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.

@edam oh dear My DP's grandparents left the church as she was told she could have nto children after her first. Despratly wanted more but Drs basically said it would kill her. DP's grandfather went to the priest and explained the situation. They were told they could not use contraception so they had to stop taking communion. Very sad.

I heard about it (am not attending mass at the moment, as being in a church makes me come over all funny since losing a baby). I sort of assumed it meant the crackdown would happen at some vague unspecified point in the future, rather than straight away. That was quite dim of me, really.

@Celtic Go on. What happened? Is it like nct for soon to marry catholics?

My parents got sent to such a liberal priest by my Gpa (my dad was atheist so he considered it necessary) that he left the catholic church soon after. They just sat having philosophy discussions (my dad is a philosopher) and my parents go on about how great it was.

I fear that my experience will not be quite the same....

The session with my local priest was just admin really, he's a bit fire and brimstone in mass but he was really alright and didn't ask awkward questions.

The main 'course' we had to travel for, it was three two hour sessions on weekday evenings miles away. Non Catholic DH was delighted .

There were about 50 couples at it. The first one we all introduced ourselves and said where we were getting married, and they were all marrying in Barbados, Italy, Poland etc. Even the UK ones were getting married at places like Westminster Cathedral. We were unusual by getting married in a dull ordinary UK town.

It was run by a very smiley but totally clueless priest and a middle aged woman. We talked about our views of marriage and the church's, and what we hoped/wanted to get out of it. Which was fine, except we had to work in small groups, and it was rather painful.

The second week was about sex, family planning and marriage, and I'm afraid we skipped it as we were happily living together and didn't want to hear about sex from a celibate priest because I was ill.

The third was about conflict in marriage I think, and the priest and sidekick performed did role plays of such modern scenarios as a wife being stressed out at home and wanting to talk to her husband about it when he got home, forgetting that she may need to help him destress from his important job first before he can listen to her petty concerns .

Or a husband wanting to go to bed with his wife but forgetting to give her a hug or appreciate her housework or some shite.

DH found it endlessly entertaining.

There were some good bits, like questionnaires you could do separately and compare to see where you differed, but really I could have filled in most of DH's myself, because amazingly I knew him before I agreed to marry him. On the whole it was very odd.

That sounds hilarious, CelticPromise. I love the bizarre 50s scenarios.

They were the best bit . I have tried to keep my marriage as far away as possible from their weird lesson.

It really was all about communicating and listening to each other, but from such an out of touch perspective.

The idea that the Catholic church has any moral authority is, frankly, incredible.

This is an institution that routinely and deliberately placed secular power before morality; that valued good PR over the safety of children.

They systematically covered up horrific and widespread child abuse, so that they could retain power and influence in the material world.

I just find it unbelievable that anyone of conscience could remain in the Catholic church, lending it influence and credence, when it has failed so absolutely to follow the teachings and the spirit of Christ.

As many of the posts above demonstrate, Catholics are concerned that by simply being a member of the church, they are seen to be giving support to the insupportable.

But you've already done that: in continuing to attend church, you support an institution that protects paedophiles and child beaters.

I was raised Catholic and heard all the arguments that 'in those days, people didn't understand and the church thought it was doing the right thing'.

Really? I can understand that if someone does something wrong - no matter how bad - the church can lead them to reconciliation and they can remain a member of the church. But to remain a priest? Someone who is so wilfully blind to the difference between right and wrong that they think it's okay to abuse a child is fit to give spiritual leadership and guidance to others? Really? (and yet a woman, a gay person, or a priest who has had a consensual affair with a woman is not...)

And that is besides the absurdity of listening to what a group of celibate men have to say on marriage and raising a family. Not to mention all the patronising twaddle they spout on how it's okay that women can't be priests because they have a special role to play in the church - raising Catholic children! (what do they think Catholic fathers are doing )

I just can't believe that after all that came out in Ireland that anyone can look into their conscience and lend any support to this institution at all on any subject, inadvertent or not.

