 |
| St Charles Lwanga and Companions |
The freedom of the pro-life movement, as well as that of ordinary men and women up and down the country, to express normative opinions about marriage and the family is being severely threatened by the intolerance of the ‘LGBT lobby.’ It is increasingly considered ‘homophobic’ simply to express beliefs that were accepted everywhere just a few years ago. This new totalitarianism is a threat to all of us but no group is more at risk than the unborn child. The family founded on the marriage of one man and one woman is the ‘natural habitat’ in which children are conceived and brought up. In the United Kingdom infants conceived outside of marriage are four to five times more likely to be aborted than those conceived within marriage. It is clear therefore that anything that undermines the traditional understanding of marriage will put unborn children at risk. This is because when the link between marriage and procreation is broken the child is more likely to be seen not as the natural and expected result of the sexual act but as a ‘problem’ to be resolved through abortion.
Since this document was published by the CDF we have seen ever increasing attacks on the traditional understanding of marriage, which, let it be said clearly and unambiguously, is the only understanding of marriage which accords with both right reason and the experience of men and women down the centuries. It will be helpful to remind ourselves of the insights contained in this document, which “since this question relates to the natural moral law…. [is] addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.” A selection of quotes from the document, under our own headings, are included below.
Marriage is only
between one man and one woman
“The Church's
teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth
that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major
cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human
beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential
properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the
certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual
personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of
their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to
cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.”
Homosexual unions are
in no way comparable to marriage
“There are absolutely no grounds
for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely
analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while
homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the
sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective
and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition”
Homesexual unions must be opposed
“In those situations where
homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal
status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a
duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or
application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material
cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can
exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
Civil laws must conform to right reason or they do not bind in conscience
“…civil law cannot contradict right
reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created
law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law,
recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights
of every person. Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right
reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to
marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake
in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions
without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution
essential to the common good.
…
Civil laws are structuring
principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very
important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and
behaviour”. Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only
externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger
generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition
of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a
devaluation of the
institution of marriage.”
Homosexual unions lack the biological complementary present in marriage
“Homosexual unions are totally
lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family
which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal
recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the
procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently
discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of
respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.”
Adoption of children by homosexual couples is gravely immoral
“…the absence of sexual
complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of
children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be
deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing
children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean
doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of
dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive
to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open
contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as
the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in
every case.”
Politicians who vote for homosexual unions commit grave sin
“When legislation in favour of the
recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a
legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his
opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a
law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth.”
Conclusion
“The Church teaches that respect
for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual
behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good
requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the
family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or
placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of
deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day
society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common
inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the
good of men and women and for the good of society itself."
