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.

No but it means agreeing with the core beliefs.

Right. And why do you think that this is a core belief?

I'm a modern catholic
I believe in gay sex
contraception
and those men in pointy hats
They're a bunch of ***
What no, you say
That is not the catholic way!!
Come back another day
Or go over to C of E
where the morality is ea-easy

Yes, but why do you think opposition to gay marriage is a "core" belief?

but Northey it is a core belief. I feel so mean saying this, but marriage & all that it entails is a huge part of the Catholic Church. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the Church - how could it not be core. A sacramant is pretty fundamental & the rules surrounding it are fairly comprehensive too.

Marriage within the Catholic Church is a sacrament and anyone undertaking this needs to understand what that means and for it to be a valid sacramental marriage, it must be between a man and a woman.

If we talk about non-sacramental or civil marriage, those restrictions need not apply. The reason the Church has got involved is because we are using one term here - marriage - to define two different things. The Church is worried about the impact of this and also wider family life. I can understand their worries about the former but not so sure about the latter.

I think lots of people don't quite get the depth of Northey's question. You all seem to think that it is quite simple, and becuase the Catholic church is dogmatic you can be equally dogmatic about what the catholic church 'is'.

I would say the core is the belief that Jesus came to save humans from sin. This means that we belive in the sanctitiy of human life. That belief has lead to the belief that conception is a gift from god and should be respected as such. That has lead to the beliefe that sex should only be used for procreation. That belief has led to the definition of marriage as between the two genders.

What Northey is askign is where do you draw the 'core beliefs' line.

but Springchicken that core belief of Jesus coming to save humans from sin signs you up for any pretty much any Christian faith.

I think it is far, far, far from simple. I am also curious to know what my fellow Catholics do believe. So far, most of them, as far as I can tell could just as well be CofE or Presbyterian!

Surely, if you are Catholic, you have to at least buy into the Catholic Sacraments?

Oh for goodness sake,this really this is getting ridiculous now. .
I'm not out to diss anybody, Yes, I've got respect for people who take their religion seriously even though I disagree with it. At least they are true to something. So to all those who say: I am a Catholic, gay marriage is abhorrent, I think: OK, you are being true to your church. I think you're entirely wrong and I disagree but you're right to believe it given your religion.
You're right to make a stand and say that gay marriage is wrong if that is what you believe.
I also am sympathetic to the fact that it is hard to leave something when it has held sway over you for years and years.
My mil was under distress and it was not easy for her to become 'lapsed'.

But, really, the idea that you can be a Catholic and pro-gay marriage without there being a deep, deep schism between you and the church is bollocks.
Marriage between man and woman is a core belief within the Church. Like it or not, it can't be denied.

@Post, yes I agree with you re sacraments. But how much? I beliveve in infant baptism and in what the church says that means and why. However, I don't believe that not baptising your child the second they are born is putting their soul in danger.

Do you understand the distinction between the sacrament of marriage and civil marriage? As far I know the debates are around the long overdue civil marriage for all, and no faith will be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies but those who want to obviously should be free to do so.

The Church is not a dead thing, set in stone, it is a living body of people and it changes over time. Slowly. There is no schism, there is patience and tolerance and other worthy virtues. I'm sorry that 'the church' isn't a collective of blindly obedient bigots but it's made up of intelligent and thoughtful people, many of whom looking forward to change. See also Catholics For Choice for those who would like a softened approach to abortion. See also Galileo. Etc.

@PostBellum I have been looking quite seriously at Quakers if that helps. However, I feel a bit too catholic for them. It's like you can do anything you want to as long as you don't want to sing. What do I dooooo?

Of course I understand the difference! But as I have pointed out before, gay people already have civil marriage in the form of civil partnerships.

Catholics, though, are supposed to believe that marriage is a union between man and a woman. THAT is their view. They should disagree with gay marriage.

Honest to goodness, it seems to me that a lot of people here would fare better in a more tolerant religion like the Anglican Church rather than Catholicism.

