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.

Lots of very reasonable views, what a shame the church doesn't give a shiny shite about what its members think and how they live.

Given the high proportion of gay priests - especially at the Vatican - I do wonder if Ratzinger does protetesth too much.

He may well be able to spell protesteth, though...

Not sure my actions were from a position of having guts, more angry and true embarrassment and shame that my non-Catholic friends may think that I, in some way, agree with the church abusing their position to incite bigotry and discrimination. I actually don't have a huge issue with the church. O't allowing gay marriage as a religious sacrament, I don't necessarily agree but I understand their position and if I was gay I wouldn't want to be part of a marriage ceremony which had been forced upon the church. I do have an issue with the church making judgment and forcing their views about civil marriages. I also have an issue with them openly supporting a member of their community who spouts the be that the bishop did last week. It really makes me question whether I did the right thing in sending my children to catholic school

*bile not be (on phone with fat fingers!)

I didn't go to mass as I thought I would get agitated. Our pp is very old and very anti gay. This kind of thing makes me question my faith .

It was just all very squirmy and divisive, our priest didn't seem keen to read it out and encouraged us to form and send our own responses but did say we were asked to sign the petition. I was and still am really pissed off about it. Why don't they do something helpful with their influence? Of all the issues, to raise in every parish at the same time, why this? Nobody is ever going to make any priest perform a gay wedding, it's not going to make straight people less married. I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Does it matter as much as child poverty? The health and social care bill?

So

On the general note about churches influencing politics/law-making, I think this is a good thing.

There are all sorts of lobbying groups connected to parliament. It is right that people of faith should be represented too. I think the CofE bishops in the House of Lords do a pretty good job at representing all Christians, as well as Jews, Muslims and Sikhs.

Every time someone says that the church or Christian faith should play no part in public life, they forget that Christians are people with a voice too, and they are taxpayers. They also are over-represented in the 'Big Society'.

I don't see how places like France or the USA, with their totally secular public lives, offer any advantages over what we have here. We are far more tolerant and inclusive.

We have a voice. A vote in fact. Same as everyone else.

We all have votes, yes.

But there are many lobbying organisations in parliament, including churches.

Influence of politics does not exclusively happen at general elections. It also concerns narrow issues rather than a whole package of disconnected issues.

Oh dear, my gut reaction from reading that letter (via a google search) is that the Catholic Church is still trotting out the argument that their definition of marriage is the correct one ? that it's about confining sexual behaviour within a church-endorsed relationship of a man and woman, and that the purpose of that sexual behaviour is to procreate.

That's their definition of marriage, but they have no right whatsoever to insist that that definition shall apply to everyone else. In this country, which laws apply to which persons is determined by Parliament, and if Parliament decides that the term marriage shall also apply to a same-sex relationship, then the Catholic Church can do all the lobbying they wish, but at some time it will need to understand that it doesn't have the arrogance to determine what the laws of this country shall be.

I shouldn't really participate in this section of Mumsnet. I worked in a civilian capacity within the Catholic Church for a few years, and I left it because of the hypocrisy I saw.

You've pinned it down, huggly - let the Catholic Church do as it will within its own boundaries* but it has no right to decide what non-Catholics do.

*Although it'd be nice if the hierarchy obeyed secular laws when it comes to things like handing paedophiles over to the cops

Having a seat in the House of Lords doesn't make you a lobbying organisation. It makes you a part of the legislative process.

I have no issue at all with speaking out. But you must expect people to speak out in opposition, and try to persuade people by the strength of your argument rather than any perceived special position in society.

Oh I've found this very hard. I am friends with a lesbian couple through church and attended the celebration for their civil partnership last year because I support them being able to express their loving relationship. As one of them tweeted this evening, "I love God, God is love, I love my wifey and no church bod can change that"

However, I am also clear on what the Church's definition of marriage is - a sacrament demonstrating the love between a man and a woman and being the nearest thing to God's love that we have within humanity. God's love is creative. We know this throught he loving way in which he has created the beautiful world around us. Therefore, the sacrament of marriage needs to be open to being creative and hence open to children. This is why the complementarity between a man and a woman is so important in the definition of the sacrament of marriage. IMHO, this does not exclude couples with infertility problems or those above child bearing age.

