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.

Also, wamster, who gets to decide whether it's good enough or not? There is clearly enough strength of public opinion in the gay AND straight communities that it should be changed for the government to think its worth devoting parliamentary time to it.

Can I just say that I am really enjoying Wamster's posts and people's responses (especially Northey's). It really is an interesting debate. I have sympathy for gay people wanting marriage but it is really interesting to hear so many views on gay marriage and Catholicism.

For heaven's sake, don't read my nonsense. CelticPromise and ImproperlyAcquainted are far more measured and thoughtful.

Also, they don't get cross and say bollocks.

Our (CofE) priest was talking about this issue yesterday.

He seemed to think that the Church should withdraw from marriage altogether, and let it become an entirely legal process. I think someone said this near the start of the thread.

After a gay or straight couple were married they could then apply (or not) to whichever religious denomination they wished to have a further religious ceremony (and the Catholic Church could refuse to conduct this for gay people).

A problem here seems to be the actual words used to describe this process. It seems silly that something can't be resolved because Christians want to 'own' the word 'marriage'. Surely we can find a new description, e.g. 'Sacramental marriage' to describe a church marriage, as opposed to the term generally used for all legal marriages.

Personally I am tending to agree with our priest and if I weren't already married I'd be quite happy to have legal marriage followed by sacramental marriage.

I forgot to say, I agree with Wamster in that the government resources spent debating this would be better spent on other things.

You could look at it the other way and say that if the churches spent more time helping the needy and less making a fuss about civil (non-church) matters then the country would be a better place as well.

That is what is so annoying though isn't it, the church does spend a lot of time helping the sick and needy, it is one of the the biggest draws for me - a very caring community for those within that also reaches out and, even in my scattered rural parish, offers many opportunities for the practical application of faith. They just do themselves no favours when it comes to PR.

BonfireofKleenex The Church does loads of work in developing countries. CAFOD is a prime example. Also, the SVP does loads of community work, and there are Sisters in Manchester who run soup kitchens. They are just a few examples that spring immediately to mind. Not to mention the Catholic Rescue Society (like Barnardos)

It really annoys me that the anti-Catholic brigade focus on the negative aspects of the Church and never have a balanced view.

Well in the case of the Catholic church it's kind of hard to avoid noticing the negative publicity it has brought upon itself.

Obviously this doesn't mean that some 'ordinary Catholic folk' don't do good things, of course they do.

As do some ordinary atheists, Anglicans, Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc.

CAFOD do amazing work - not just internationally but at home too. Our local CAFOD centre runs a fantastic bereavement course for children who have lost a family member - it's all free and it's open to children of any faith - or none at all. It doesn't use any religious imagery or terms - just looks at feelings and emotions. Obviously if religion comes up it will be discussed but that is any religion as some children are from Muslim communities locally. Have seen some of the stuff they use and it's lovely and child friendly.
Likewise during this Lenten period they are raising funds to build wells in communities abroad who do not have access to clean water.

Bonfire Do Jews, Muslims, atheists, Anglicans, Hindus etc do bad things too or is that just reserved for Catholics?

as a slight aside this year the govt are matching £ for £ everything CAFOD raise for the water campaign, so if anyone is interested now is a good time to donate

The " if the churches spent more time helping the needy and less making a fuss about civil (non-church) matters then the country would be a better place as well" argument is a little too much like the " if mothers spent more time raising their children and less time on mumsnet then the country would be a better place" to have much credence for me.

People will always spend their time in a way that is baffling to others but that doesn't mean that they are neglecting their other responsibilities or that the arseing around they do is harmful. Sometimes its necessary to discuss social and political issues in order to do the actual helping the needy. I work in a food bank that my church set up about 5-6 months ago. It wouldn't have happened without obsevation of the economic situation and lots of tedious talk. I also think the census is a good idea as although costly and sometimes intrusive, its helpful to the government to actually have an overview of the population and its problems so it can target resources, ditto the much maligned child weighing programme.

I think the church are dead wrong on this matter (morally and theologically) but because of their conclusions, not because they waste time discussing it. It is a change in policy and changes in policy should be looked at carefully otherwise we lurch from ill thought out plan to ill thought out plan.

"Equal but different" wasn't that the argument used to defend Apartheid?

"Bonfire Do Jews, Muslims, atheists, Anglicans, Hindus etc do bad things too or is that just reserved for Catholics?"

I think it was pretty obvious what my point was, but if you want to feel offended then do go ahead.

Yes 'equal but different' is a horrible phrase, it just smacks of polite discrimination.

BonfireOfKleenex, I dont know about other people, but I do know that what the name of my register office heterosexual marriage means NOTHING to me-it is the rights it provides that matter. If they renamed it civil partnership tommorow, I would not care.

Wamster - you said it, you don't know about other people and tbh, from what you have said, it doesn't sound as if you have spent much time thinking about what it might be like to not be you. Apologies if you have, obviously

There was a chap on the radio this lunchtime. Civil Partnership does not give exactly the same rights as marriage. For example, within the UK he and his CP partner are each others next of kin. If they go abroad - they are nothing more than friends, whereas if they were married they would remain each other's next of kin.

Probably way too trivial for Wamster, but one can easily imagine situations in which this distinction could matter rather a lot.

but Grimma if the other country doesn't recognise same sex marriage, won't that still be the case?