"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."
As might be expected, this has upset a lot of people outside and within the Roman Catholic Church. Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone has said that the government is entitled to introduce same-sex marriages as a "change for the better". She has also said that the church does not own marriage (it seems she was misquoting the Archbishop of Canterbury). Other outraged groups include the gay charity, Stonewall, and the organisation for gay catholics,Quest.
I have no intention of repeating the arguments and events of this matter, but, out of a wish to be fair to both sides, I would like to join the debate with a few observations of my own.
First, I would like to point out that the three great monotheistic religions are not, and have never been, tolerant of homosexuality. "Everybody knows this" (or do we?), but a few quotes are worth repeating. From the Old Testament, we get:
" If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus, ch20, v13).
And then, from the New Testament:
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." (Romans 1, v26-7).
Finally, the Koran:
Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone".
So, for Jews, Christians and Muslims, it's really not a good idea to be gay. And for hundreds of years, these three monotheisms have been rather unkind to homosexuals of both sexes.
However, I have to say that we cannot dismiss the objections of the churches (principally the Catholics, admittedly) as simple bigotry and homophobia. When the Archbishops express their opposition to gay marriage, they are correct in their intrepretation of Christian doctrine. We may not agree with what they say, but we cannot condemn them simply for holding different views from the rest of society. As John Stuart Mill said:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
In conclusion, I would like to ask a question. Since the three monotheistic religions are hostile, from first principles, to homosexuality, why do so many gay people even want to be practising Jews, Christians or Muslims? It would be better for gay people to celebrate their unions without concerning themselves about ecclesiastical approval. The opinions of senior prelates can safely be ignored - especially when so many of us - straight and gay - do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church anyway. As for gay catholics, I wish them well with their struggle to liberalise their church. They are the people best placed to challenge the prevailing theological viewpoint of the RC Church on this issue, and they will be the people who change it.
Religious people can sometimes be capable of leaving Alastair Campbell gasping with admiration. Belief isn't a single construct; it is subject to interpretation by priests, pastors, mullahs and vicars, who as human beings will put their own spin on it. When Christians are being intolerant, they forget that Jesus said "Love thine enemy", "Turn the other cheek" and in the Lord's prayer, "Forgive those who trespass against us". This message of tolerance is lost when religious homophobia takes hold. So it's not enough just to say "It's what they believe". More correctly, it's what they choose to believe.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot on nonsense (or, if you like, spin) spoken today about the anti-religious or secular ethos that is supposedly sweeping the country. I haven't seen any picket lines of angry atheists outside any churches, although I do remember Christian pickets terrorising Christian children at Holy Cross school in Northern Ireland a few years ago. In a country where the head of state is also the head of church, where religious leaders have seats in the House of Lords, where we have increasing numbers of religious schools, people are falling for the religious spin that religion is being persecuted. It's not true of course. In this one instance, that of gay marriage, the religious leaders are furious because it looks as though they won't get their own way, which is to impose their view of marriage on people beyond their authority, i.e. on non-believers as well as believers.
The moral authority of religion has been destroyed by the paedophilia scandals. If they can't keep their own house in order, and in fact tried to conceal such criminal activity, they have no right to comment on this issue. What they pronounce in their own churches to their own adherents is their own business, but beyond that they are on very dodgy ground proclaimimg their own versions (i.e. spin) of what their religions say.
As a contrast, you can read here about a religion that takes quite a different view of the issue and is actively welcoming same-sex relationships.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Nev, but you've missed my point - not to mention gone off at a tangent. You don't agree with the RC stance on gay weddings; neither do I. But the sanctity of the family is central to RC beliefs, and we need to recognise that. This is a core belief, and not crude prejudice. If we do not agree with this view, then we need to argue against it, rather than accuse the RC church of homophobia. Also - when you use the words "religion" and "religious", it is quite clear from the context that you mean Christianity only. BTW - the "religion" you mention in your second post is Unitarianism. Theologians class Unitarianism as a Christian denomination, although they are condemned by mainstream churches because they reject the Trinity and believe that Jesus was mortal.
ReplyDeleteYou are not the neutral observer you think you are; you are arguing your case from a theological point of view. You are too close to their mindset. I don't care that some Christian denominations don't recognise others; the papacy still regards the Church of England as heretical, but that's not my problem. The point I was making is that they are not all men of faith pure in their beliefs, as you suggest; they are often also spin doctors and manipulators who will use and abuse their holy texts to suit their own ends, as I suggested in my previous comment.
ReplyDeleteAs for the sanctity of family: no church has the monopoly in defining what the word 'family' means. We are entitled to a secular definition of 'family' without influence from religious people with agendas of their own. Besides, what does 'sanctity' mean here? I agree that families are very important, but sanctity is not a word I'd apply to them. I accept that the RC church claims to believe in the sanctity of family, but only 'family' as defined by them. But I'd expect them to believe in their own definition - wouldn't you?
Their real commitment to family values was shot out of the water when we discoverd, not only the high level of paedophilia (how many families did that seriously damage?), but also how much effort and expense they put into covering it all up, which was a massive amount. Their own public image and status was more important to them than the damage to children and their families. We need take no lessons from such hypocrites.
You are wrong: I haven't gone off the point. If you're a believer, you have to accept that Christ's message was about tolerance and forgiveness, not persecution and hatred. That was the point I was making, and any Christian who adopts an intolerant attitude is not a true Christian. I say that as an agnostic who has studied the gospels; at no point in his ministry does Christ preach hatred and persecution. You only need to read any of the gospels to see that I'm not wrong.
These priests, vicars, mullahs and rabbis should take the planks out of their own eyes before offering to remove the speck of dust from the eyes of others.
Actually, I think I haven't made myself clear enough - it's the way I tell 'em. I'll add to the original pst, and hope that it clarifies matters.
ReplyDelete