10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[Melinda_Selmys]

John,

“When I wrote in my letter to you not to associate with people living immoral lives, I was not meaning to include all the people in the world who are sexually immoral, any more than I meant to include all usurers and swindlers or idol-worshipers. …It is not my business to pass judgment on those outside. Of those who are inside, you can surely be the judges. But of those who are outside, God is the judge.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
Genuinely loving those who embrace immoral lives is an absolutely necessary part of Christianity. I don’t even know how you could possibly read the gospels and miss that. It’s the centre of Christ’s message. Homosexuality gets mentioned in Scripture about five or six times, total. The obligation of Christians to manifest the love of Christ for their neighbours is on practically every page of the New Testament.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m with Ridgerunner.

Where do these supposedly essential live, face-to-face conversations take place? Sexual business is private business, and I include relatives and close friends in that. I do not know the sexual histories of my adult relatives and close friends. I do not know if my heterosexual associates, for example, have had one partner or several (whether they are married or not). I don’t know if they are or have been adulterers, even once, had an affair out-of-wedlock with someone, etc., for the most part.

I do have one close heterosexual girlfriend who has chosen of her own volition to reveal a lot of personal stuff to me; and in fact I had upbraided her on one occasion for some promiscuity she revealed to me which I considered very dangerous and which opinion I shared with her, out of Christian love. I have a different heterosexual friend whom, out of Christian love, I dissuaded from visiting a sperm bank when she also chose to share that information with me. But these are the exceptions. The vast majority of heterosexual friends, coworkers, and associates do not share such detailed intimate matters with me, no matter how long we have known each other.

The same thing holds true for my homosexual associates. I have never initiated the subject, nor they with me. Like Ridgerunner, I actually think it has nothing to do with anything. They’re people. I’m not a licensed clinician – not a Marriage & Family Counselor, not an individual therapist; I’m not their priest, spiritual director, minister, rabbi, guru, etc. I would think that if they have a concern about their own sexual identity, or the morality of their own sexual behavior, I would not be the appropriate person to approach. Nor has any of them asked for my opinion about homosexual issues in the news (“marriage,” “unions,” etc.). And as far as unfamiliar social company is concerned, it’s considered bad taste to bring up politics, religion, sex, or money – unless there is an understanding among that company that one or more of those topics is fair game and is freely discussed.

I have a lesbian working for me. Her job has zero to do with her sexual orientation. My relationship with her, as her boss, as nothing to do with her sexual orientation. Why should she want to bring it up with me? And if she were to “confront” me with this, why should she expect that I not feel uncomfortable sharing my views? (supposedly “requiring” me to take a stand or something). She has mentioned her “partner” casually (without asking for my approval or response). Again, it’s considered bad manners (speaking of “rules”) to share uncomfortably personal information with people you are not close with, and demand, even tacitly, that the other person comment. (I don’t consider her remark about her partner inappropriate; but I would consider any demand for my opinion about that an effront to my privacy – IOW, an offense against Christian charity.)

So if a heterosexual co-worker were to come to me and reveal an ongoing adulterous affair, I would similarly feel uncomfortable. If he were gauche enough to elicit an opinion about that, from me, I would feel “invaded.” I most certainly would not feel that either Christian charity or social niceties would require me to show genuine or dishonest approval for his immoral behavior.

If I have any “prejudice” in terms of treatment, I am soft on the homosexual and tougher on any heterosexual who is public about his or her own immorality. Most homosexuals whom I meet (male or female) tend to “wear their feelings on their sleeve” and communicate nonverbally a fear of rejection. It becomes pretty obvious to me that they’re wondering if I will reject them, too. It is not necessary to discuss sexual orientation with anyone – hetero or homosexual – in order to accept them as people. The artificial “terms” that keep being implied is that it is necessary to have a deep religious or psychological discussion about a person’s sexuality in order to love them. Why?