The only difference at the moment for gay couples having a civil partnership and the majority of gay couples wanting marriage, is the name of "marriage" being given. At the moment, the government is saying that they would not ask a Church minister to conduct a marriage in Church if they were not happy to do so. Will this always be the case? In a way, even if it isn't the case surely the Catholic Church would just not see it as a valid marriage?

I'm sorry I'm rambling now but I am going round and round in circles on this issue a bit. And despite my previous paragraph, I am sure that there are some gay Catholics who would welcome the opportunity to receive the sacrament of marriage in Church. Do we really believe that Jesus sees the traditional, conventional marriage between a man and a woman as being a sacrament but not a loving couple wanting to receive the same graces within a same sex union? I don't know!!!!

I don't think the RCC has a special place in society. They are not Anglican.

But it is my understanding that the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who has set up the petition

As with previous thorny issues and the Catholic church I hav been reminded of and comforted today by the words of a wise old priest I once heard spoken when a Catholic was questioning her faith - he asked whether it was God she was out of sorts with or the Vatican. This made her think and realise it was the Vatican, and the priest clearly agreed with her but not in so many words.

I'm not Catholic but I am in a long term lesbian relationship (with children). This is such an interesting thread - nice to read one like this that doesn't descend into trollery and name-calling.

I like that Eliza.

I think this is an interesting thread too. I like to remind people in RL that being RC has not removed my ability to think for myself. I just veer between thinking that I should move into a Christian church that fits better with my conscience, or whether I should stay because that is how the church will (hopefully) ultimately be changed by the progressive members.

Ended up missing Mass for another reason, but was glad because I knew hearing this letter read out would put me in a bad mood and defeat the purpose of church attendance. Our previous priest wouldn't have had much truck with it; he once caused a furore by obliquely suggesting that Christ and Lazarus may have had a homosexual relationship, and heads the website of his current parish with the statement: 'Young or old, married, single or divorced, and whatever your sexuality, there is a place for you in our parish. All are welcome'.

I agree with PollyMorfic that the religious and civil elements of marriage should be kept separate. It's the logical way. Matthew Parris made just this point in his Times column last week.

Celticpromise, that is how I fell, the Catholic Church needs to move on if it is to survive (in my area most priests have at least 2 if not more parishes and congregations deplete year on year) Do I jump ship completely or hope that there are enough like minded people who are willing to stand up Nd be counted and affect some much needed change? I don't know the answer but I truly am ashamed to be associated with my church today.

*feel not fell

Good grief, dreadful grammar.

"It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children"

1. What is wrong with celebrating the commitment of two people.
2. Why is marriage just about pro-creation?
3. Why can't Gay couples raise children?
4. what would Jesus do?

answers

1. Nothing - its brilliant and if two people marry and they can't or don't want to have children - this isn't a 'reduction' it takes a huge amount to commit for life. A priest should know this
2. This is rooted deep within history and is all about power and property. it holds little value today, this view harms the church and shows them to be short sighted.
3. they can, successfully and studies show usually Gay relationships are far more stable and last longer
4. He would hang his head and weep at the exclusivity and rules imposed in his name.

I have only now just read the letter.

I am not sure if I am picking this up properly. The catholic church is saying that gay couples who have a civil partnership are welcome in the catholic church? Just they cannot get married in a catholic church.

In my understanding if a hetrosexual couple get married in a catholic church and then divorce, then neither partner can get married in a catholic church again?

In this letter is the Bishop saying that the catholic church recognise marriage's performed in civil ceremonies or in other religions?

In his letter he says the catholic church recognise marriage outside ones that take place in a catholic church. What does recognise mean though? Does it mean that if you get married in a registry office you can still take communion at mass? Or just that you can still go to mass but not take communion.

It just all confuses me so. If I was gay I would find another church. Surely the priests know that they will have even less of a flock. How can they preach that God loves everyone equally? Yet some have less of their life recognised in their Church where God lives.

I know I will still go to mass. I will take out of the mass the parts that give me comfort and this is what I want for my children.

I just don't understand how the catholic church can discriminate so.