Gay marriage thread

[eighthobstruction]

My goodness this thread/topic is #825 posts in....sheesh....ooodaathought it....

[scottycelt]

If I could offer an answer? Yes, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and Scotland has the right to lobby the Government in common with other organisations. Generally organisations lobby governments over issues in which they have an interest (or in which, in a strong sense, they are interested). We're talking about secular marriages, not legislation which requires the Roman Catholic Church to marry same sex couples (in fact the new law will prohibit that). So unless the Roman Catholic Church owns marriage I don't see what interest it has in the matter. There are other marriages the Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognise, aren't there? My understanding is if a Roman Catholic marries in an Anglican church without permission from their Bishop (is that correct?) then in the eyes of your church they never married?

Of course you can offer an answer that's what a forum is for, surely. We are all here to learn!

The Government doesn't 'own marriage' either. The Church has a far greater interest in the meaning of the institution than most. You may as well claim that no one should have a view on anything if they are not directly affected in some regard or none at all.

Wouldn't be much point in Platform 3, then...

As to your final point I have no personal experience but my understanding has always been that if a Catholic marries in an Anglican church without special dispensation he/she would be legally married, of course, but the marriage would not be canonically recognised by the Catholic Church.

That seems wholly reasonable and utterly logical to me and is somewhat different from what you might have inferred by your question.

[ahinton]

The Government doesn't 'own marriage' either. The Church has a far greater interest in the meaning of the institution than most.

I'm sorry, scotty, but I don't follow your line of reasoning here. I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that the government "owns" marriage, but it does have responsibilities for making laws for all citizens (that's what Parliament's for) and ensuring that they are adhered to by all citizens (that's what the police and judiciary are for) and government is elected by means of all those entitled to vote doing so at General Elections, whereas the Church does not make laws, it makes rules and its responsibilities in this matter do not extend beyond making those rules for members only and ensuring as far as it can that they are adhered to by members only; from this, it is clear that, whilst neither government nor Church "own" marriage, only the former is able to pass laws about it whereas the latter can do no more than decide whom it chooses to marry and whom not - and even then only because the government grants it a licence to marry people.

As to your final point I have no personal experience but my understanding has always been that if a Catholic marries in an Anglican church without special dispensation he/she would be legally married, of course, but the marriage would not be canonically recognised by the Catholic Church.

I don't think that this is right, although I do believe that it is correct; however, the Catholic Church in particular has a bizarre attitude towards marriage not only in its desire not to marry people of the same sex but also in refusing, as you say, to recognise "canonically" marriages in which a Catholic is married in Anglican Churches or indeed anywhere else and in declining to accept that a legal divorce has taken place between two Catholics or between a Catholic and a non-Catholic who have been married in a Catholic Church (although I'm not sure if it extend this blind and deaf attitude to divorces between Catholics who have been married other than in the Catholic Church).

[scottycelt]

Answer to what? you hadn't posed a question in either of the two posts I quoted from.



Ah, now you ask a question.

& my answer is that I view lobbying by the Catholic Church in the same way that I view lobbying by any other organisation. But then the Catholic Church goes beyond that, in instructing its congregations to vote against politicians who support legislation the church opposes, for example.

Do you seriously expect it to 'instruct its congregations' to vote FOR politicians who support legislation the church opposes?

Mr Miliband has never been known to tell his assembled congregations how dangerous it might be to vote Tory?

Now, how about you answering a question I posed a while back - has the O'Brien debacle taught you any lessons, or given you any pause for thought? Or is it just shovel that one under the carpet & carry on as if nothing happened?

Certainly has, Flossie. Gave me much pause for thought and taught me a huge lesson, and hopefully some very much more important people as well. Never too old for salutary lessons, you know.

My post on the matter was as strong as I could possibly make it and I think you were the first to express some astonishment at the strength of it.

Rather than sweeping anything under the carpet I can assure you it felt more like hanging the dirty washing out while all the neighbours were in the garden.

[jean]

Do you seriously expect it to 'instruct its congregations' to vote FOR politicians who support legislation the church opposes?

I don't expect it to 'instruct' them to do anything at all.

