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.

I just don't want any time wasted on the issue, that's all. We've reached a happy compromise with civil partnerships which offer same rights as marriage while keeping Catholics happy. But, no, that is not good enough-even more time has to be wasted meddling on this issue .

It isn't a happy compromise though. It's a area of misleading terminology which we now have the opportunity to tidy up.

I think churches should be a bit more appalled at the idea that civil marriage is called marriage. I'm not sure this terminology thing has been completely teased out in all of its ramifications by all churches. According to many churches, marriage and civil partnership are not the same thing at all.

While the Catholic church is entitled to it's point of view I don't think they should be able to influence government policy. I am not catholic and do not want to be subject to their rules or teachings. I am straight but have no problem with same sex marriage.
If it became law would the catholic church be then breaking the law if they refuse to conduct same sex marriage... Now there is a thought

It's a nuisance that the state and the Church use the same word for something of whose meaning they have overlapping but slightly different understandings. If terminology is the issue then either the state could call its version civil marriage for all who are entitled to enter into it, or the church could call its version sacramental marriage. Or both could do it, of course.

While the Catholic church is entitled to it's point of view I don't think they should be able to influence government policy. I am not catholic and do not want to be subject to their rules or teachings. I am straight but have no problem with same sex marriage.
If it became law would the catholic church be then breaking the law if they refuse to conduct same sex marriage... Now there is a thought

Anyone should be have the right to try to influence government policy by making their views known, morebiscuitsplease. Even if you or I disagree with those views.

Yeah, I'm sure I'd really be queuing up to get married in a Catholic church if I was gay. Fgs. What IS the point of messing around further? The Catholic church doesn't want gays and gays don't want to marry within a religion that hates them-or, at best, feels pity for them.

I cannot help but think this whole gay marriage is being 'fought' by politically-correct do-gooders with nothing better to do.

This just put another nail in the coffin for me. I think the poster whose priest defined Christianity and Churchianity had it just right. I am not a second class citizen because I am a woman, homosexuality is not evil, women should not be sent back to violent homes and told to offer it up, having assisted conception does not mean the child I'm carrying will be born any less out of love, marriage can involve children in gay marriages through adoption. It goes on and on. And i can't find reference to any of it, implicitly or explicitly, in the gospels. I was married in a church, I went to a Catholic school and it breaks my heart that my child won't be raised in that tradition but I can't do it. I just can't.

Well done Livid. I bet half the congregation wished they'd the balls to follow you out. I left once as a speech started by a woman from SPUC at the end of Mass. I think it took me a week to stop shaking!!

Marriage doesn't have to be a religious ceremony - why should the church try to stop such a change in legislation which is only about improving equal rights for all - and we are not all religious!

Jjkm, I think you are right that it is the only logical way to approach it, and also that legal polygamy will be one of the outcomes. An exclusion for religious organisations where legislation would clash with belief might work; this seems to be already de facto the case in churches that don't ordain women.

(However, if any attempt is made to formally exclude organised religions from equality legislation and its ramifications, then laws regulating burqa wearing in Europe should logically be overturned, or alternatively Islam might have to come out on one side or another on this issue, perhaps involving the admission that women have the right to wear anything they please and still be considered good Muslims, since there are many different views on this matter in the Islamic community. Another can of worms there though..)

You've got equal rights in the form of civil partnerships. And, yes, although I am an atheist, it is obvious that the major religions are against it-as they should be given their views.

This thread is really fascinating. I was brought up catholic but since studying RE I have decided that those in the church hierachy are stark raving bonkers and not a lot of the catholic 'rules' have very much to do with actual christianity. It is also totally a 'mans world' and hence why they have the simplistic view that marriage is vehicle for procreation. The sacraments of which marriage is one were a means of social and fiscal control and to stamp out the hedonistic, polygamous and bi-sexual activities of the Romans who were the early Christians.
Having said all that I am now CofE since they seem less bonkers and have given women status within their organisation

weevilswobble Sun 11-Mar-12 20:01:14
Marriage is a vehicle for procreation. 2 blokes wanting to live together isnt a marriage. Its a loving relationship but it cant be a marriage.

So according to you my 15 year marriage to my husband is not a true marriage because of my infertility? Next you will tell me that I'm not really a mother because my children are adopted.

