Search This Blog

Sunday, March 11, 2012

UK Archbishops' Letter to Catholics, An Interlinear

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.

The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. [So can't we just keep the 'unnatural' actions of homosexuals where they've always been? Seminaries, monasteries, convents?] Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility [just like Romeo and Juliet. Oh, that ended badly, didn't it?  OK scratch R&J].  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 [so fuck you if you disagree with me, I wear dresses and feed people bits of a man whose been dead for over 2,000 years.  Top that for chutzpah, rabbi; 'akbar' this, Imam].

Understood [by me, and therefore understood correctly] 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 [as opposed to the fundamental inhumanity of gay marriage]. 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 [which is under attack by unapologetic fags, who may be neat, intelligent, creative, and productive but also wish to destroy us all - it's a kind of hobby].

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 [check]. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society [check] and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible [check].

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 [excuse me, but I asked for the check 30 minutes ago]. 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) [I got references, citations, paragraph numbers so screw the British or US Constitution, separation of church and what? .... you're joking, right?].

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 [the "holy flow" is for straights only, please use another fountain].

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 [while same sex love is sterile, closed, unready to love and nurture anything, narrow, and selfish -- oh, and 'eternity' for homos will be, shall we say, in a warmer place].

This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation [which must be closed off to people who disagree with me, or I will hold my breath until you turn blue]. 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 [I have this on the good authority of an invisible dead man - it cannot, therefore, be questioned without pissing me off.  I have a headache]. 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.

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 [to pedophile priests everywhere], 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 [Gay people cannot partake of holiness, or of gifts from God. They'd probably either 're-gift' or return it for a refund, anyway.  We are doomed.].

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 [we would make divorce and the re-marriage of widowed folks illegal, but we can't, goddamn it - maybe that can be next on our list]. 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.

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 [ever thought about owning a bridge?, because I've got a nice one for sale, in Brooklyn]. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.

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 [and, really, who gives a rat's ass about them?]. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children [and I learned 3 card monty in seminary -- notice the sleight of hand where I swap "God's love" for baby-making. Slick eh? Step right up and lay your money down].

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 [Obi Wan, you are my only pope, er...  hope].

With every blessing.

Most Reverend Vincent Nichols
Archbishop of Westminster
President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
Most Reverend Peter Smith
Archbishop of Southwark
Vice-President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
UK Archbisops' Letter to the Fleeced


  1. Holy shit. Whomever added these comments in red must be avery bitter and gay person. Thank you for posting the arch bishops letter though. His words are beautiful and very true.

    1. Oh you're so right, MT. "Holy shit" is bitter.

    2. Your weak response solidifies the idea that you are very bitter. I hope you have an outlet for such bitterness. Especially writing such bitter words in red about a religious man. I am guessing it must be difficult to live in a culture that does not accept you. That would be very hard.

    3. Please understand, MT, the difference between bitterness and justified anger. There is no such thing as a "culture" capable of accepting or not accepting anything. It is people who act, whether "religious" or not. I care nothing for this man's acceptance of me. What I DO care about is his willingness to interfere in the lives of people like me, and his eagerness to drape bigotry in sanctity, and then make an obvious effort to sway public and political opinion, and results. He's a big boy, and I'm sure he can stand my small effort at satire & criticism. Peace.

    4. I do know the dfference between bitterness and justified anger. By replicating a peaceful speech and writing harsh (and very bitter) comments in red is definitely bitterness. It is the very definition in fact.

      Finally, no one is telling you what to do. You have been given the chance to go and be gay and legally marry and be gay. What else do you want? The answer is you want to slam down a religion that has its own beliefs, out of your bitterness. Who is the one who is limiting peoples beliefs now? Who is the bigot? That would be you.

    5. Oh my, MT, you've got me pegged so I surrender. That's the way it's supposed to be. We're supposed to simply take it when attacked, especially if it's "religious." I wrote no letter to anyone asking them to deprive the good Bish, or you, or your pets or ANYONE of ANYTHING. But when I (weakly) defend equal rights it's you who's the victim, and me who's the bigot. Neat magic trick that. Kind of like transubstantiation, no? Peace.

    6. This issue has nothing to do with equal rights. And I have to remind you that your country is founded on democratic values, which means that by nature, something or someone is SUPPOSED to sway public and political opinion. IF something or someone didn't nothing would change, and no one would have any freedom. So,nay, I tip my hat to you and your transubstantiation tricks, at blaming the anti-gay movement on the Roman Catholics, and then labeling them as bigots and right suppressors. You are going to continue the victimizing process of all homosexuals worldwide. Oh maybe that is too much credit.

    7. You make my point so well. Thank you. The bigotry is MY fault.

      "It's gay people who are responsible for the victimization of gay people."

      And the rabbit comes out of the hat PRESTO CHANGE-O.

    8. YUp still bitter. Enjoy your bitterness. OR if I have to translate it to your language:

      "I am so bitter, I am going to write a flaming (pun intended) post about another anti gay movement that has been going on for centuries. Then to top it off, I will blame it on religion, or anyone else who takes the bait. And then take no blame on my self for promulgating it.

      Very creative.

  2. Very good. That made a very enjoyable end to my day. ( I followed your link off the Guardian comments page )

    1. Thanks for the kind words, and happy to be enjoyable. Peace.