[Julien Sorel]

As to your final point I have no personal experience but my understanding has always been that if a Catholic marries in an Anglican church without special dispensation he/she would be legally married, of course, but the marriage would not be canonically recognised by the Catholic Church.

That seems wholly reasonable and utterly logical to me and is somewhat different from what you might have inferred by your question.

It creates the situation where if a Catholic marries in an Anglican church without special dispensation she / he can divorce and then marry in a Catholic church because, as you say, canonically she / he was never married in the first place. Neat, eh? I know this strange fact because a friend of mine was potentially affected by it (or it was what my friend was told in an attempt to get my friend to marry 'properly' the second time around ).

Of course the Government doesn't own marriage. But, again, there seems to me to be unreasonable mission creep in

The Church has a far greater interest in the meaning of the institution than most.

because I don't see on what grounds it takes the kind of interest it's doing in secular same sex marriages. What it's trying to do is to require everyone to accept its view of what constitutes a marriage: but no one is saying the reverse, that it has to accept same sex marriages as anything other than legal reality. Bit like the case of a Catholic marrying without special dispensation in an Anglican church.

[Flosshilde]

Certainly has, Flossie. Gave me much pause for thought and taught me a huge lesson, and hopefully some very much more important people as well. Never too old for salutary lessons, you know.

You say so, but I really can't see any evidence of it in subsequent posts from you.

[Mr Pee]

You say so, but I really can't see any evidence of it in subsequent posts from you.

No surprise there, Scotty. Floss won't be satisfied until you turn up on the doorstep burning an effigy of the Pope and wearing a Gay Pride T-shirt.

[Flosshilde]

No surprise there, Scotty. Floss won't be satisfied until you turn up on the doorstep burning an effigy of the Pope and wearing a Gay Pride T-shirt.

[scottycelt]

No surprise there, Scotty. Floss won't be satisfied until you turn up on the doorstep burning an effigy of the Pope and wearing a Gay Pride T-shirt.

... he'd probably then severely admonish me about the effect on the environment and the third-world manufacture of the T-shirt, Mr Pee.

[Flosshilde]

No - I'd know that there isn't any use in putting any sensible or rational argument to you.

[scottycelt]

I don't expect it to 'instruct' them to do anything at all.

I used the word 'instruct' as a direct quote. I've never been told who to vote for from a pulpit.

I have been advised to study carefully what each candidate's position is on certain issues and vote according to my beliefs.

That is the job of any pastor. To remind his flock of such things.

All mercifully free of any political spin. Clear and straightforward. Individuals still vote as they see fit.

In any case, to return the opposing argument, if you're not a Catholic what real business is it of yours?

I detect a distinct lack of consistency around here ...

[amateur51]

I used the word 'instruct' as a direct quote. I've never been told who to vote for from a pulpit.

I have been advised to study carefully what each candidate's position is on certain issues and vote according to my beliefs.

That is the job of any pastor. To remind his flock of such things.

All mercifully free of any political spin. Clear and straightforward. Individuals still vote as they see fit.

In any case, to return the opposing argument, if you're not a Catholic what real business is it of yours?

I detect a distinct lack of consistency around here ...

I should have thought that the recent staggering revelations about the interference of the Vatican in requiring senior functionaries to avoid referring priests guilty of child abuse to the secular police would have given you pause before making such a crass (and optimistic) statement, scotty.

However your suggests not

[MrGongGong]

On the contrary, Catholic adoption agencies, which even non-Catholics in the business acknowledge provided a vital service to abandoned kiddies, were forced to close because of conscientious Catholic opposition to gay adoption. These agencies were not demanding non-Catholic agencies had to be against gay adoption, all they asked was their own organisations would continue as they always had done before. No, it was 'stuff your principles, do as you're told or close'. So, quite naturally, the agencies closed.

(just returning from a trip away)

So one would conclude that those running these agencies view their own dogma as more important than the welfare of children ..... says it all really
Or maybe they can add that suffering onto their traditional guilt ?


The other bit of the Ten Commandments they have also decided not to follow is , of course, #5
(the bit about not killing people which seems to be optional for most , but not all , "christians" .......... )

[Beef Oven]

My goodness this thread/topic is #825 posts in....sheesh....ooodaathought it....

Don't be surprised, this the Radio 3 Forum - most unrepresentative of the population at large