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.

I haven't seen any suits on the basis of discrimination against women despite the fact that women are not ordained in the RC Church.

I find myself agreeing with Wamster's cold logic here, and with Jjkm's.

The difference between the government, parliament, etc., and the RC church is that the Church is not a democracy.

Although, I don't think a Catholic can actually leave the church anymore. You can get excommunicated, but you can't choose to leave. Just as an aside...

potoroo - actually you can. There's quite an entertaining page on the NSS website here

Here's how someone was told to do it:
'If you have decided formally to renounce your Catholic faith, there is a simple procedure. You need to write to an official known as the diocesan chancellor for the area within which you were baptised. Give him as much detail as possible about where and when you were baptised, and briefly state the reasons why you wish no longer to be considered a member of the Catholic Church. Keep it factual and avoid anything that he might construe as aggressive or insulting to the Catholic religion.

A note will then be made in the baptismal register of the Church where you were baptised stating that you have formally renounced your membership of the Catholic Church. For all legal purposes, both in the law of the Church, and, where applicable, in civil law, you will no longer be considered a Catholic.

It is not possible to cancel your baptism as such, since baptism is regarded by the Church as leaving an indelible mark on the soul, but of course, this will not concern you since you no longer believe in that.'

I haven't seen any suits on the basis of discrimination against women despite the fact that women are not ordained in the RC Church.

churches must have some exemption from normal laws in regard to this (like they do for employing teachers)

sorry, hit post too soon... if the case of the RCs discrimination against women was an analogy for their stance on homosexuality, they would have campaigned against every other denominations which decided to allow women to be ordained. Clearly that would be ridiculous - its none of their business, they have no more right to interfere than anyone else has to interfere with their internal matters.

But in the case of gay marriage, they want to interfere with what other groups wish to do.

I think it's covered under schedule 9 of the Equalities Act 2010, grimma.

Just out of curiousity have any other religions shown solidarity with the Catholic Church, have they showed support for gay marriage or are they just simply keeping quiet.

Grimma - I think that's no longer the case. Canon Law was changed a few years ago so that you can no longer do that. I think.

Can no longer do what, potoroo? Sorry, I'm being dim and sleepy and can't work out what you are referring to.

Northey, You do not agree with the views of god's representative on earth, you've already left catholicism if you disagree with him.

And, really, comparing my situation to yours is laughable.

No longer leave northey

because of so many leaving over the abuse scandals I think

Wamster, i hate to break it to you, but your view of whether I can consider myself a Catholic or not is effectively meaningless. Sorry about that. Do carry on pontificating about it though. Live the cognitive dissonance dream for yourself.

Ah thanks, mighty.

Just as a matter of logic from someone who did opt out of the church: I lived in the US at the time and could not just leave easy easy. Most people actually can't you know? Time to bow out of this thread if that's what passes as logic round here

But before I do I have to say that while I agree with your cold logic wamster your utter confidence in your ability to pronounce on rights you enjoy but gay people don't is breath taking. You might not think there is a difference between civil partnerships and marriage but clearly there is or people wouldn't be getting so exercised over it. There are gay mnetters here telling you it's a big deal but you still don't believe it. Have some respect for them FFS.

Potoroo - if they've abolished what sounds like a pretty civilized acceptance of peoples wishes, that's pretty shoddy.

'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave'

Never mind, you can always DIY should you be so inclined.

Re the idea of marriage being reserved only for those who pass some kind of religious 'test' and the rest of us having civil partnerships - I'm not in favour.

I'm not religious but I am married (registry office). I wouldn't like to HAVE to assume a different civil title which somehow marks me out as somehow 'not really married'.

And I'm guessing that this is how many gay people who wish to get married feel as well.

I just go back and back to Homer Simpson saying "Once you go Vatican, you can't go back again".

I would also urge everyone to hotfoot it to YouTube and look up "Simpsons Catholic advert" as it's hilarious = no stuff that = the link.

Omigod, I agree that psychologically it may be difficult to leave the catholic church, but, really, what do they do if you decide not to go to church anymore- send a squad around? They probably do (shudder).

And, no, Jenny why should I and others have respect for illogicality. People are starving in the UK today-have you seen the food banks? But we've got to entertain people who don't like the name of something and be 'mawwied'. Damned right I've no respect for them.
Even uber-feminist Julie Bindel agrees.

The argument that you ignore one injustice because of another worse one has never held much water. Dealing with a matter that just requires a small amount of parliamentary time is really not impacting on major issues which require time to rebuild our economy and money we don't have. If we actually had a choice 'allow gay marriages' or 'feed the hungry' then of course we'd choose the latter but we don't.

If you think its all such a waste of time WTF spend so much time yourself discussing it?

'Small amount of parliamentary time'. Lol! This debate will take hours and hours and hours and hours... The Catholic church and the C of E et al will make sure of that.

I've got the flu so I may argue about something I believe in.

" But we've got to entertain people who don't like the name of something and be 'mawwied'. Damned right I've no respect for them."

Are you applying that judgement to heterosexual marriage as well? If say the term 'married' was only allowed to be used if you had had the religious ceremony, would you consider that non-religious people would have no right to be upset about that either?

I think it is the tampering with a system that is good enough that offends me. No more tampering. Just leave it alone. It's good enough. Gay people have access to same rights as marriage already-why pee about further? You can't please everybody (the church is unhappy) so just accept that cp's are an imperfect but good enough solution.

Wamster - that aside, you haven't answered my question though.

If it was brought into law tomorrow that only people who had had religious ceremonies were allowed to call themselves 'married', do you think non-religious people who wanted to marry would have the right to be upset?