Ekklesia: Scottish Catholic attack on same-sex marriage ‘may backfire’
Ekklesia have an article up criticising the move by the Catholic Church in Scotland for upping the ante on the gay marriage stakes.
Firstly, and I only say this intuitively, I believe this may well backfire.
Secondly, in the Ekklesia article there was a quote from an ‘insider’ that really struck a chord with me:
“Trying to impose Church teaching on wider society is a mistake, just as it would be a mistake if the civil authorities tried to force the Church to comply with actions that go against its conscience. We cannot have it both ways.”
Like it or not, this makes sense to me.
What do you think?
August 26th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
What do I think? How long have you got…?
I will limit myself to three thoughts. One is that in standing up for the historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman, the Church is not trying to impose a religious understanding of marriage; rather trying to defend the definition of marriage that has been held by all civilised societies.
The second is that the re-definition of such a fundamental institution in society is a highly risky exercise, being taken for political reasons that have little to do with the Common Good.
The third is that anyone who believes that the Church will be free to carry on as before, should this change be engineered, is naive in the extreme. Within a decade or less, the forces for change will directly attack the Church on this topic.
August 26th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
The Catholic Church in Scotland would do better in this debate to point the finger of hypocrisy at the equality privileged in Scotland, remind them of the thousands of early age deaths due to the social-economic division and uncompetitive false entitlements – a social-economic stagnation created in part by an illicit Scottish political elite.
To most Scots gay marriage is a political distraction – a time wasting political banquet of the grotesque in comparison to the real equality issues such as economic inactivity, poverty and the 500+ drug-related deaths each and every year in Scotland.
August 26th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Of course Ekklesia (I keep telling you to stop reading them, Stuart!
can only put up this sort of argument by misrepresenting the other side. They say: ‘A number of Catholics and many people from other communities (they mean themselves!) say that it is a mistake to make a political attack on a move by the civic authorities which does not require the Church to change its stance or to conduct any ceremonies it does not wish to.’
This is sheer sophistry. They know as well as the rest of us that the church will be forced by the EU to ‘change its stance’ and conduct gay marriages or pull out of the marriage business altogether.
Pah!
August 27th, 2012 at 8:51 am
If the Church wished to be in the adoption business it had to conform to the political diktat.
If the Church wishes to be in the ‘Marriage’ business it will have to conform to the political diktat. Simples.
Terry
August 27th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Catholic Church defends Christian teaching! Shock! Horror!
In what way could this ‘backfire’?
Just more wishful thinking from the wretched Ekklesia.
August 27th, 2012 at 10:05 am
Separation of church and state – religion by political diktat does this not invert the relationship between church and state by pummelling the church into the image of the state.
August 27th, 2012 at 10:21 am
I agree with all the above comments…
I am sure that “Ekklesia” would probably have advised Our Lord not to preach the truth as it might ‘backfire’ on him, and lead to persecution or a fall in the number of followers…
They might have seen disciples leaving Jesus’ ‘ekklesia’ (John 6) and his own Crucifixion as proof of this theory… But with God, nothing can backfire, not even if it leads to complete abandonment and death! Also, it is only by preaching the truth that one may save souls, even if that means imprisonment, rejection and death — just ask Our Lord, St John the Baptist, or the countless holy prophets and martyrs of Christendom.
Ekklesia’s reasoning suggests to me that the organisation is wedded to this world, and possibly thinks that bums on pews and ‘not causing a stir’ are more important than souls in heaven and challenging injustice and lies.
Also, the Church is not trying to impose anything on society, as if both groups were mutually exclusive — do I not belong to society if I am a Christian, do I not have the right to express my opinion because it goes against the one currently being promoted by the state (or the devil)?? The Church has a prophetic duty to preach the truth and save souls — which means saving people morally, physically, psychologically and spiritually — even when doing so is unpopular or might hurt the feelings of those whose consciences and ego are being pricked by God’s word.
It is probable that the Scottish government will ignore the Church, but at least those bishops who have defended the only right and just definition of marriage have done their duty before God. It is my opinion that, in decades if not centuries to come, people will look back at the efforts of these men with immense gratitude, whilst those truly called to communion with the truth will be glad for the fact that the Church did not trade in this gift for an easy life when times got tough.
God bless.
