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.

Going back to the subject of the thread, having read the letter it talks of male and female "complementarity". Do you think a lot of the RCC's objection is down to its very defined view of gender roles? The Church holds that in marriage the man is the Head of his wife and the woman the subordinate . Obviously with gay marriage, there's not a partner who automatically has a duty to 'submit in all matters'.

That it exists as a single body. As opposed to seeing it as a number of churches, eg eastern orthodox. Opus Dei are controversial as they are a sect within the church, which as described above, is against the nicene creed.

No I know, it's a tricky question. I think it means that despite our nationalities, genders, whatever, we are all one church with the same core beliefs. But what those core beliefs actually are is a different question. I'm not sure that I think they include things like this gay marriage thing.

No, Catkin, that is not a core belief. The core belief of a Catholic marriage is that it is the coming together of a man and a woman to spend the rest of their lives together and have children. The man & woman bit is critical as it is the natural way for procreation to occur. The Catholic Church believe that IVF is a sin, as is any homosexual kind of sexual activity - therefore a gay marriage is absolutely impossible in the Catholic church.

but Northey & Springchicken that is still just accepting its existance - what you are actually saying is that you believe in it. Belief is more than just acknowledging existance.
I can acknowledge the existance of Hinduism, but I don't believe it. No offence to any Hindhu's - just using it as an example.

I think it is the belief that the catholic church is the one true faith. There are obvoiusly other parts of the mass that involve the profession of faith in the doctrine of the church and the pope. However, I think the Nicene creed is stating that you beleive that the church is the one that Jesus built 'on Peter'.

Plus the creed was deliberatly written in quite opaque language. to suggest that it means one thing belies a lack of understanding of the different factions the bishops were trying to unify at the time.
It was written like that so lots of people with different belives on the technical poitns of the church could be 'unified' by a fairly opaque 'creed'.

Do you know what - I don't really know.

I've just discovered, that Lutherans, Episcopalians, Coptics, Anglicans & Presbetyrians all say virtually the exact same Creed!!!!! So there has to be more to what makes a Catholic, Catholic - than just agreeing with the Creed, otherwise we could just as easily be any of those other Christian faiths!!!!

:o bugs. Quite often I just think "oh sod it", shelve the question for another time, and go and make sandwiches for the church help-the-homeless thing.

I chose to become a Catholic (changing from CofE) in my early 20s. The crux of my faith is based on the Creed and the fact that I believe God loves me and Jesus came to earth in human form to help bring us closer to God through his teaching, example and resurrection. This is no different to when I was CofE (and in fact the CofE church says " I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" too) but the main reason I changed denomination was because it is also important to me that I treasure and further my personal relationship with God through prayer. For me personally, being Catholic helps with this and therefore was the right thing for me to do and still is.

I like the fact that the RC Church will state clearly it's view on things. I found with CofE that it would vary from parish to parish. I might not always agree with the RC viewpoint but on the things that are the crux of my faith, there are no disparities.
The RC church does encourage its members to think with their conscience and it is only ex cathedra statements from the Pope that are infallible. The Pope's other teachings are certainly important and to be studied & thought about but absolutely can be challenged.

Personally on this matter I am still struggling. I understand why the RC church has decided to clearly state it's viewpoint and that it gets it's view from its teachings on marriage. I do see marriage within the church as sacramental. I understand that the concern of many bishops (RC & CofE) is the diluting down of what they see as their definition of marriage.

However, this is their definition of marriage within Christianity and I do not know if Jesus were here on earth now, how he would be responding. From my personal experience and what I read in the Gospels, he would respond with love. I do not think he would be interested in whether a couple have passed some kind of test of compliance with rules, in order for them to remain full members of Christianity. It is what the individual's intent and heart says - using their informed conscience that is important. I do not feel that the crux of my faith is to sit in judgement on others in this issue.

It seems to me -that no matter what is said here- the Catholic position on this is that gay marriage is unacceptable. Now people may argue whether or not they personally believe in that, but that seems to be the case.

Another thing is this: It's OK to be all liberal and think: 'I can be a catholic yet disagree with bits of it' but when you are face to face with the damage that the practise of NOT using contraception causes, it is very hard to stay within the church. Very hard NOT to say ' I want no part of this religion'.

Sorry, but you either blindly follow it or you say : ' it'

SESthebrave People like you restore my faith in human nature. Bravo. (Sorry, I said I would butt out...I will now!)

Northey Can you put a link for the other thread you just started. Can't find it. Thanks.

Wamster It seems to matter to you that Catholics who do not believe in the whole thing still call themselves Catholic. Why does it matter to you that we are not telling the faith to **it? Is it because you know that if we all did that there would be no Catholic Church left (well, not as we know it). Is that what you are angling for?

It would be great if the Catholic church disappeared tomorrow, but I'm not angling for it here. It just puzzles me how what is surely a core belief of Catholicism- i.e. marriage being between man and woman only- can be so casually disregarded by those that claim to be Catholic.

Does this work, migsy?

m.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/1429621-Disagreeing-with-elements-of-ones-organised-religion

Thanks Northey!

Wamster, to recap the answers you have already had on this -

1. it is possible to see a distinction between the civil element of marriage (the legal bit that gives you things like inheritance rights) and the sacramental bit (the bit where grace gets conferred on you by God). The government is talking about the civil side of things. Some Carholcs here are saying they have no problem with the civil side of marriage, including the name marriage, being extended to gay couples in exactly the same way as straight couples.

2. As for the sacramental side, some Catholics here have pointed out that the church has changed its teaching over time in some areas, including the area of who may receive a sacrament (used to be just the priest receiving communion, now it's everyone). This means that it is not impossible for the church to reinterpret the question of who can receive the sacrament of marriage, if it wishes to do so, and if it thinks it can take the whole body of the church along with it.

Posted too soon!

So in summary, we see no reason at all why the civil side can't be done now, and no technical reason why the sacramental side couldn't happen in time, depending on the will ofthe Vatican, and how it viewed the will of Catholics around the world.

As regards point 1: gay people already have same rights as married -only they are called civil partnerships. No need for further tinkering.

2, It is possible that the church will change its mind, but not probable. It would be a major, major deviation to do so.

It's OK to be clever clever about this, but the current position is that the church is firmly against gay marriage. Being a catholic doesn't just mean accepting god, it means accepting the church, too.

In response:

1. I specifically said "including the name". There is the public and political will for this to happen. And although you think it's an unworthy use of parliamentary time, others disagree, so you might have to accept the majority view on that.

2. It would be a major deviation, you're right. But the Church ha done some major deviations before in its time. And it is possible.

On your final point, we've explained this to you several times as well. Yes, we agree that that is what the letter says, and that that is the official position of the Church here. No, we don't agree that being Catholic means that we have to agree with every single thing that is said by a man in a dog collar or a pointy hat or a flappy cape.

You just don't get it do you, Northey? Being a Catholic means accepting the church as well as god. I wouldn't dream of telling anybody what to do, but, really, if you disagree that much why are you even a catholic?

It's possible to lapse, you know, thousands do it.

I do understand what you are saying, wamster. And am telling you that, in the eyes of a well-educated, thoughtful, modern Catholic, it is bollocks. Sorry about that.

Northey How did you get to be a catholic-was it free with 10 packets of crisps or something (courtesy of Father Ted-you can rely on the catholics for humour, I'll give them that)

Incidentally, why do you think that being a catholic means agreeing with the church on absolutely everything? Various posters have given you examples of church teaching which contradicts that. Do you have any authoritative source to offer which backs up your assertion?