The church and I parted ways with regards to sex and sexuality a long time ago. I am in NI, so this letter wasn't read out in mass on Sunday. The priest didn't even mention it. I'm glad as I know that the priests in my church would have been mortified.

How long ago was this? I'd love to know if they've updated them:

• a husband struggles to come to terms with his wife's status as the higher earner. Wife resolves the issue by praising him for the manly way in which he puts out the rubbish.

• a wife is frustrated by her husband's inability to satisfy her sexually. The husband is reminded that the bible gives useful hints for role play in the Song of Songs, and that surely no woman could fail to swoon for man prancing about like a hart.

I wish that the Church would do something more pressing about allowing second marriages. I am a Catholic and have married a divorcee and I believe there must be tens of thousands of us out there who find ourselves now excluded as Catholics as we have married someone who was previously married (albeit in a manner that is not even recognised by the Catholic church, i.e. registry office).

I don't think the RC church sees itself as threatened, but I think it does see its view of marriage being undermined and it is restating its belief that marriage is for heterosexual couples only.

Ladydeedy, I don't think you have a problem there. My former SIL married a Catholic who had been married before in a registry office, and was divorced. Iirc her new H had to get an annulment as he was a Catholic (a formality), prove he had a civil divorce from the first wife, and they got married in the church. But ask a priest.

I'm afraid that people when they decide to follow the Roman Catholic church must accept that gay marriage is abhorrent in the church.
I just do not see how anybody can legitimately call themselves a Catholic otherwise. How arrogant do you have to be to say that the very people who lead your church are wrong on this issue?!

This is really weird for me as an atheist to actually agree with the Catholic faith!!
I agree because gay people already have the legal rights of marriage via Civil partnerships and I resent wasting time converting this to marriage. I am 100% behind civil partnerships and thought that it was a serious injustice that gay people did not have access to the same legal rights.

And, yes, marriage has always been between a man and a woman and its purpose, in principle, is the bringing up of children. The sahp has the reassurance that she will be protected in event of death/break up.

It will be harmful to society and seriously weaken the institution if it is diluted further and, yes, it is a slippery slope if gays are allowed to marry-it is not offensive to state that if this continues anybody will be able to marry anything in future.

I am happy for any body reading here to say :'See even atheists agree'. Because I do!! And will be signing the coalition for marriage petition that disagrees with gay marriage.

It's not arrogance, wamster. It's about being part of an evolving religion and helping it to evolve (I grant that that evolution is sometimes so painfully slow it is undetectable).

An example of this evolution in practice is the abandonment of the old teaching on limbo, which held that unbaptised babies or those who died before birth were excluded from heaven and spent eternity in limbo. When the change was made, one of the things the Vatican used to explain this was the sensus fidelium - the modern sensibility of the Catholic population, which generally strongly rejects the idea tha innocent babies should not be in heaven.

The International Theological Commission which looked at and advised on this issue talked a lot about the need to continue developing and refining our interpretation of the gospel in light of the times in which we live.

I take all that to mean that in a world where there is a strong rejection by ordinary Catholics of the idea of the exclusion of gay people from heaven or marriage or anything else, it can be changed. It may take 200 more years, but it can be done.

The letter will not have been read out in Scotland and NI because it is from Vincent who is head of the church in England and Wales only.

Wanster, you asked who would want a gay marriage in a Catholic chuch. Firstly, that is not the issue under discussion, we are discussing whether the church hierarchy are right to object to a civil marriage of gay people in a registry office in the name of married heterosexual Catholics. Secondly I would. I have no plans to annul my current marriage or murder my fit and healthy DH but if I were single in the future then I may have a relationship with a woman and would like the option of that relationship being treated as equally valid as a heterosexual one.

Like you say, you are not a Catholic. This does not exclude you from having an opinion but it may make you uninformed about church history and church doctrine, notably the dignitatis humanae. Being gay and being Catholic are not mutuality exclusive. You don't have to think that this position is reasonable or logical but you do have to accept it as a fact.

