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.

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.

So, to protect churches against the possibility of someone mounting a legal case that they are discriminating, the solution is for everyone to have to carry on discriminating against gay couples. Oh yes, that makes sense

Churches can already discriminate as to who they'll marry. Divorced, or people who aren't adherents of their own brand or whatever. Let those that want to carry on. Let those that don't want to discriminate be free not to. How can anyone argue against that?

As to the waste of parliamentary time... parliament spends time on many issues which don't seem particularly important to some people. This is important to quite a lot of people.

So Wamster, do you only want the goverment to debate issues that relate directly to you and are important to you?

Jjkm, I hope you don't mind my asking, but whose actual rights will have been violated if the proposed change comes in?

Or rather, which rights will some people feel have been violated if it comes in? (don't want to accuse you of necessarily agreeing with their opinion :) )

I agree with jjkm ^someone's* rights will be violated if gay marriage came in.

The right to have an institution that they believe to be sacred (is that the right word, Catholic experts? I'm thinking 'sacred' from sacrament) by the gay lobby.

Surely Catholics who are true to their faith -and not of the 'free with 10 crisp packet variety' as demonstrated here - are against it?

I admit the problem for me is that I don't think marriage has any special powers attached to it and that it is just a legal contract and as gay people already have same rights as civil partnerships there is no need of it.

David Cameron is being very silly if he thinks marriage has special powers attached to it: less and less straight people are doing it and the divorce rate is sky high.

I'm with Julie Bindel.

I don't think that's actually a right, in the same way that a right to equal treatment is a right.

And the Catholic sacrament of marriage wont be affected by the proposal anyway.

Unless you are thinking of the universal human right to freedom to practise one's religion? But again that wouldn't apply, as no-one is attempting to interfere with the catholic sacrament.

Believe me, if this comes in, it will just be a matter of time before some pig-headed, spiteful couple try to force the church to marry them.

Even as an atheist, I would find this offensive.

It depends entirely how the law is framed. Religions are currently exempt from some of the provisions of the Equalities Act (so a woman couldn't sue the Catholic Church for refusing to employ her as a priest). I would expect this to follow the same principles.

Wamster - re marriage having 'special powers' - that is not the issue.

Even if civil partnerships conveyed exactly the same thing legally as marriage (which apparently it doesn't) the fact that gay partners are only 'allowed' a civil partnership and not a marriage would still be discriminatory.

If EVERYONE had civil partnerships (gay/straight/religious/non-religious) then the terminology and discrimination issue would not arise. It's not enough for you to simply say 'well I wouldn't mind MY marriage being called a civil partnership' - that is not the point.

We've had sexual equality laws for years and I haven't noticed any successful lawsuits to allow female priests, imams and rabbis. Similarly you can't discriminate in the UK over marital status, but divorcees still can't marry in the RCC. Race equality laws didn't affect the Mormons as far back as the 70s, and disability discrimination legislation hasn't forced adherents of various Eastern religions to compromise their beliefs. The argument that religious bodies will face successful legal challenges falls down because nearly all religions currently discriminate in various ways against groups who have civil legal equality.

If the only difference is the name, I don't care that it would be discriminatory. I really don't. If the rights are the same and the only difference is the name, then big bloody deal.
People need to grow up-relationships are what they as a couple make them.

Ok, well, the government (and a goodly chunk of the population) disagrees with you, and, without wishing to rub it in, on the subject of parliamentary business, what they say goes.

Actually, Northey, the UK is a democracy. Parliament should listen to the public. The anti-gay marriage campaign now has 230,000 signatures.

I find it laughable that you lecture me on meek acceptance-you can't even accept your Church's views that gay marriage is wrong!! Sorry, but your alleged Catholicism is a joke. Catholicism itself may not be a joke but you calling yourself one is. It's the stuff of comedy.

Yes, Parliamentarians can vote how they choose, but it's the government that controls how Parliament spends its time.

Cannot you see the parallels here between you and Catholicism? The Vatican is against marriage, what they say goes when it comes to R.C. and gay marriage.

Sorry, but people like yourself are neither one thing or the other-you claim to belong to a church that is highly dogmatic and anti-women and gays, yet you're for gay marriage .

I think you're the sort of person who has no firm views about anything and say whatever you think will make you popular at the time.

Have you decided you don't want to talk about parliamentary time any more?

wamster where on earth do you get the idea that a strong faith = rigid adherence to the orthodox status quo? Or that there must be consensus within and throughout all members of any faith group and that anyone exercising freedom of thought when it comes to the interpretation and application of 'eternal values' does so to make themselves popular!

do you think reform Jews are not really Jewish, that they inherited their faith with ten free packets of crisps because they are not United or Orthodox enough for your liking or is it just Roman Catholics who have to toe the line?

Roman Catholicism does not exercise right-on thought. It appears to me to be anti-women, anti-gays (yeah, you can be gay but celibate. Great).
It is a highly authoritarian religion that has demonstrably been shown to sweep under the carpet terrible abuses.

Fgs, if the aim here is to portray the R.C. as some caring, sharing religion that is going to be one of a hard task!!!

Sorry, folks, but even Saatchi and Saatchi would have an uphill battle on their hands.

it's a matter of conscience, from birth really you grow up (I think) with an extremely tender conscience and this gnaws away, often at odds with the official teachings, when you perceive unfairness and inequality and injustice

it IS a caring and sharing sort of faith, very much so, you keep confusing the actions of a few with the values of the group as a whole; but what I find most puzzling is that you seem to find more admirable those who cling to outdated bigotry and prejudice than those who love the church enough to believe it can change for the better (albeit grindingly slowly) - as history has shown

Wamster - do you buy your kids Easter eggs or celebrate Christmas?

If so then you do this without agreeing with the basics behind it. Many Catholics do the same.....but we are going round in circles now. Each to their own eh?

I am Catholic
I am a human being
I think some of the policies and pronouncements made by the powers in the church are shite. I say so clearly - end of.

Maybe you should convert, wamster. You sound curiously like your own idea of an ideal Catholic to me.