- Battle lines drawn
This week produced the clearest evidence yet that the Synod Fathers are sharply divided between those who are supporting Pope Francis in his efforts to present a more pastoral vision of the Church and those determined first and foremost to emphasise its moral teaching
- Home News
- World News
- Parish Practice
- Letters Extra
- The living Spirit
- Report finds 'systemic failures' by C of E over allegations of abuse by former dean
- Middle East must keep its Christians, says Vatican calling for scrutiny of Islamists' funding
- Nichols says synod is opening pathways for divorced and remarried
- Francis to visit Istanbul's Hagia Sophia and Blue Mosque as concerns over treatment of Christians resurface
- Synod final document is a setback for Francis' reforms – for now Elena Curti in Rome
- Curious muddle of Lectionary translations Philip Endean SJ
- Annulments can be far from merciful Bill Wright
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled that a state’s refusal to legalise same-sex marriage does not violate the continent’s rights convention. The fact that some European states have allowed gay marriage does not oblige others to follow suit, it said on 16 July.
A 51-year-old Finnish citizen who had a sex-change operation in 2009 to become a woman brought the case when officials refused to recognise her new gender identity because she wanted to remain married to her wife of 18 years. The couple had a child in 2002.
Since same-sex marriage is not legal in Finland, a local court had ruled the couple would have to have their relationship turned into a civil union or divorce.
They refused to do this for religious reasons and because they thought a civil union did not provide the same security as marriage. The European Court ruled this requirement did not violate the applicant’s protection from discrimination.
The court said in a statement that states had a legitimate interest in “keeping intact the traditional institution of marriage” and said it was not too much to ask the applicant to accept a civil union because it afforded almost the same legal protection as marriage.