You said it yourself, Melinda, fairly recently: you’ve noticed a ‘conditional’ pairing among modernists that translates to, “If you don’t accept my sexual lifestyle, you don’t accept me as a person.” That’s just emotional blackmail, frankly. I most certainly do not consider myself bound to accept the adulterer’s “lifestyle” to any greater degree, either. If he starts going on about his wonderful secret affair, I have no intention of voicing hypocrtical “support,” for fear of being labeled 'adulterophobic." That’s his problem, not mine.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Elizabeth,

I’m not saying that if you’re talking to a gay person, and you’re not talking about homosexuality at all, that that’s a problem. That’s great. You’re absolutely right – our primary mode of approaching other people should not be to comment on their sex lives. My rules are for discussions about homosexuality, should the issue come up, and they’re in response to 10 Rules for Debating Homosexuals from Dr. Scott Lively’s “Redeeming The Rainbow.” iow I’m talking about how to talk about homosexuality with homosexuals, or in forums where LGBTQ people might be lurking…

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

And the bit about giving up most important relationships… really? I have very important relationships with people other than my spouse. Our most intimate relationship is to be with Christ.

Castello,

Although our most intimate relationship is supposed to be with Christ, most people who are secular LGBTQ types are not really in an intimate relationship with Christ as of yet…

 

[John21652]

John,

“When I wrote in my letter to you not to associate with people living immoral lives, I was not meaning to include all the people in the world who are sexually immoral, any more than I meant to include all usurers and swindlers or idol-worshipers. …It is not my business to pass judgment on those outside. Of those who are inside, you can surely be the judges. But of those who are outside, God is the judge.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
Genuinely loving those who embrace immoral lives is an absolutely necessary part of Christianity. I don’t even know how you could possibly read the gospels and miss that. It’s the centre of Christ’s message. Homosexuality gets mentioned in Scripture about five or six times, total. The obligation of Christians to manifest the love of Christ for their neighbours is on practically every page of the New Testament.

Now now Melinda…

Your little snide remark in your response to LemonandLime is unbecoming. It is also factually wrong, which you’d know if you had read my responses accurately. Then again, perhaps you did and just decided to respond in your own way.

As for what St. Paul wrote, why did you leave out so much of that particular quote? Was it to create a context that suited our little dig? Becuase the part that you omitted is very important. let me give you the full quote -

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

Now Melinda, if the wicked are to be removed from our midst, then by inference the wicked cannot be allowed in to our midst. Unless, of course, they mend their ways. If they mend their ways, then there’s no issue, is there?

As for those outside the Church, whom St. Paul says will be judged by God, and according to Paul are so numerous that to avoid them I’d have to go out of this world, well, in the meantime, I don’t have to mix with them, do I? Let me quote Psalm 26:5 -

I have hated the congregation of evildoers; and will not sit with the wicked.

Then of course, we have the example of Jesus himself, who did not tolerate the behaviour of the money lenders in the Temple of His Father. Using your logic, Melinda, Jesus has suddenly stopped loving His fellow man. Well, we know that is not the case. Because one does not tolerate the behaviour of another does not mean that you are now hating the other. That is the mistake that you and many other Catholics make when you ascribe this universal ‘love’ to all men. Some things are not to be tolerated. And God Himself will show exactly the same attitude at the final judgement.

As I said in my response to your “Rules”, I will not tolerate the in your face gayness that the homosexual lobby wishes us to tolerate. That does not make me one who thinks "….gay folks are the equivalent of lepers in the Old Testament, and that any show of kindness or sympathy is a failure to Stand Up For the Truth!" as you snidely remarked to LemonandLime. It makes me a witness to that which Christ himself showed us - that tolerance has its limits and that His church can show the way to a moral life. If you’d read my post a little more honestly, you’d see that.

 

[michelleds]

From Sirach 12:1-6

If you do good, know for whom you are doing it, and your kindness will have its effect.

Do good to the righteous and reward will be yours, if not from them, from the LORD.a

No good comes to those who give comfort to the wicked, nor is it an act of mercy that they do.

Give to the good but refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden but give nothing to the proud.

No arms for combat should you give them, lest they use these against you;

Twofold evil you will obtain for every good deed you do for them.

For God also hates sinners, and takes vengeance on evildoers.

and Matthew 7:6 (which follows the oft-quoted judge not, lest you be judged verse)

Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.

God does expect us to love our fellow man but also offers words of caution and warning (Sirach is one of the Wisdom books). Immediately following the pearls before swine verse is the series of verses starting with “ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find”. I think that these verses not only support what John and Elizabeth are saying but also exemplifies what we see on CAF.

Some posters come online seeking guidance or answers, they want to live according to God’s will, these are the ones seeking righteousness. Then there are others, who are not asking or seeking, they embrace their evil and want us to do the same. On CAF, we see them with fair regularity. But in the real day-to-day world, most of us are unlikely to ever run into such people. (Unless you want to go to St. Patrick’s in NYC on St. Patrick’s Day.) Those people are the proud sinners of Sirach.

The usual response here is that Jesus ate with sinners. But notice that this implies the sinners invited Jesus to eat with them. They were seeking, they were asking–perhaps not outright, but they necessarily invited Jesus into their homes and to sit at their tables.

“Giving comfort to the wicked” would be equivalent to giving approval, aiding and abetting in the lifestyle choices; this we cannot do.

 

[Castello]

Castello,

Although our most intimate relationship is supposed to be with Christ, most people who are secular LGBTQ types are not really in an intimate relationship with Christ as of yet…

Then we have to mirror Christ to them. We are called to let our lights shine so they see our good works and glorify our Father.

 

[Hadrianus]

Elizabeth,

I’m not saying that if you’re talking to a gay person, and you’re not talking about homosexuality at all, that that’s a problem. That’s great. You’re absolutely right – our primary mode of approaching other people should not be to comment on their sex lives. My rules are for discussions about homosexuality, should the issue come up, and they’re in response to 10 Rules for Debating Homosexuals from Dr. Scott Lively’s “Redeeming The Rainbow.” iow I’m talking about how to talk about homosexuality with homosexuals, or in forums where LGBTQ people might be lurking…

Melinda,

I find your list quite suitable for the right context, and mutatis mutandis, applicable to many apologetic situations. I could quibble on a few small points. It is I think worthwhile to distinguish between the Church in a proper sense and the actions of her members. But I also agree that an overemphasis on the endless defining of terms tends to lose people pretty quickly.

I’ve noticed that in the so called Culture Wars in the US, both sides seem to prefer scoring points off their opponents rather than to actually listen what is being said. As Catholics we ought to be able to do better than this.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Elizabeth,

I’m not saying that if you’re talking to a gay person, and you’re not talking about homosexuality at all, that that’s a problem. That’s great. You’re absolutely right – our primary mode of approaching other people should not be to comment on their sex lives. My rules are for discussions about homosexuality, should the issue come up, and they’re in response to 10 Rules for Debating Homosexuals from Dr. Scott Lively’s “Redeeming The Rainbow.” iow I’m talking about how to talk about homosexuality with homosexuals, or in forums where LGBTQ people might be lurking…

But here is the thing if one is say, at work you should not know anything about others sex lives. In Elizabeth’s example she mentions adultery. If an adulterous person tells you about it it is your Christian DUTY to stand up for the moral right. God instructs charity, not cowardice. The fact is that you should not know about someone’s sexual life. If you do it is because they have disclosed it to you in some way. And if that happens and ESPECIALLY if they are “pushing” it in your face you absolutely should react in the same way as if that person just told you that the holocaust never happened.

If we are sitting around the water cooler talking of wives husbands and dates and an adulterous person chimes in we should say something and we should not worry about exactly what way we approach them. Same with gays. And I for one am sick of having to tiptoe around every PC special interest group because of their feelings. Homosexuals would be the first to tell you that they are HUMAN. So I should treat them as I would any human including the protestant who mentions to me that the Pope is the whore of Babylon. I will not come up with an “action plan” of twisting my medicinal words in a teaspoon of sugar just to avoid someone getting all defensive. I think it is horrible and antichristlike to let someone remain in the darkness of sin when we are called to spread the Gospel. “Woman, your faith has saved you, go AND SIN NO MORE.” If we truly want to give gays equality then we should treat them equal. But if we what to appear like the kind old lady that goes to Mass and quietly prays her rosary and that is all she does then we are failing in the Gospel message.

 

[Catholicpotato]

I’ve noticed that in the so called Culture Wars in the US, both sides seem to prefer scoring points off their opponents rather than to actually listen what is being said. As Catholics we ought to be able to do better than this.

Pray tell, in the Culture wars in every country, throughout all of history how is the USA any different? If you think this is unique to the USA you should study history, philosophy, and anthropology. Because though out all history, in all ways of thought, and with all people, scoring “points” has been the norm. The idea that the USA is somehow less than sophisticated for being able to freely express ideas more than most societies is not only false but actually the opposite is true.

 

[nickybr38]

I’d like to suggest some other 10 rules for talking to guides!!!

10 Rules for Talking to Adulterers.
10 Rules for Talking to Chronic Cussers.
10 Rules for Talking to Godless Heathens.
10 Rules for Talking to Anarchists.
10 Rules for Talking to Cultists.
10 Rules for Talking to Protestants.
10 Rules for Talking to Liberals.
10 Rules for Talking to Canadians, eh?

Oh, this could be a fun game…

That said, some of the tips WERE helpful but I think it should be more like 10 Rules for Talking to Gay Activists.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

God does expect us to love our fellow man but …]

I’m always wary of such sentences. Of course God wants us to be loving, but…we shouldn’t get too carried away with it! And anyway, there’s Sirach giving us a perfect excuse to even throw over that old chestnut, “love the sinner, hate the sin,” because it very clearly says that God hates sinners and that we should only do good things for good people.

But! Isn’t such reasoning supposed to look different and lead us to different conclusions in the light of the Resurrection? Isn’t the one who came to us when we were in the depths of our sin, was willing to be killed by us, but who rose again not as the avenging God of Death, but as the Lord of Love, bringing forgiveness and healing supposed to be our model here? Shouldn’t we be taking a bit more seriously the idea that if our interpretation of Scripture leads us to an apprehension of God that is contrary to what we know of him (i.e., that he is Love), then our interpretation is wrong? People often like to talk of and speak in absolutes (on these boards and off), but is not the absolute canon of our morality and our theology that the Resurrection of Jesus is the most definitive revelation of the nature of God as Love? Is there any way to affirm that, and then say “yes, but…” without fundamentally compromising our faith?

I fear we are all too much in love with the “Wrath” of God–why else would we seek to model wrath for each other with such zeal? Sure we should love, but sometimes people need to be kicked in the pants, or such was a suggestion given by someone earlier in the thread. I don’t follow the logic. I understand that we have this idea of “tough love” in our culture. But more often than not, that’s just an excuse to be cruel to those we claim to love, justifying our behavior with the idea that it’s okay to be cruel to be kind. But if the ends don’t ever justify the means, and if we know that love has no part in cruelty (otherwise, Our Lord’s revelation of himself at the Resurrection would be quite different), then how can we go on believing that being cruel to be kind is a-okay? Should we not listen to the words of Julian of Norwich (whom the Pope recently praised) when she says that there is no wrath in God, only the friendship of God’s “full homely divinity,”–that whatever wrath we experience is of our own making, not of God’s?

Well, some say, you shouldn’t sugar-coat the truth. Indeed! The truth sets us free, is the Word of freedom from bondage to sin and our empty egos, and (to borrow a Eucharistic metaphor) contains within itself all sweetness. Because, in fact, the truth is not an idea or an abstract concept, but is a real live human (and divine!) person, Jesus Christ, who said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” The truth is not something with which we can bludgeon each other in an attempt not to sugar-coat things. The Truth is Eucharist, and all that that means.

Moreover, when we insist that it’s okay to speak truth in ugly or cruel ways, then we implicitly deny the very nature of Truth–that it is Good and Beautiful. What is the Good? Love in action! What is the Beautiful? The form of Truth and Goodness! To divorce Truth from either Goodness or Beauty or both is to understand Love as little more than a theological construct: a barren concept devoid of any real value.

The virtue of Melinda’s list is that she seems to be getting at all of this. Is it a perfect list? No. Few things are perfect in this vale of tears. But it’s an honest, loving attempt, to move conversations about homosexuality in a Godward direction. That it should encounter such resistance is concerning to me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[OraLabora]

Some posters come online seeking guidance or answers, they want to live according to God’s will, these are the ones seeking righteousness. Then there are others, who are not asking or seeking, they embrace their evil and want us to do the same. On CAF, we see them with fair regularity. But in the real day-to-day world, most of us are unlikely to ever run into such people. (Unless you want to go to St. Patrick’s in NYC on St. Patrick’s Day.) Those people are the proud sinners of Sirach.

The thing is that few of us here have any kind of official teaching authority and few of us are trained in pastoral care. Say the wrong words and drive someone away, and we are as guilty of dereliction of duty as one who turns a blind eye.

I’m personally in the MYOB crowd. Don’t tell me about your sex life and I promise not to bore you with mine

I return to my Benedictine roots. The best way to teach/preach is to not embrace our own sins, and thus preach by example.

One quibble, I don’t think most gays “embrace evil”. They have been conditioned by society to believe that their sin isn’t evil at all. Therefore moralistic preaching to a non-Christian gay is not likely to get very far.

