Without a shadow of a doubt, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the most senior Catholic figure within the United Kingdom, has this past week made himself out to be as dangerous as Abu Qatada to the socio-religious stability of this country. In his article in Saturday's The Daily Telegraph , O'Brien has outlined his stance, based on his Catholic dogma, that marriage for couples of the same sex would be 'grotesque' and considerably detrimental to the U.K, both internally and on the international stage.
Brought in following the Second World War in 1948, the Declaration of Human Rights, as the Cardinal points out, states that:
"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." (Article 16)
The Cardinal is correct that it supports the union of men and women in marriage; however the purpose of this clause is to reaffirm the breaking down of racial and cultural divides. It condemns bigotry and racism in the face of the affairs of the heart. The issue which Keith clearly fails to acknowledge is that the Declaration has not been amended since the forward march of same-sex equality which has spread throughout the world. He, like so many of his theological predecessors, have taken a point of law or precedent, molded it to their own agenda, and abandoned the contextually correct purpose of the literature. The Declaration of Human Rights were brought about to prevent a repeat of the devastation experienced as a result of the Second World War; and not as a means of reaffirming Catholic dogma.
In his expressing of views with regards to Civil Partnerships, he describes them as "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well being of those involved"; however it is clear that this is far from the case. The protection which such a ceremonial event endowed those who have endulged in it accommodates perhaps not Article 16, but many other Articles which constitute the Declaration. Property and inheritance laws have been opened up to those in Civil Partnerships, and thus bringing them closer to the rights which individuals such as Cardinal O'Brien takes clearly for granted. Article 25 which states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" does not degrade the rights of those who are homosexual.
Marriage, as O'Brien states, predates any "state or government". One may have suspicions that if the Ancient Egyptians or Sumerians were around in the 21st Century, they would perhaps disagree with that suggestion. For the Cardinal to say such demonstrates a degree of ignorance, for as a Catholic, it would by far predate his own religious inclination. In his attempt to convey his opinions of the longevity which marriage has enjoyed throughout history, he has forgotten a crucial factor. This is that throughout human history there have been practises of homosexuality. Within the Greek City State of Sparta it was common for men to engage in what would perhaps now be considered homosexual activities, but to them it was a way of strengthening the bonds between them. The 'ceremonial' activities of swans as they court and mate for life has greater historical precedent that his Catholic ceremonies, riddled with pomp, pageantry and popery.
The term 'civil partnership' appears to only be defined as different from marriage in that the initial does not take place within a religious setting such as a church. However, when heterosexual couples have their ceremony within a registry office, without the presence of a clerical representative, it is still considered 'marriage'. It must therefore be possible to say that homosexual partners whose union is in a similar fashion must therefore be married! However, for those of Cardinal O'Brien's thinking, the issue of marriage is that is must take place within a religious building. Without this it cannot be marriage! Yet with the recent openess enjoyed by clergy of different denominations towards there own homosexuality, surely acceptance of homosexuals requesting marriages in their churches is the logical next step?
We must all remember that the power of organised religion can have positive effects on society. However, the words of Cardinal O'Brien are most certainly leaning towards the contrary. His failure to balance the discussion shows the onesidedness of many Christians, not only Catholics. Within a denomination where the cleargy is forbidden to marry and must take a vow of celebacy, how then can they truely understand what marriage means to laypeople. The embracing of social development does not have to result in the sacrifice of doctrinal committments; however it does mean that those who follow such doctrine must be open and willing to support within their own limitations. This growing outcry from Christian leaders in the face of social change is encroaching too heavily on the liberties which politicians represent, and the fundamental ideals of the Declaration of Human Rights. We are all of the same species, and with that comes an awareness of our shared experiences and emotions. Heterosexual and homosexual people can share the same kind of love for not only their partners, but also for a G_d who can transend not only race and culture, but also sexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment