(Zenit) Glasgow Archbishop Faults Scotland’s same-sex ”˜marriage’ move

An ideology that sees any structure or ethical system as “inimical to human freedom” is at the root of Scotland’s move toward same-sex “marriage,” according to the archbishop of Glasgow.

In a statement released Sunday, Archbishop Mario Conti explained the Church’s opposition to same-sex “marriage.” His statement is part of a national marriage-defense campaign launched across Scotland’s 500 Catholic parishes.

The Scottish government is holding a consultation on whether same-sex “marriage” should be introduced.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, England / UK, Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Other Churches, Politics in General, Religion & Culture, Roman Catholic, Scotland, Sexuality

5 comments on “(Zenit) Glasgow Archbishop Faults Scotland’s same-sex ”˜marriage’ move

  1. tjmcmahon says:

    I do wish that the Anglican blogs that have been carrying numerous stories about the bishops and archbishops standing up to laws promoting gay marriage and abortion would note in their headlines that these are Roman Catholic bishops. To scan the headlines, one would think the the CoE, CoIreland, Episcopal Church of Scotland, etc, were opposed. There are, of course, a few CoE bishops opposed, but they can’t manage to actually get anything through their own Synods, and certainly no Anglican (Communion) archbishop outside of the GS opposes gay marriage (most actively or passively support it, if anything), and none (outside the GS) is willing to take a public stance against abortion.

  2. Mark Baddeley says:

    2. Ahem. ++Peter Jensen of the Diocese of Sydney, tjmcmahon? There might be others as well, but he is part of the Anglican communion and is not part of the GS. He, and the Diocese of Sydney, are publicly opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

  3. tjmcmahon says:

    Mark,
    I would include +Jensen as a member of the GS- not because his church is located below the Equator, but because he was (still is?) at one time the Secretary to the Gafcon Primates council, and participates in many of the GS events with the GS bishops. I think that if the GS recognizes him as part of the GS, I will too.
    Although Australia as a province is not involved in GS activities, this does not necessarily rule out Sydney being recognized.

  4. Mark Baddeley says:

    tjmcmahon,

    Okay, that’s probably a different definition of “GS” than I think I’d run with, but I think we agree on the substance.

    My impression is that the Global South Primates don’t see Sydney or ++Jensen as part of the Global South – it is fundamentally Global North in its orientation. But they see it as sharing the same fundamental theological and ethical convictions that they have and so extend an invitation to Sydney and ++Jensen to be part of their meetings. It’s a guest and an ally, but I don’t get the impression that it is seen as part of the Global South.

    In that sense I think it would be a bit like ++Duncan and ACNA and the orthodox Bishops in TEC – welcome to come and be involved, seen as allies, but not part of the Global South.

  5. tjmcmahon says:

    OK Mark, I can go with that. Perhaps what I should have said initially was “GS , ACNA and few Northern or Western dioceses that are aligned with them”- or some such. It is just hard, sitting in the US, looking at a map, to define Australia as either North or West, while in the general parlance, GS includes provinces in S American, Africa and Asia- that is, it is truly “global” and other than Australia and New Zealand- and some of the TEC allies in S America, includes virtually all Anglican provinces south of or the tropic of Cancer. (and no, I did not mean that as a strict demarcation, there are some areas of the Middle East and Asia that are generally part of the GS meetings, that are north of the line)
    While many of us have deep concerns that Sydney will “jump ship” with lay presidency, for the time being they remain within Anglicanism, and we pray that they stay within it. It is a pity that the ABoC worked so hard to destroy the Covenant, but I have to agree (although perhaps for different reasons) that it is utterly senseless for any province to sign it and submit themselves to a standing committee of elitist westerners who are in no way representative of the majority of Anglicans, and promote heresy.