But just as we all have capacity for dark evil so too we all-gays included-have capacity for great good. When dialoging with gays we should focus on that aspect of their personhood, and in our own lives focus on not falling into the grasp of our own dark evil, lest we come across as hypocrites.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Now now Melinda…

Your little snide remark in your response to LemonandLime is unbecoming. It is also factually wrong, which you’d know if you had read my responses accurately. Then again, perhaps you did and just decided to respond in your own way.

Yes, it was unbecoming. My apologies.

Melinda, if the wicked are to be removed from our midst, then by inference the wicked cannot be allowed in to our midst.

This doesn’t follow. The situation that Paul is describing is one where a man who was already a convert undertook an illegitimate and scandalous marriage after he was already an established member of the community. It’s usual for new converts to take a couple of years to get to the point where they fully understand the Church’s teachings, and perhaps a couple more before they’re able to fully live them. It’s the job of mature believers to support these people, to go to them where they are, and help them along the way to a fuller life in Christ – not to keep them out of our midst.

As for those outside the Church, whom St. Paul says will be judged by God, and according to Paul are so numerous that to avoid them I’d have to go out of this world, well, in the meantime, I don’t have to mix with them, do I?

John, I think it’s pretty obvious that the reason why you don’t avoid the sinners is that you’re supposed to be leading them to Christ. That’s pretty hard to do if you refuse to mix with them.

Then of course, we have the example of Jesus himself, who did not tolerate the behaviour of the money lenders in the Temple of His Father. Using your logic, Melinda, Jesus has suddenly stopped loving His fellow man.

No, this isn’t analogous. Jesus was consistently pretty nasty to people who claimed religious or spiritual authority, and who used that authority to “lay heavy burdens” on others. The money-lenders were fulfilling a religious function: they were exchanging Roman money into the Temple shekels which were necessary for people to carry out their religious obligations – but they were doing so dishonestly, making it more onerous for the poor to make the requisite sacrifices. I believe absolutely that there should be no tolerance for hypocrisy or rapacity amongst religious authorities.

It makes me a witness to that which Christ himself showed us - that tolerance has its limits and that His church can show the way to a moral life. If you’d read my post a little more honestly, you’d see that.

John, the reason for my reaction to your posts is fairly straight-forward: the tone of them is sufficiently off-putting that it’s a stumbling block for me. There have been several times, reading the kind of stuff that gets posted here, where I started to think I was in the wrong Church. Fortunately, I was able to go back to the Vatican’s documents, to the scriptures themselves, and to a wider community of supportive Catholics who manifest love – not people who deny truth, but people who tell the truth in a way that makes me want to continue to strive for holiness. When Catholics take this kind of “we will not tolerate” “keep the sinner out of our midst” tone with homosexuals, it really conveys hatred – irregardless of whether you feel or intend that. It hurts people in a way that leads them away from Christ.

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

I fear we are all too much in love with the “Wrath” of God–why else would we seek to model wrath for each other with such zeal? Sure we should love, but sometimes people need to be kicked in the pants, or such was a suggestion given by someone earlier in the thread. I don’t follow the logic. I understand that we have this idea of “tough love” in our culture. But more often than not, that’s just an excuse to be cruel to those we claim to love, justifying our behavior with the idea that it’s okay to be cruel to be kind. But if the ends don’t ever justify the means, and if we know that love has no part in cruelty (otherwise, Our Lord’s revelation of himself at the Resurrection would be quite different), then how can we go on believing that being cruel to be kind is a-okay?

Moreover, when we insist that it’s okay to speak truth in ugly or cruel ways, then we implicitly deny the very nature of Truth–that it is Good and Beautiful. What is the Good? Love in action! What is the Beautiful? The form of Truth and Goodness! To divorce Truth from either Goodness or Beauty or both is to understand Love as little more than a theological construct: a barren concept devoid of any real value.
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Ah, Mark, I wondered when you would wonder in.

I refer you to St. Paul in Rom 1:18.

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

and the USCCB’s NABRE has the following footnote:

The wrath of God: God’s reaction to human sinfulness, an Old Testament phrase that expresses the irreconcilable opposition between God and evil (see Is 9:11, 16, 18, 20; 10:4; 30:27). It is not contrary to God’s universal love for his creatures, but condemns Israel’s turning aside from the covenant obligations. Hosea depicts Yahweh as suffering intensely at the thought of having to punish Israel (Hos 11:8–9). God’s wrath was to be poured forth especially on the “Day of Yahweh” and thus took on an eschatological connotation (see Zep 1:15).