D
August 27th, 2012 at 11:15 am
On Friday I went to see an excellent semi-staged production of Britten’s ‘Peter Grimes’ at the Proms. The opera aptly illustrates the hypocrisy of many a community. I was struck by a line sung by Mrs Sedley – an upright woman, quick to spot and broadcast the flaws of others, whilst at the same time having a secret weakness for laudanum.
‘…what a dang’rous faith is this
That gives souls equality!’
I thought it a useful quote to begin the section in my thesis that deals with the difficult relationship many faith based social welfare organisations have with British and European equalities’ legislation – tho’ few have any problem with being 70-90% reliant on the taxpayer for their funding nor employing anyone willing to do the job regardless of belief or private life, because too few Christians are willing to do the hands on work itself, nor fund it from their own pockets. (Given Terry’s comment above, please note all the various Catholic Adoption agencies in the UK could have quite happily carried on adopting children, but without the 70-90% funding by the tax-payer – see: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=513063&SubsidiaryNumber=0 – the issue was funding NOT the state stopping RC adoption, but RCs couldn’t fund the organisation themselves!)
I have been depressed by much of the comment on the topic of same sex marriage (SSM) and the planned legislation to legalise it. On a personal level, I have never been a fan of SSM; Civil Partnership legislation seems enough of an extension of the law to allow same-sex couples to legally protect their interests. Yet the nastiness engendered by this topic, particularly the fear mongering, blatant homophobia and sheer delight in hate-speech by some who claim to ‘Christians upholding ancient and moral principals’ has actually softened my own beliefs on the subject – ironically, supporters of SSM, because of their lesser recourse to malice, innuendo and untruth, stand on the moral high-ground in this debate.
Returning to Mrs Sedley’s pithy aphorism above, various societies in the world have been infected with the notion of universal equality (tho’ of course it has never been achieved). In Britain’s modern history, it could be argued that such ideas came to the fore in the 18th century (tho’ there have been rumblings since the time of Watt Tyler and before). Yet many have a political origin: Catholic Emancipation was certainly not rooted in Enlightenment ideals, but a political move to enable much needed social and economic reforms in Ireland. George III and Robert Peel opposed Emancipation – not least on religious grounds. From Tudor times England and Wales, then Scotland (tho’ by another route) were mainly Protestant in culture and wholly Protestant in politics.
In a similar vein, I think it is fairly safe to assume that, in part at least, the present Scottish Parliament is keen to embrace SSM because it demonstrates to the EU that an independent Scotland would be a willing participant in the European experiment – thus securing sympathy and (more importantly) European money should it be needed in the establishment of a new state (if there’s any money left, that is…).
Does the RC Church have a right to question a secular, elected government’s legislation? Yes, I think it does, but the manner in which the present Scottish RC Church is doing this, is, to say the least, politically rather foolish. If you are going to take the moral high-ground on this or that aspect of a government’s policy, then this has to be seamless in its execution (as is the case for an individual – Jn 8:7 and all that!). It is no use pulling out all the stops on one topic, if there hasn’t been a similar ‘moral’ campaign on other topics – a failure in consistency just leads (quite rightly) to the charge of hypocrisy. And alas we haven’t seen neither the RC Church nor conservative Christians per se united when it comes to other moral and social issues – nor lobbying parliament or starting on-line petitions. I am sure there is some worthy metaphor in science or mathematics for the diametric forces that seem evident in much Right of centre Christianity at present: it seems that only when the object of opprobrium has little personal cost, that there is a sustained effort to publically uphold a given moral stance. Easy righteousness and easy morality are, ironically, easily seen for what they are, by many people. And therefore I am sure Ekkeslia is right in its estimation that the current RC Church’s stance in Scotland will be a shot in the foot. Unfortunately (as Jesus notes throughout the Gospels) it is a foolish and dangerous thing to cherry pick moral issues. Moral uprightness cannot be confined to a few well worn topics – that have a curious habit of focusing on the morality of others (and spookily enough often a traditionally despised minority – poufs or women with unplanned pregnancies seem the vogue at present). Such moral zeal has to encompass all our lives, while (and here is the tricky part) not falling foul of the sin of pride or self-righteousness or presuming we are morally superior to our neighbour.
