
November 2011

Todays Scottish Catholics are largely the descendants of Irish and Highland migrants who moved to Scotlands cities and towns during the nineteenth century, with more recent Polish immigrants boosting the numbers of continental European Catholics there. With such a past record of fighting the good fight over the centuries, perhaps it comes as no surprise that the bishops of Scotland have come out swinging in the debate over same-sex marriage in their country. (N.B. Although Scotland is part of Great Britain, it has its own national legislative body.) At the prospect of marriage between homosexuals being legalized in Scotland, Keith Cardinal OBrien of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow, and Bishop Philip Tartaglia of Paisley all made powerful public statements warning of the dangers of same-sex marriage. Their remarks came in response to the Scottish governments announced fourteen-week public consultation on the issue.
Quoted in the Scottish Catholic Observer (Sept. 16), Cardinal OBrien said that legalizing gay marriage would represent a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right. As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government, he continued. It was not created by government and should not be changed by them; instead, recognizing the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, [government] should act to protect and uphold it not attack or dismantle it. The cardinal, also president of the Bishops Conference of Scotland, added that if the Scottish government attempts to demolish a universally recognized human institution, it will shame Scotland in the eyes of the world. OBrien also accused politicians of being disingenuous and of staggering arrogance for suggesting that churches would not be obliged to solemnize gay marriages. The cardinal, not buying into the rhetoric, promised that the Catholic Church would do everything possible to protect authentic marriage.
Over in Glasgow, Archbishop Conti released his own statement on the proposal, describing any marriage between people of the same gender as meaningless: We are talking not of human rights or of civil liberties, nor of legal or fiscal equalities, but of redefining a particular relationship to give it a meaning it doesnt possess. We would use a word which carries huge significance, and render it meaningless in respect of one of its essential attributes, its capacity to create a natural family I mean of course [the word] marriage.

You have two options:
- Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
- Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.
If you're already a subscriber log-in here.