My dh is an atheist and I'm a Catholic so we have lots of interesting discussions! He is always saying that whilst he feels that the majority of Christians are "the salt of the earth" (his words not mine), the hierarchy at the top, particularly the Vatican, gives religion a bad name. He keeps saying I ought to "do something about it. " I would love to, I reply,but it is a pretty big task to single handedly take on the Vatican !
I can t believe I am saying this, but I truly believe that the Catholicism only has a future if the Vatican hierarchy goes. Gulp.

"it is obvious that the major religions are against it-as they should be given their views."

This is exactly what I meant in my earlier post. Seriously - don't try to tell me what my views are / should be or what conclusions I 'should' reach on any given matter. I did not give up my capacity for independent thought when I joined the church. This attitude makes me SO angry.

wamster you have literally put all of my thoughts into words here !! I totally 100% agree with you !! I too do not understand why gay people would want to marry in a church and if I was gay i certainly would be happy with civil partnership . Just because something is not exactly the same doesn't make it any less equal .

Aspirant I think she means the church as in priests bishops and other personnel not mere Sunday mass-goers

An exclusion for religious organisations where legislation would clash with belief might work

But then this is bound to open another can of worms, isn't it? What about religions that don't allow divorce? One could argue that the people entering in such marriages would be doing so in a state of informed consent - but what about a person's right to change their mind?

Also what about situations where consent isn't even necessary or possible? Not all religions make explicit provisions against child marriage. And even when consent is theoretically necessary, what are the protections against family/social coercion?

What about marital rape? If a religion recognises a husband's right to "sleep with" his wife whenever he feels like it, would that be okay then?

And that's not even touching on subjects outside the marriage domain: there are religious groups who seem to think that stoning adulterers or bombing abortion clinics are commandments of their faith. Should people be able to get away with murder if their religion says so?

This would also load the question of what exactly constitutes a legitimate religion with a whole new importance. Is it longevity? Tenacity is not the same as legitimacy. Number of followers? Some sort of a state-imposed acceptability test (which would basically nullify the original proposition)?

I agree jujubean .. that's it in a nutshell. All a bit bonkers, and not always in an amusing, benign, way.

MrsC (and wamster), from the sounds of it, a fair few priests were reading it out in a rather neutral and unengaged way. I wouldn't assume that they personally agree with it either.

I was raised as C of E, went to C of E school and attend a C of E church (at least I thought I did ). With all due respect to Catholics, that particular branch of Christianity has never and will never be for me.

So we went to church on Sunday, where during prayers we were asked to 'pray for the gay community, that they will realise that God loves and accepts them as his children'

At the end of the service, our vicar then told us there was the petition at the back of the church, that marriage should only ever be between one man and one woman, that he wished he could read out the RC letter but wasn't allowed to and that he expected everyone present to sign.

DH and I didn't sign. For me it was as much about the sheer hypocrisy involved as any moral objection. I have since read the CfM website and the letter and none of it makes sense or has any basis in fact as far as I can see. I also feel it ties into the fact that the church and state are linked in the UK which is a much wider issue and also needs to be addressed.

I went to Sunday school at this church, was married there, had my daughter (who is now a server) christened there, had my first communion there and until that point in the service had been planning to speak to the vicar about me and DH renewing our vows there next year. I am now looking at moving to another church with a more inclusive outlook, which makes me really sad and disappointed, but I can't in all conscience continue to worship in that environment.

I am a practising Catholic and I do what I think many Catholics do: take what I want and leave the rest. I have two small children that i am bringing up in the faith, but I am unmarried, I live with my non Catholic partner. Tut tut...

Those who say the letter was met with stony silence, well isn't every homily? There is no place for debate or answer at that point in the mass, so I have no idea how it went down in my parish, the priest read it and we listened. I though it carefully worded, but the undertones are clear and it does make me wonder about being RC, but my relationship is with God, not the church, I enjoy mass and I want my children to know God. Yes, there are others ways to God, but I enjoy my parish and being part of the mass and community.

My small son was with me, he is too young to understand any of that letter at 2, but I was thinking: what if one of my children were to be gay, obviously that's fine with me, I want them to be happy and form happy relationships. I think the RC view is narrow and can lead to unhappiness. But remember that it is not God preaching this stuff, it is men...

Jujubean, polygamy was not legally approved behaviour in Ancient Rome or its empire!