Since you mentioned Galileo - one of the good facets of the Catholic church (and many others but sadly not all) is their ability to adapt to increasing knowledge of the world. So, centuries ago the RC was sure that the sun went round the earth; we don't ask 'Is the Pope a Catholic?' because the current incumbent no longer believes this. Similarly, the RC church accepts the theory of evolution nowadays. It may be that in time, as there is increasing scientific evidence regarding homosexuality, that the RC church adapts its stance on this too.

As far as I know, the advice of the Church, is for baptism to take place as soon as is possible. Catholics believe that all humans are born with original sin (because of Adam disobeying God). If you die unbaptised, then you die eternally deprived of God's presence. During Baptism, original sin is wiped away & the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to each individual and whether you like it or not, you become a member of the Catholic Church!

Depends on how much you think your soul is in danger if you are unbaptised I guess.

For infants that die before they get a chance to be baptised, then I believe the comforting argument, is that they were baptised by desire (i.e. their parents would have baptised them, had there been time) or that Jesus welcomes the souls of the pure & innocent who through no fault of their own & their parents have not had the chance to be baptised. Something along those lines.

I think Catholics are often very tolerant and pragmatic. You seem to have a bit of a black and white view of these things, how would you explain the extraordinarily low birth rate in Italy if Catholics took sexual sin, such as contraception, as seriously as you suggest we should?

I don't understand how priests are happy to marry couples who are going to use contraception but are opposing civil marriage ceremonies between same sex partners when it is the same sort of sin. We all sin all the time. It's this constant focus and elevation of some sorts of sin over others that baffles me, but you don't see that in the lives of actual and observant Catholics.

Sorry, Leningrad, I don't understand: that article indicates to me that Catholicism is FAR from being on the cusp of change. What with the references to slavery.

Unless you mean that the rest of us are changing? I've not changed because I've no problem with gay people being 'married' but as they are already married by way of cp's , I don't see the need to go further. But if you meant that its the Catholic church that is changing, I think that article proves that the argument put forward here that Catholicism is somehow moving forward and we can look forward to gay marriages in the Catholic church any time soon is incorrect (to say the least).

oh come over to us springchicken - Quakers is full of ex RCs :o (including priests and nuns)

Seriously - you'd be amazed how at home you'd feel - have a look at our "Advices and Queries" here it's the nearest thing we've got to an equivalent of the catechism. No rules, just advices and suggestions for how we should be living our lives. PM me if you want more info. I was brought up RC, taught RE in RC schools even - left in my mid 30's,now been a Quaker for 23yrs and never regretted the decision! It's much more challenging too IMO .. imagine trying never to tell even the teeniest of white lies ever again.....

I haven't seen anyone put forward that argument, but yes of course, inevitably one day they will marry same sex couples. In a far off Utopian century or so probably.

Hopefully civil marriage ceremonies can be enacted much much sooner. The Church (as in Church church, not these thoughtful people I align myself with) doesn't recognise civil ceremonies if you are baptised, but I wonder what their stance will be for those who are not baptised and go on to marry someone of the same sex - they usually acknowledge that as marriage.

But hours and hours of parliamentary time will be used up on this issue, why can't I have the view that there is no need for actual gay marriage when civil partnerships exist? Why is my view invalid?

I have the right to view it as being a waste of time. Even Julie Bindel thinks it to be a waste of time.

Why should the religious views of the Catholic church be cast aside? Why should any church who disagrees with gay marriage be forced to conduct them?
A wise poster on another thread pointed out that churches could be forced to perform actual gay marriages because it would be discrimination not do so.

Well, I don't get my kicks by forcing religions to perform things they abhor. And no doubt some will try to force them to carry out a gay marriage out of spite.

Your view isn't invalid although obviously has bearing only within the narrower limitations of both your atheism and your heterosexuality. Shall we worry about churches being forced to perform same sex marriages when or if it ever happens though?

The most annoying thing about this whole topic is the way it is doing exactly what it is supposed to, distract us all from the health and social care bill.

"Why should any church who disagrees with gay marriage be forced to conduct them?"

They won't. The proposed legislation relates only to civil ceremonies - as has been pointed out numerous times on this thread. Religions will be free to carry on discriminating.