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.

@thegreylady It's 6 posts up for god's sake! That is lazy. But it is here: www.c4em.org.uk/

I don't know of any other organised response. But talking about it in a public forum is a good start. Other things you might want to consider would be writing to your MP, local (or for that matter national) newspaper or opening up dialogue with the clergy.

SCN I am only Catholic through marriage. We agreed to attend the Catholic Church rather than the C of E but I genuinely am considering no longer doing so because of the strength of my disagreement with the claim the the RC chuch can define marriage, and that despite what the Bible says it is always straight, consensual between adults and monogomous. I am happy for the RC Church to not perform these marriages, but do not feel that their arguement against their existance is good.

A better comparison might be how many people left the Labour Party over Iraq rather than how many left the UK.

I am not Catholic but I have friends that are. I am however a staunch traditionalist, a lady of a certain age shall we say.... marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN!! I am proud to be married to my darling husband of lots of years and I have fantastic children who have a mother and a father!! I was married in church and had a wonderful day and I have a wonderful marriage too!! A marriage is unique, hard earned and must not be taken for granted or given up lightly. My father was a proud man the day he walked me down the aisle to my wonderful husband. Those who wish to call their relationships 'marriages' annoy me - I can't help it!! Marriage is a special union - if people want relationships, however it seems to be done today then get on with it, but don't dare call them a marriage!! I bet I am not alone on this one... by the way I asked my children what they felt about this . My DS and his school friends were disgusted by it (mind you they are all teenagers!!) My older children said that they shouldn't be allowed to call them marriages either and so did their friends - the eldest of whom is 26!! Does this argument span the generations? And whilst we're on it the one that really does my head in is when someone says to me 'Do you have a partner?'. Nope.... I have a husband and I'm proud of it too!!Goes for most people around where I live actually. I think I must be becoming one of the older generation folks..............but I guess each to his own..............I think that this one is going to run and run, will be interesting to watch me thinks!!

As a catholic,albeit not a very good one,I feel the catholic church lost the right to preach about morals a long time ago.
I too was in church on sunday,(a rather unusual occurrance) and felt uncomfortable with the letter.

I am RC and I am not going to sign any letter that bangs on ridiculously about the complementarity of the sexes. Yerwot?

By rigorous RC standards, marriage is only applicable to those married by RC rites, where both are not ever married, RC, fertile and willing to confine themselves to fertile sex with each other for life. By those standards, the definition of marriage changed a loong time ago as far as society is concerned. That particular horse is out of the gate. I bet though that it would not be ok even with Vincent Nicholls if only Rcs were allowed to call themselves married and everyone else had to call it something else.

Since they lost this argument long ago, I think the separation of church and state is the best hope of toleration. I don't see why gays shouldn't call it marriage if they want to. The time to make a fuss will be when the EU Court of Human rights insists that clergy perform same-sex marriages in church. Till then, I think everyone should pursue the truth as they see it.

When the letter was read out in church yesterday a fat ginger cat wandered in, and a dog in the church tried to chase it. Kind of spoiled the moment.

Of course the letter's wrong - even the priest knew it, because after reading out the letter he then proceeded to blather on for several minutes about how it wasn't anti-gay at all .

Livid- just wanted to say I wanted to punch the air when I read your post!!

Who the hell are we to inflict our prejudices on other people who may contribute hugely to society? I think all this "in the name of the church" blarney is beoynd tired now....

We are in 2012 people!!! Live and let live!

I agree boss that you cannot call a same sex union a marriage. I actually dont get what is wrong with civil partnership ? It's equal to a marriage . I don't actually know any gay people who aren't happy with the way things are .

I really want someone to organise a "Not In My Name" style march for Catholics who are actually pretty disgusted by the letter.

Oh, Northey, you go. I will definitely join you. :)

Northey- let me know where!

Oh God, I didn't want to organise it. I wanted someone else to, so I could go on it.

My opinion of catholics plummeted when I read the letter against gay marriage at the weekend, and I'm relieved to see (as I should have realised all along) that many catholics don't feel that way. Thanks for restoring my faith in the faithful.

I really feel for the gay teenagers in those churches and communities who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality and having to listen to this condemnation of their future relationships by those in authority. If you feel able and willing to speak out about this, please do, it will mean a lot to those kids.

NewMrsC / Boss - the problem with it not being a marriage is that it excludes gay couples from an active role in the church. It excludes them from celebrating their relationship before God. It excludes them from one of the sacraments. It tells them that the way that they love is not valid in the church's eyes. It tells them that they are not welcome in the church.

I agree that the civil and religious elements of marriage should be kept completely separate. I wouldn't expect the RC church to marry gay couples but the state should allow civil partnerships for anyone who wants one, in accord with the democratically expressed wishes of the citizens, (assuming this might be the majority view.) I also agree that the muddy situation created by having an established religion contributes mightily to the difficulty in separating the religious and civil elements of marriage.