I understand your position, Mark. I truly do, having lived there myself for a number of years. If one continues to deny God’s position on sin, continues to convince oneself that God’s love will cover/hide/erase all of one’s sins, then one doesn’t need to change anything about one’s behavior. I lived in that nether world of lukewarm puke for 2 decades. It was the God-shaped hole in my heart that kept me seeking God; it was fear of eternal consequences that finally made me get fired up for God, abandoning my life of sin and debauchery. I was not willing to bet my very soul that good portions of the Bible and 2000 years of theological history were all wrong. It was love of good Christians that made my path back to God smooth, but that’s not what brought me to the trailhead.

Have you read A Memorial of a Christian Life by the Venerable Louis of Grenada? in the first chapter, he says, “Of the means God has often used to subdue the hearts of men, and render them obedient to his commands, one of the most prevalent has ever been to set before their eyes the greatness of the pains prepared for those who obstinately disobey and break his laws.” and further along, he says, “It is manifest then, that in the time of the Mosaic law, this was one of the principal means which God used with men, nor is it abolished in the law of grace: Does not St. Paul, the greatest of preachers, say, Rom. 1, That as God makes known His justice in those he renders just, he in like manner causes his indignation to appear in the punishment of the wicked?”

And as for your “cruel” implications and statements, I call bull. Are you saying that if I tell someone that the homosexual activities they are engaging in are a mortal sin, I’m being cruel? Am I cruel if say that the wages of sin are death? What if I tell them that homosexual actions can lead straight to eternal damnation? all of those are cruel? Where is the cruelty, Mark? Seriously, I want to know specifically what’s cruel other than the fact that it might be incredibly painful to an infected conscience to be so pummelled with the Truth.

Say the wrong words and drive someone away, and we are as guilty of dereliction of duty as one who turns a blind eye.

Two things: first, you and I and all the other puny humans aren’t that powerful to destroy someone. 2 Tim 3:16-17

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Second, a life of prayer, Sacraments, study and praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance is helpful for this purpose. If someone comes up to you and says, “I’m gay, what’re you going to do about it?” whisper a prayer and let the Holy Spirit speak through you.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Yes, it was unbecoming. My apologies.

This doesn’t follow. The situation that Paul is describing is one where a man who was already a convert undertook an illegitimate and scandalous marriage after he was already an established member of the community. It’s usual for new converts to take a couple of years to get to the point where they fully understand the Church’s teachings, and perhaps a couple more before they’re able to fully live them. It’s the job of mature believers to support these people, to go to them where they are, and help them along the way to a fuller life in Christ – not to keep them out of our midst.Who is talking of “keeping them out?” how is calling them to repent keeping them out. It is sin that separates not correction…

John, I think it’s pretty obvious that the reason why you don’t avoid the sinners is that you’re supposed to be leading them to Christ. That’s pretty hard to do if you refuse to mix with them.no, its not. You think john the baptist “mixed” well? Paul? these are the examples of leading others to Christ. It is hard to get people to repent if you refuse to say “repent”

Then of course, we have the example of Jesus himself, who did not tolerate the behaviour of the money lenders in the Temple of His Father. Using your logic, Melinda, Jesus has suddenly stopped loving His fellow man.

No, this isn’t analogous. Jesus was consistently pretty nasty to people who claimed religious or spiritual authority, and who used that authority to “lay heavy burdens” on others. The money-lenders were fulfilling a religious function: they were exchanging Roman money into the Temple shekels which were necessary for people to carry out their religious obligations – but they were doing so dishonestly, making it more onerous for the poor to make the requisite sacrifices. I believe absolutely that there should be no tolerance for hypocrisy or rapacity amongst religious authorities.