As for the comments above about SSM marriage being a backdoor to making churches conduct SSMs, I think this Matt 6:34 is necessary here; it is time to pause and not worry over something that hasn’t happened. I think it is very unlikely there will be any legal attempts to make churches (or mosques, synagogues, temples etc.) conduct SSMs against their will. I suspect it is just nice to get hot under the collar about the abstract and distant, rather than matters nearer to home… Given societies (in the main) that have an open and tolerant attitude to homosexuality, tend to have far lower rates of divorce, single parent families, teen pregnancy and less violent crime etc.; whereas overtly Christian or religiously conservative societies are burdened with social problems, I can see the advantages of social liberalism from a political point of view. Whatever, preaching society will fall apart if marriage is redefined, is at best a doubtful and vague prophecy and at worst purposeful fear mongering, intent on laying the sins of the many on the few. Do a bit of research first before making pronouncements of doom!
P.D.
August 27th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Well, I don’t think the Church has any choice: same sex ‘marriage’ is a dreadful idea and the Church has a duty to explain why it will harm society.
If anything, I think the opposition to same sex ‘marriage’ will help the Church articulate its understanding of marriage and sexuality: the ‘rules’ against non-marital sex are not just arbitrary divine commands but rest on an understanding of human nature that is far richer than anything else the secular world can fling against us. Too many Catholics -let alone non-Catholics- need to be reminded of this.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“They know as well as the rest of us that the church will be forced by the EU to ‘change its stance’ and conduct gay marriages or pull out of the marriage business altogether.”
We can all discern the truth of this, can’t we, Jill? Look at the way that the EU has forced the Roman Catholic Church to ‘change its stance’ and conduct marriages for people who are divorced from their previous spouses or pull out of the marriage business altogether.
Oh sorry, hang on a moment. The EU hasn’t done this, has it? And hasn’t expressed the slightest intention of doing it.
I have always been pretty conservative on the matter of gay marriage. Committed gay relationships are a positive good, and should be valued precisely for what they are, and I have therefore never seen the need to “validate” them by calling them by the same name as straight ones. However, I have lately found myself starting to think that, if people need to resort to such silly, desperate and dishonest arguments to justify their opposition to gay marriage, well, there must surely be more to be said in its favour than I had realised.
August 27th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
The Catholic Church is trying to impose MARRIAGE on our society????? The FIENDS!!!!! Kill them!!! Kill them!!!
At least, that would seem to be the point being made here.
Quite why the church should not oppose such an evil is never explained. Nobody is getting a vote on this screaming freakshow policy, after all.
And isn’t “Ekklesia” merely a gay pressure group, consisting of one person pretty much?
August 27th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
The Church that will have difficulties is the Anglican Church. As established, a parish priest acts as registrar for marriages in the parish church. To retain that ex-officio status, marriage in a church (C of E) will have to conform to civil marriage law. Otherwise we will have two sets of ‘rules’ and two definitions of ‘marriage’ in U.K. law.
It has already been mooted that a change in the Marriage Law will precipitate the disestablishment of the Church of England. In many ways the parish clergy should welcome the rule of civil marriage for everyone. There would then be the option for a ‘Service of Holy Matrimony’ for church members only. (As in Spain and others who already have SSM).
This would mean that ‘pagan society’ could go its own way. The witness of the church would be enhanced (because it would be SEEN to be different) and Anglican clergy would not HAVE TO celebrate a marriage service for anyone resident in their parish – as is the case at present. (The exception being a divorced person with a partner still living, when the priest can refuse) .
August 27th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
TerryB, the last sentence of your post (which you have put in brackets) seems to nullify what went before. This is clearly one respect in which the C of E does NOT have to conform to civil marriage law. That’s why Prince Charles didn’t marry Camilla in church, remember. If the heir to the throne (and the future Supreme Head of the Church of England) could be denied a conventional, heterosexual marriage in church, there should be no legal difficulty about any C of E incumbent declining, on doctrinal grounds, to officiate at a same-sex marriage.
August 27th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
William, the problem with that is (as I have experienced over marriage of the divorced) it leads to bitterness and division within the parish. “He took the service for their daughter but not for ours!”. Letters to the bishop (who was supportive but not very sympathetic), some members stop coming to church and arguments over the rights and wrongs. The whole thing is a mess!
On the legal level, there is still some doubt whether or the ‘parish church’ has to be made available and an ‘officiating minister’ shipped in to take the service. Again, the whole thing is a mess.