I am currently awaiting the judgement of an RC marriage tribunal on the annulment petition my exH brought but I have been divorced for a few years. The separation of the sacramental and civil elements of that relationship in the eyes is something made clear by every RC publication I read, and reiterated by the (truly lovely I have to say) officials I encountered during the annulment process. What this current controversy has given the Church the opportunity to do is to restate its view of marriage as (1) a sacrament and (2) for heterosexual couples, bearing in mind the miracle of Sarah, wife of Abraham, bearing a son.

What I hope it will do is nudge the church towards campaigning for separation of church and state, as the Catholic Church did in the US in the mid 19th century over the matter of religion in public schools. I don't think it does any church any good to be allied to a state, and it does the state no good either (see Ireland as an example). The RC church in the US pays its own way and is not beholden to any government for anything. MrsMeaner -- the advantages of separation of church and state cut both ways. 'Separation of church and state' isn't even what operates in the US; it's just a shorthand. The actual phrase was that government 'should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' The history of the UK (and its predecessor state, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, would have been much less bloody if such an idea had taken hold there.

Aspirant, the RC church also excludes (officially at any rate) straight people not married in the RC church but in a committed relationship, or those who are divorced after marriage in the RC church but whose marriage has not been annulled and who have entered into subsequent committed relationships, the reason being that the principle of Catholic sacramental marriage is important to the church. And women, all women, are excluded from another of the sacraments (holy orders).

I think my own parish operates on a don't ask don't tell philosophy given the many gay cantors and the gay ministers of the Eucharist and the welcome for them and their children when it comes to sacraments, etc. I think the priest is impatient with 'churchianity'.

I agree with TheNewMrsC about the teminology used, though I can see that for Muslims who wish to practice polygamy, or fundamentalist Mormons who broke with the majority Mormon church on this issue, this might pose a problem.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Nor can you find an obvious line from what is in the Bible to what the Church holds on various issues. There has been a lot of theology under the bridge from the time the Bible as RCs know it (not the KJV, btw) was compiled to the present day. Not that there isn't a line, but a lot of thought in the theology and philosophy departments has gone into the development of the RC doctrine on most things.

jjkm, with all due respect, I can't see why you assume that same-sex couples see marriage more selfishly than het couples. I have many lesbian and a few transgendered friends who are devoted to their children. Why should we think many het couples less selfish? (Don't get me started, but you know what I mean :))

and mathanxiety, as an RC I agree ENTIRELY about the separation of church and state. I too don't expect the RC church to marry same-sex couples; I do however expect them to show the same respect for them as they would for het couples married not in the RC rite.

I'm not having any more children.

Can I claim my free divorce now Mr Vicar of Rome?

What utter shite.

mathanxiety yes, I know. I disagree with them on those matters too :)

We can (and should) as Christians all aspire to live the perfect, sinless life (however you choose to define it) but no-one should be excluded for failing to achieve it. We all fail to achieve it. Jesus encouraged us to live as closely to God as we can, but excluded no-one for trying and falling short.

I would just clarify here that I am not making any comment on what does and does not constitute a 'sin', just making the point that there should not be a 'hierarchy' of sin. It is not ok that some behaviours or traits exclude you from receiving all the sacraments of the church, but others do not. We do not get to decide who is and is not worthy in God's eyes.

The Catholic Church may not be a democracy, but when it is campaigning to our democratic representatives on the grounds that there are x Catholics in the UK who agree with them (which is fundamentally all the MPs are worried about), it is important that if there is significant oposition within those who are counted as Catholics that the MPs know. That is everyone who put Catholic on the census, everyone who attends Catholic Church as priests headcount and numbers will be collated.

Otherwise the law will remain as it is due to lack of courage on the part of the MPs, based on misleading information from church leaders.

I disagree that MPs' voting will be swayed by their fear of block Catholic disapproval. I don't think that Catholics are seen as a dangerous minority group in this country at all - we've all been here for donkeys' years and belong in other UK social stratifications as well, stratifications which can be expected to be broadly in favour of the proposed law.

Aspirant, I believe that is so very true -- 'we do not get to decide who is and who is not worthy in God's eyes'.

The Catholic Church doesn't really 'campaign' as such. It primarily preaches, to Catholics. If what it says makes the news, obviously that can be a double edged sword because people are as likely to disagree as agree, but then so is sticking its neck out on any issue even inside any given parish church, for the same reason, and what Catholics do in the voting booth is their own business after all.

It pains me to say this as an atheist, but I agree with him totally in that neither of us want gay marriage.
I am sick of hearing about gay marriage. Marriage is a legal contract, and gay people -RIGHTLY- have access to civil partnerships which provide them with access to same legal rights as marriage. Great, marvellous. I am behind civil partnerships 100%, but as gay people ALREADY have access to all the legal rights of marriage, the whingeing about it not being the same as marriage is irritating.
For goodness sake, people need to grow up. So what they're not called the same. Who cares? Civil partnerships and marriages mean the same thing in reality.
Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Always has been. Seriously, they may as well allow pets to marry if this is brought in.

Sacramental marriage has always been between aan and a woman, wamster, as defined by the church.

Civil marriage and civil partnership, as defined by the state, are exactly the same thing, so why confuse things by giving them different names? It just encourages people to think that they are different. You could call them both civil partnerships, if you like - it's the same logic.