John, the reason for my reaction to your posts is fairly straight-forward: the tone of them is sufficiently off-putting that it’s a stumbling block for me. There have been several times, reading the kind of stuff that gets posted here, where I started to think I was in the wrong Church.You lose credibility with this assertion. If your faith in the Church is not in Jesus and the Eucharist but rather in it’s forum posters then yes, you are in the wrong Church. I’m sure you were trying to make a point and it is a valid point about someone who is “looking” at the Catholic Church, but for one who is already “in” her it is counter productive to suggest your faith is weak because of other members of your Church. Fortunately, I was able to go back to the Vatican’s documents, to the scriptures themselves, and to a wider community of supportive Catholics who manifest loveThe problem with this statement is the ego of it. Saying that because you found a document that you interpret to fit your view and somehow asserting that you are right in your worldview. It logically follow that you view people like John and myself as somehow “less” Catholic than you. – not people who deny truth, but people who tell the truth in a way that makes me want to continue to strive for holiness. When Catholics take this kind of “we will not tolerate” “keep the sinner out of our midst” tone with homosexuals, it really conveys hatred – irregardless of whether you feel or intend that. It hurts people in a way that leads them away from Christ.

 

[Kolbe300]

“Giving comfort to the wicked” would be equivalent to giving approval, aiding and abetting in the lifestyle choices; this we cannot do.

This reminds me so much of a clip I saw in the 80’s of a news man making almost that exact statement to Mother Teresa in regards to her opening a home for men dying of AIDS. Wasn’t her comforting them an approval of their lifestyle, which the Church teaches against? The look she gave him was absolutely priceless, as if she could not physically comprehend his line of thought (and I doubt she could). “They need love,” is what she said. The answer was that easy. If love means “comfort,” then comfort.

The virtue of Melinda’s list is that she seems to be getting at all of this. Is it a perfect list? No. Few things are perfect in this vale of tears. But it’s an honest, loving attempt, to move conversations about homosexuality in a Godward direction. That it should encounter such resistance is concerning to me.

I completely agree.

One quibble, I don’t think most gays “embrace evil”. They have been conditioned by society to believe that their sin isn’t evil at all. Therefore moralistic preaching to a non-Christian gay is not likely to get very far.

But just as we all have capacity for dark evil so too we all-gays included-have capacity for great good. When dialoging with gays we should focus on that aspect of their personhood, and in our own lives focus on not falling into the grasp of our own dark evil, lest we come across as hypocrites.

Thank you for this.

John, the reason for my reaction to your posts is fairly straight-forward: the tone of them is sufficiently off-putting that it’s a stumbling block for me. There have been several times, reading the kind of stuff that gets posted here, where I started to think I was in the wrong Church. Fortunately, I was able to go back to the Vatican’s documents, to the scriptures themselves, and to a wider community of supportive Catholics who manifest love – not people who deny truth, but people who tell the truth in a way that makes me want to continue to strive for holiness. When Catholics take this kind of “we will not tolerate” “keep the sinner out of our midst” tone with homosexuals, it really conveys hatred – irregardless of whether you feel or intend that. It hurts people in a way that leads them away from Christ.

Thank you for your posts, Melinda. I absolutely agree with you and I understand exactly what you are saying and making a case for.

Peace!

 

[michelleds]

This reminds me so much of a clip I saw in the 80’s of a news man making almost that exact statement to Mother Teresa in regards to her opening a home for men dying of AIDS. Wasn’t her comforting them an approval of their lifestyle, which the Church teaches against? The look she gave him was absolutely priceless, as if she could not physically comprehend his line of thought (and I doubt she could). “They need love,” is what she said. The answer was that easy. If love means “comfort,” then comfort.

Peace!

Unfortunately, you have misinterpreted my statement. I’m not talking about “aid and comfort” I’m talking about making someone comfortable in their sin, supporting SSM for instance.

 

[Kolbe300]

Unfortunately, you have misinterpreted my statement. I’m not talking about “aid and comfort” I’m talking about making someone comfortable in their sin, supporting SSM for instance.

Okay, I see what you’re saying. I guess I just don’t see Melinda or anyone else advocating for making people comfortable in their sin.

 

[Catholicpotato]

This reminds me so much of a clip I saw in the 80’s of a news man making almost that exact statement to Mother Teresa in regards to her opening a home for men dying of AIDS. Wasn’t her comforting them an approval of their lifestyle, which the Church teaches against? The look she gave him was absolutely priceless, as if she could not physically comprehend his line of thought (and I doubt she could). “They need love,” is what she said. The answer was that easy. If love means “comfort,” then comfort. !

I’m confused. Is it your contention that to love and comfort someone with aids is to confirm them in their sin? Or is it more biblical to comfort the sick AND show them a better way?