If SSM became law, an appeal by a parishioner to the Court of Human Rights would, on the present reading of the matter, lead to a compulsion to enable the service to take place. Again, no doubt the Incumbent may not be forced against his conscience but that in turn could lead to ‘persecution by media’!
August 27th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
@ William:
“We can all discern the truth of this, can’t we, Jill? Look at the way that the EU has forced the Roman Catholic Church to ‘change its stance’ and conduct marriages for people who are divorced from their previous spouses or pull out of the marriage business altogether.”
The two situations aren’t really comparable, because sexuality is a protected legal characteristic whereas being divorced isn’t. So it is I think legal to discriminate against divorcees anyway, but not against homosexuals.
As to whether or not Churches will be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies: as I understand it, the ECHR’s position is that, whilst countries are under no compulsion to permit gay marriage, if they do, then they have to be offered on the same legal terms as straight marriage. So the government’s current policy, that gay people should get married but only in registry offices, would almost certainly be struck down. Whether that will result in Churches being forced to offer gay marriages, or just being given the option to if they so wish, I’m not sure.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
@ Mr. X:
“So it is I think legal to discriminate against divorcees anyway, but not against homosexuals.”
Really? Try sacking someone from their job or denying them goods and services on the ground that they’re divorced and see how far you get.
If churches are given the option of performing gay marriages if they wish, then I see nothing wrong with that. The idea that any church will be forced to do so is just absurd. As I think I have already made clear, I personally regard the present civil partnership arrangements which we have in the UK as adequate, and I think that a good case can be made against re-classifying such partnerships as marriages. Silly scaremongering forms no part of that case.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
William,
Certainly the Archbishops and bishops of the Church of England do not consider it to be “scaremongering”. Or perhaps it is them you are referring to as well as the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. The following is from the official C of E website – see link below.
“The official Church of England submission sent to the Home Secretary under a short covering letter from the Archbishops’ of Canterbury and York also points out:
• Several major elements of the Government’s proposals have not been thought through properly and are not legally sound. Ministerial assurances that the freedom of the churches and other religious organisations would be safeguarded are, though genuine, of limited value given that once the law was changed the key decisions would be for the domestic and European courts. ”
For full text see here:-
http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2012/06/a-response-to-the-government-equalities-office-consultation-%E2%80%9Cequal-civil-marriage%E2%80%9D-.aspx
Terry
August 28th, 2012 at 11:12 am
The issue for the Catholic Church is that they have been courted by the traditionally protestant SNP and it was probably a shift of catholic votes to the SNP from labour which won the SNP their overall majority in the Scottish Parliament.
Now that the SNP are doing something the Catholics don’t like they have a problem. Will Labour have them back after committing political adultery with the SNP? Labour might have put off dealing with equal marriage until they had a government in Westminster to do it for them.
The Catholic Church in Scotland risks losing a lot of its political influence over this issue – an issue they can’t win on. Some might take the view that they would be better to hold onto that influence and lose on this anyway.
August 29th, 2012 at 1:33 am
@Gordon,
The S.N.P. have succumbed to their progressive tendencies, for decades they have not been a true nationalist party their main driving force has been and is hatred of the British State, Scottish nationalism for them is a tool to that end, not an end in itself.
August 29th, 2012 at 9:12 am
The Catholic church was badly advised on how to handle the parties over the past few days. And I say that with a heavy heart as one of my friends was one of their advisers.
August 29th, 2012 at 11:03 am
In hoc signo vinces†
The most difficult approach in challenging progressive equality is head on issue by issue, the politicking is asymmetrical and any opponent must be aware of his position as antihero.
The progressive ‘good’ v. the traditional good.
August 30th, 2012 at 9:05 am
@Gordon
Moot point as to whether the Church mishandled the parties in Scotland: given the political climate here, it’s hard to imagine what strategy the Church could have adopted (other than rolling over and playing dead) which would have pleased them. However, it’s undoubtedly true that the SNP has mishandled the Church: to go from years of schmoozing the hierarchy to a head to head crash with it was clearly a bad strategic mistake.
In the end, the Church has a prophetic function as well as a political one: quite apart from political strategy, it has a duty to proclaim the truth that same sex ‘marriage’ is contrary to the natural law.