Papa Salsa

It was good to hear the Pope calling for the end to the US embargo on Cuba. "The present hour urgently demands that in personal, national and international co-existence we reject immovable positions and unilateral viewpoints which tend to make understanding more difficult and efforts at cooperation ineffective," he said. President Obama has disappointed on many issues, not least the continued use of Guantanamo Bay on Cuba to detain prisoners without trial, and maintaining the marginalisation and isolation of Cuba for idealogical reasons. The island republic is clearly no longer a threat. The US can hardly justify the embargo by citing Cuba's poor human rights record when, on that same island, it does the same.

On the subject of the internal life of the Church, he made a few surprising but welcome remarks, the most notable of which was that bishops should correct improper the attitudes of some priests. “It is not right that [the laity] should feel treated as if they hardly count in the Church,” he said. “It is important for pastors to ensure a spirit of communion reigns among priests, religious and the lay faithful, and sterile divisions, criticism and unhealthy mistrust are avoided.”  Though welcome, it's hard to understand such an appeal coming from a pontiff whose attitude to priesthood appears to foster clericalism.

Arghhh! Gay marriage.

There has been much written and said about the UK government's proposal to allow gay marriage.Wr have also been distracted from the real issues by the intemperate language of Cardinal Keith O'Brien. We shouldn't be too hard on the Archbishop, allowing that we all make mistakes. If he doesn't by now regret his words, he might well reconsider how he exercises his ministry in persona Christi. I fail to hear The Lord in his words.

The pastoral letter of the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark is clearly following traditional teaching but is more conciliatory in tone than that of the Scotish prelate. The pastoral refers throughout to the two elements of marriage: "marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children". Are infertile couples to be denied such a support for the flourishing of their relationship? Of course not. So why should same-sex couples be denied the support that this core social unit has to offer? I'd go further and ask why a couple, seeking to faithfully live a life of love should not come before the God of Love for a blessing?

Creativity is an essential element of marriage but this doesn't simply mean the procreation of children. Indeed, in the three versions of the nuptial blessing, mention of children is in parentheses - propagation of the species, while a usual element, isn't an absolute essential. In the nuptial blessing  all couples are called upon to love creatively, mirroring and witnessing to the dynamic life of The Trinity.

"Lord, grant that as they begin to live this sacrament
they may share with each other the gifts of your love
and become one in heart and mind
as witnesses to your presence in their marriage.
Help them to create a home together."
or
"Lord, may they both praise you when they are happy
and turn to you in their sorrows.
May they be glad that you help them in their work
and know that you are with them in their need.
May they pray to you in the community of the Church,
and be your witnesses in the world.
May they reach old age in the company of their friends,
and come at last to the kingdom of heaven."
The nuptial blessings only talk in terms of man and woman because nobody's thought until now to do otherwise. Much has been said in the general debate about the immutability of the institution of marriage.  This is nonsense as the briefest look at its history will show. In the Judeo-Christian tradition how marriage is understood has developed and its form has changed. As recently as a thousand years ago, the sacrament of marriage was only open to the rich with the poor jumping a broom or, if they were lucky, being giving a grudging blessing in the porch of their parish church. Why should our understanding be fixed now and for all time?

As for those who advise us dissenters to leave, how can we? I was made a child of God, made a new creation, through baptism. The Church is a family not a club. I can't have my membership revoked for infringing the club statutes. As the child of a loving and attentive Father, I'm not going to be abandoned. I may be described by some as a dysfunctional family member, but I remain a member of the family, regardless.

The Spirit still moves in the hearts of people of goodwill and perhaps contemporary society has much to teach us. If we showed a willingness to listen to the world, perhaps the world might be more willing to hear our Good News. Dialogue and respectful, loving dissent can only enrich the life of the Church.

Manifesto prompted by Mumsnet

I am incapacitated at the moment with a prolapsed disc and am not an easy patient. I've just spent the morning very profitably by reading through the mumsnet thread on reactions to the bishops' pastoral letter on gay marriage. I was so moved by the honesty of contributors and the pain that such good people expressed on the subject. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/a1425888-Catholics-what-are-your-thoughts-on-this-mornings-Bishops-letter

Many contributors expressed frustration at our seeming powerlessness to change anything within a Church to which we are devoted but by which we are so often abused, ignored and derided.

A conservative group in Germany recently encouraged those of us who are not in accord with all Vatican pronouncements to leave the Church so that only the 'faithful' remain, untainted by dissent. I cannot leave the Church. It is not a club whose membership I forfeit when I don't obey the rules. I'm a member of the Church by baptism when I became a child of God. I cannot become an un-child of a loving God who will forever tenderly seek me out.

Tha Church has, for centuries, had an unhealthy hunger for earthly power and status. These are human appetites against which Christ preached throughout his earthly ministry. This disordered attachment to wordly status, leading many hierarchs to still adopt the title and manner of 'Prince' of the Church, is encouraged by wealth. The source of that wealth is your pocket and mine. Shamefully, that's where our influence lies.

I attend Mass daily, (when my back allows) at a small Cistercian abbey, where no collection is taken. For many years I have refused to financially support the 'institutional' Church. Money that would have gone into the collection plate now goes to CAFOD and others agencies which seek to take Christ to marginalised people in need, at home and abroad. I feel happier being represented but such groups than I do by the Sovereign of the Vatican State and his scarlet-clad cheer leaders.

There is so much good in the Church as 'the pilgrim people of God'. There is true life to be found in a personal relationship with The Trinity, fed and nurtured through prayer and through coming together to share The Word and The Eucharist. There is so much hope available in the Gospel of liberation and love, of comfort and challenge. The world needs this now as much as ever. I find that the trappings of power, wealth and status obscure the good. I believe that financial, sexual, and political scandals muddy the message of Jesus of Nazareth.

Sadly, the only way to make the institution listen to the faithful dissent of us the Pilgrim People is to reduce its appetite for bling. I suggest we cut the purse strings. Refuse to pay a penny, cent or centime until the hierarchy starts to listen to you and returns to the values of the Gospel, in word and deed. If we withold our financial contributions, our parish priests should know why - word will soon get back to Rome. An envelope placed in the collection basket with a note saying something like "I'll contribute with a generous heart when the Church starts to .... "etc. would make our voices heard.

I'll contribute with a generous heart when the Church

• starts to reform, to open its heart to the Gospel;
• recognises the gifts that women have to offer, in teaching, preaching and even in ministry
• opens its mind to the possibility that the Holy Spirit is calling married men and women to ordained ministry;
• recognises that gay men and women are created in God's likeness in their capacity and natural imperative to love;
• follows the ancient practice of the Eastern sister-Churches in dealing commpassionately with those whose marriages have fallen short of the ideal;
• recognises by its practice, that Truth is more important than image and reputation;
• opens her eyes, ears and hands to secular society and is willing to converse with it and learn from it rather than just blame and condemn;
• seeks to look like Christ in trying to convey in word and deed, God's infinite love and forgiveness for us all, the unlovely and the unforgiving.

A less wealthy Church might be more open to the life of the Spirit moving in the lives of the People of God. A less wealthy Church would certainly bear a more faithful witness to the Gospel than it currently does.

Am I a voice crying in the void? I would welcome any comments offered with respect and love.