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.

As for them goin abroad and being nothing more than friends surely that falls under the legality that the other country puts on same sex couples not our wording.

I think there may be treaties accepting equivalence of marriage, Postbellum, but I don't know. Am mostly just lurking ignorantly on the thread because I was confronted with this petition this morning (at a group I go to we were offered the chance to sign it). I didn't sign, and indeed muttered no a lot under my breath, but two people I love and respect did sign it and I am disappointed.

True but if you went somewhere where being gay is illegal no amount of marriage treaties is going to change how your treated.

It would be better if Catholics were like Muslims in that the religious ceremony is not legally binding. I believe Muslims have a religious ceremony first and then go to the registry office if they want to later. The civil ceremony means nothing to them apart from the legalities. (So my Muslim friends told me, so apologies if this is incorrect)

But the uk is a church of England country we should not give that up or the legality or religious marriage just to make a few happy.

I think we should give up being a Church of England country. The numbers of regular CofE attenders as a proportion of the population is tiny - according to Wikipeadia: 944,000. Even those baptised is 25m, which is less than half the population. The UK should separate church & state. It is nuts in this day & age.

That shouldn't matter a Muslim country wouldn't change their laws or ways even if the majority were Christian

The civil aspect of marriage is not significant to the Catholic Church either, Migsy. A civil divorce does not affect your marital status if you are a Catholic and married in a church ceremony. Only with an annulment, granted by a church tribunal (essentially by the Roman Curia) are you considered not married for all practical purposes.

I'm not sure if a Catholic wedding in a church is considered legally binding or if it is the signing of the civil register that makes a Catholic marriage legal. Up to 1836 non-conformists and Catholics had to marry in Anglican churches for their marriages to be considered legal. Quakers and Jews were exempt from this requirement. After 1836 Catholics and non-conformists could marry in their own places of worship and registry offices were established for anyone who didn't want a religious wedding ceremony.

Migsy, that would make a lot of sense but this campaign is being spearheaded by the CofE, not the Catholic church who are merely jumping on the bandwagon. Much harder to separate the CofE.

I'd be perfectly happy for the CofE to still be able to perform both the legal and the religious parts of a marriage. Ditto any other religion (with registrar present if required for the legal bit). I'd be OK with any religion being able to decide who it will and won't marry according to their rites - if for example the RC believes that non-celibate homosexuals are in a spiritual position whereby marriage is not possible (same situation as divorce is that?) then that is their perogative. The discrimination wouldn't be against homosexuals per se but against anyone who isn't eligible for Catholic marriage...that'd include me ( in most churches not just RC) on the grounds of atheism. It seems pretty simple to me.

I'm not sure if a Catholic wedding in a church is considered legally binding or if it is the signing of the civil register that makes a Catholic marriage legal

It'll be the signing of the register. Its the same as with nonconformists and Muslims. Apparently its not uncommon for some unfortunate Muslim woman to get left high and dry because she thought she was properly married because they'd done the religious bit but they hadn't also done the legal part. (I can't imagine an RC priest or nonconformist minister letting that happen)

Grimma, yes, there are various categories of people who are not eligible for Catholic marriage, including Catholics married in the church and subsequently divorced but whose marriages are not annulled.

As things stand, marriage within the church requires a dispensation in cases where a Catholic wishes to marry 'outside the cult' but in the church i.e. to a non-Christian and even if a Catholic wishes to marry a Christian of another denomination ('inside the cult') permission is required.

(I have heard that too about the cases of Muslim women and the legal disadvantages they suffered as a result when child custody, spousal support, and next of kin issues arose, including inheritance).

mathanxiety Do you know, out of interest, if I could get married in a Catholic Church. I am a divorced Catholic but I married in a United Reformed Church. Does that mean I was never married according to the doctrine?
Not that I wish to ever enter into a marriage again. Just interested.

I'd just love to tell my extremist Catholic mother that I am not divorced in the eyes of the church.

Migsy1 I believe so, I mean your first marriage "wouldn't count". Is that not what happened with the current Prince of Spain, is it Felipe? His wife has been married before and subsequently divorced but as it wasn't in the Church it didn't count and therefore they got married in Church. Of course I could be talking complete shite, or channelling my granny who is strangely obsessed by the Spanish Royal family

Migsy1 - I think that if you married in a church, the Catholic Church would see the vows you took as a binding marriage agreement before God, regardless of the fact it wasn't in a Catholic Church & therefore as a divorcee you could not get married in a Catholic Church. You could have your union blessed but you could not be re-married in a Catholic Church.
Not 100% sure, but I think the fact you married in a church is significant. It may be different, if you were married in a registry office. It has something to do with making the commitment before God.

I would say you could but I am no expert. If your wedding did not include the canonical form of marriage as set forth by the RC church (including marrying in a Catholic church) or a dispensation to marry in another church the question might be simple. The process of clearing the path for marriage in the church would be done on the basis of Lack of Form, and would be purely administrative. Or the church might look at the intent of both parties when they entered into the marriage and require you both to go through the process of annulment (basically because in the eyes of the RC church marriage is a sacrament bestowed by the couple on each other no matter who they are -- 'natural marriage').

Here is an article that might clarify things.

All I can say is that if CP's didn't exist, I would be thinking the religious lot were taking the pee and how dare they dictate, however, CP's DO exist, so, yeah, given the rights are the same, maybe they've got a point: maybe it is time that gay people accepted the compromise of not upsetting the religious.
I say this as an atheist.

What about the rights of the religious not to have something they think valuable devalued?

I fail to see how other people being allowed to marry is devaluing anyone else's marriage. Perhaps we should have signs up outside the Churches and Marriage Rooms at Registry offices saying "Heterosexuals only". As it is, all that is being asked is that other Human Beings (who are equal to you) be given the right to take part in something that every other Human Being has a right to take part in. Unless of course you DON'T feel they are equal to you? In which case you are going down the Apartheid route.

maybe it is time that gay people accepted the compromise of not upsetting the religious.

But some gay people are religious. Some of them belong to churches who want to be able to marry them. I suppose its absolutely fine to upset them because they are mild-mannered types like Quakers and the URC

Thanks wiggles, post and math Just curious really. It completely did my head in at the time when my mother tried to get my ex husband to annul his previous marriage so I could get married in a Catholic church. I would have loved to have been married in a Catholic church but I accept its views on divorce. The ironic thing is that I did not accept the church's views on divorce until I actually got divorced. That is why I would never marry again. In my eyes now, marriage is for life and it you can't make it work, don't bother trying to do it again. I think we were rightly denied a Catholic wedding.

Actually, having checked Canon 1085.2 which says "Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty." It seems that I was never married as he did not have an annulment of his previous marriage. Result! Sorry to hijack thread.

Actually, it's not about equality, it's about recognising difference. Marriage is a heterosexual institution designed for the bringing up of children-it has always been that way. Yes, some married couples don't have children, but that is the principle behind it.

Why gay people should suddenly want to ape a heterosexual institution is beyond me. If I were gay, I would want nothing to do with it. Marriage would feel totally alien to me.

Civil partnerships seem a much more progressive approach.

My gay friends have children, wamster. They are even bringing them up. Shocking, isn't it?