the husband to father children elsewhere for inheritance purposes.
Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of
our society.
These days, having children is NOT A CONDITION OF MARRIAGE! If it were, I know of two married couples who would have their marriages annulled by the State, no questions asked. For crying out loud, we don't need more children!
There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.
Well, I should imagine that the main reason people get married these days is BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES TOGETHER! If it were just about the children, marriage would not be necessary - the human race managed perfectly well before we got the idea of wearing daft outfits in front of a relative stranger and making a bunch of promises.
The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: ‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.’ (para.1601)
These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I can't talk about Catholic covenants and sacraments, other than to wonder vaguely about the ristualised cannibalism that forms part of the celebration of Mass. I also wonder how a man who is contractually forbidden from marriage (or exercising his libido with another person, for that matter) can talk about the astonishing power and richness of the relationship between spouses.
We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity. This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.
This same God who encouraged gencide, rape, slavery and the isolation of mentrual women? Yep, that's a loving God!
In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.
You don't need to be married to have children! I know I've stated this before, but consider this. My parents married in July 1975. I was born in January 1976. You do the maths. In that case, marriage was my mother's escape from a cruel and domineering father, not a call for holiness.
Also, stability? I know of no fate more cruel than to be trapped in a marriage when the passion has faded, the romance died and the love a faint memory. My maternal grandparents were married for over 58 years, until my grandfather's death in January 2010. In 2000, a year before their golden wedding anniversary, my mother mocking remarked, "Cor! Imagine being married to the same person for fifty years!" My grandmother rolled her eyes and nodded in resignation.
In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.
What does this have to do with marriage? Are you saying that the bride whose husband is killed in a car crash on the second day of their honeymoon will feel the loss more than I would feel the loss of my beloved boyfriend of nearly 10 years? If so, your opinions are more offensive than they are thoughtless.
The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.
Actually, yes it does so discriminate. Not all humans are created/grown/develop the same. We have different needs, different abilities, different desires. To have different classes of legally-recognised relationships for people based on what amounts to biological differences is inherently discriminatory. After all, we no longer punish children for being left-handed, do we?
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. 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.
Yes, it would be a profound step. As was the step when Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church so that he could divorce and remarry. As was the step when the United States allowed mixed-race couples to marry.
In this day and age, the purpose of marriage is to legally recognise and honour a commitment between two people to love each other for the rest of their lives, or until they can no longer stand each other. It provides for seamless inheritance rights of property, which at least is one fewer thing to worry about in the event of a personal tragedy. It provides reciprocal power of medical decisions if one spouse is unable to make it for themselves. It does NOT come with a requirement to have lots of children.
Extending marriage to same-sex couples would have zero effect of the marriages of people already married. It would not prevent future mixed-sex from getting married - it's not as if there is a finite number of marriage certificates in the world.
With every blessing.
Most Reverend Vincent Nichols
Archbishop of Westminster
Thank you for your blessings. I'll think for you.
I mean, this is the church that covered up years of institutionalised child abuse, and even voted into its highest office the man responsible for such! A church that is slient on child poverty. A church that denied my grandmother the sacrament for forty years because she dared to marry a man outside her faith. A church that is not campaigning tirelessly for the abolition of divorce, which is surely a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage. A church that doesn't folllow its own rules for the composition of vestments, or allowing people to marry (when was the last time you heard that someone with a tattoo was denied marriage?).
This is a church that is doing all but scream, "Marriage is MINE and YOU CAN'T HAVE NONE!" at the non-hetero community, and really, I think we're all over that form of debate by now.