Catholics, what are your thoughts on this mornings Bishops letter?

[ImproperlyAcquainted]

The one from Vincent Nicholls and Peter Smith regarding marriage, specifically homosexual marriage.

I want to respond but after rambling on for 3 pages I'n not really sure of my point anymore.

A deity is not fundamental to religion

Waster, so the only opinions you care about are those of the hierarchy in a religion you don't believe in?

Sorry I meant wamster. Genuine autocorrect, not name calling. My apologies.

There is nothing wrong with being gay but there is no need to change the name of something that as a whole does not except gays.

Not meaning to sound rude but how did you concieve your children?

A deity is not fundamental to religion
I've lost track of why this is relevant, but correct.

And religion isn't fundamental to marriage either. The romans could have non-religious marriages (regardless of the number of gods from 0 upwards they believed in).

Sure, species might not do well if every member of it was homosexual, but that is irrelevant - it can (and is) a perfectly natural part of the population in many cases.

I don't think so, bugs. I mean, it doesn't say "I believe in everything said by people in the hierarchy of one holy, catholic and apostolic etc". Just that you believe in the existence of the church as a body. I reckon, anyway.

Marriage as a whole does not except gays? How can marriage have an opinion? Certain religions may not accept marriage between tow gay people but where does are your figures to say that the British, tax paying public as a whole, who are the people who should maybe be consulted on any law change, are allowed to civil partnerships being referred to as marriage?

there is no need to change the name of something
Quite right. They should never have invented the term 'civil partnership' in the first place when 'marriage' was the correct name.

*opposed not allowed

Sorry my last post doesnt make much sense, trying to keep up with thread on my phone!

I don't really think there's a 'slippery slope' argument for churches being forced to perform marriages between same-sex couples. After all Catholic churches can refuse to marry a couple if, for example, one of them has been married and divorced previously, or is not a baptised Christian, and neither of those things are an issue for civil marriage. I don't see why they shouldn't have the same rights to refuse a church wedding to a gay couple, even if the changes to civil marriage go ahead.

And from what I've read, that hasn't been their main argument against it anyway.

I find it a curious thing really, so much fuss essentially about a word, on both sides of the argument. On the one hand I don't think there's any real need or urgency to extend civil marriage to gay couples, now that we have civil partnerships which offer the same rights. The same for straight couples who want a civil partnership instead of a marriage. And on the other hand it seems very odd that there's opposition from religious people who are fine with civil partnerships (I realise not all are OK with this but many are) but won't countenance the thought of it being called 'marriage'.

To me it's all basically the same thing, except for the name. And that's just a word. But clearly words do matter a lot!

Lenin, sorry, I've also used the term gays in my postings, lazy typing as opposed to anything else but will take note.

lividCatholic. I accept that the movers and the shakers make the rules. Those at the top of the catholic food chain have come out (no pun intended) against gay marriage. What the hoi polloi think is irrelevant.

That's just reality.

Fair enough it was one of three options really.
Marriage is determined by religion in my opinion not by government and government cannot intervene on these matters just to make things PC

Ok, so a bit of research & it turns out that our official rules come from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Apparently, the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published in 2005, and the first edition in English in 2006.

And this is apparently what we believe about homosexuality:

The Catechism devotes a separate section to homosexuality within its explanation of the sixth commandment. Like heterosexual acts outside of marriage, homosexual acts are considered sins. The Church distinguishes between homosexual attractions, which are not considered sinful, and homosexual acts, which are. The Catechism states that they "violate natural law, cannot bring forth life, and do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." The Church teaches that a homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered" and can be a great trial for the person, who the Church teaches must be "accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity ... unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Homosexuals are, according to the Church, "called to chastity". They are instructed to practice the virtues of "self-mastery" that teaches "inner freedom" using the support of friends, prayer and grace found in the sacraments of the Church. These tools are meant to help homosexuals "gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection", which is a state to which all Christians are called.

So, on that basis, I ask once again how the Catholic Church could do anything other than ask its supporters to campaign against homosexual marriage?

Ephiny, I think words do matter, hence Lenin's objection to the term gays. Hence the fact that we don't refer to someone with cerebral palsy as a spastic anymore or men don't dumb down their language when talking to women anymore. It matters what words we use, it matters very much.

Mum2Luke, your belief that God intends marriage to be a heterosexual-only institution does not offend me (though I disagree). However, your suggestion that gay people only want to get married in order to have a new frock and a day in church - and that we don't know that marriage takes work - is ridiculously offensive. It's like all those DM articles on gay parents that insist that a child is not an accessory or a lifestyle choice - as though gay people are insisting that yes, it is.

I have been with my partner for nearly 20 years. We have two children. Please don't be coming on here and telling me that marriage is hard work and more than just a pretty dress.

And for those others who still don't seem to have clued up that lesbians can and do have children: it's really not rocket science, you know.

I don't see what the fuss about gay marriage is anyway. For goodness sake, the campaigners for gay marriage are like children: ''snot fair we can't get married'. So what? Life is not set up to accommodate everybody all of the time. New labour did all it could to be fair to gay people : it RIGHTLY gave same rights while respecting the major faiths. But, no, not good enough. Now we've got to call them 'marriages' and turn our back on centuries of tradition and weaken marriage and piss off cynical people like me who think it ridiculous to make a fuss when cp's offer the same rights as marriage and that the 'title' of a relationship doesn't affect the quality of it and the religious who are offended by gay marriage.

All in the name of 'equality' .

JustForMe: you ARE sounding rude. Do you have any idea how often lesbian mothers are asked how they got their children? It's probably only second to how often lesbians get asked how we have sex.

Exactly PostBellum, I agree with you. It is ridiculous NOT to expect catholicism to come out against gay marriage given its belief system.

Wamster: your intellectual curiosity, thoughtfulness and compassion are an inspiration to us all.

And now I'm off to do some work. Many thanks to all the intelligent, caring and questioning people - both religious and secular - who have made this such an interesting thread.