The church has changed enormously over the last 2000 years but its at an almost imperceptible rate, for example Priests could marry up until around the 9/10th century and allegedly the basilica was turned into a brothel. It was known as the age of pornocracy.

The day that the Catholic church accepts gay marriage is the day I'll eat my cat. Everybody saying otherwise is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.

I actually have respect for the Bishop who wrote the letter: he is being true to his faith (I think that faith to be hogswash, but at least he is true to it) unlike some here who think cohabitation and having children outside of wedlock is OK.
Talk about ignoring the fundamentals of the faith!! Not true Catholics at all.

I'm not sure that opposition to gay sacramental marriage is a "fundamental of faith", though. I'm also no sure what you mean by "a fundamental of faith".

I've been thinking long and hard about this and following the thread. At a meeting at Church last night, there was a group of us discussing with our priest. His feeling is much as mathanxiety said - that the proposals will further undermine the view the Catholic Church has of marriage.

The difficulty is that many straight couples get married in various places without needing to understand (in many cases why should they) the viewpoint of sacramental marriage. It has been suggested further up the thread that there should be a recognised legal process for marriage (it could be called marriage or civil partnership) and then if the couple wish to have another liturgy / celebration to reflect their own religion / tradition / viewpoint, then they can.

In effect when DH and I got married this was how I viewed it. We had to go to the local registry office a few weeks before the wedding for an interview with the registrar to ensure the legal aspects were covered. We then had to have a registrar present at the Church service. Tbh, it wouldn't have made much difference to me if we had done all the legal aspects at the registry office so that we were married in the eyes of the law and then followed this up by the RC sacramental part (although I would have liked to be able to co-ordinate these happening on the same day if possible).

The fundamentals of the faith are the creed.

The church has changed in the past. People are always saying post Vatican II churches are ugly but they were a big change in a theological terms from the days of staring through the window. Communion is central today and under strict rules but has fluctuated over the centuries from being bread only to both bread and wine, being given to everyone, being given to children on different days and being only for the priest. I'm sure there were many people who claimed they would eat their cat when the laity could take communion but here we are. Marriage too has changed enormously both for the laity and for Religious.

Oh and we did co-habit before we married as these days it is practically impossible to co-ordinate a wedding, honeymoon and moving house all together. We got engaged in the May, bought a house together and moved in in the September and were then married the following June.
I had no problem with this as I felt that I was already in a life-long committed relationship. My priest knew this was our situation and had no issues with it.

All this shows me several things:
If Catholicism changes, then it has no central core of faith and, as such, 'makes it up as it goes along' . Although, seriously, to declare that gay marriage is OK may be taking change too far even for such flibbertigibbets.

Most Catholics can't even follow the church's guidelines as it is. Which begs the question: why are they even claiming to be catholics in the first place?

Wow. I thought the prize for arrogance was going to whoever it was that said that only religious people should get to use the word 'marriage' but once again, Wamster scoops it. Yesterday telling gays what to think, today telling Catholics whether they've got faith or not.

How about aquainting yourself slightly with the history of the christian church - ignorant pronouncements are risible.

Northey it was four years ago! Expect updated scenarios in about 40 years .

I also wanted to say I've found all your posts here thoughtful and helpful, and it is heartening to know there are other Catholics out there with similar views and a wish to make a change.

Springchickennugget-it was the support in petition my dh wanted to sign-I have already signed the one you linked to :-) . Not lazy at all.

diamond your post summarised exactly how I, as someone brought up Catholic, thinks. I just cannot understand wanting to be a part of an institution with which so many of the thoughtful people on this thread disagree about fundamental issues. These are not incidentals. Some of the policies of the church, and many churches, really hurt people, including children and women all over the world. I understand separating the Vatican from the faith, but then I wonder what makes it different from the CofE? It is the theology that makes it what it is, not what individual Catholics wish it to be.