10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[Charlemagne_II]

If there is a rule for talking to gay Catholics, should that rule include refusing to refer them to Paul? Romans 1:18-27

• For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

  Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.*

Would referring gay Catholics to such a passage be an act of charity, or would it be hate speech?

 

[roothless]

Talk to them like you would talk to a straight person… not that hard people.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Talk to them like you would talk to a straight person… not that hard people.

Amen, brother or sister!

I’d also add to the list that one should avoid telling a GLBT person that they’re “confused”. I’ve had some less than pleasant experiences with otherwise well-intentioned people telling me that in different contexts and it’s at best an irritant. I live with myself so I know what I’m dealing with, and no, just because my gender and my sexual orientation express themselves a little differently than what’s perceived as “normal” (and I’m starting to believe that “normal” is only a setting on an electric clothes-drier), this doesn’t mean I’m confused.

Also, enth on not trying to psychoanalyze GLBT people, unless you actually are the psychologist/therapist whom they are paying to treat them. At best, it’s rude, at worst, it’s uncharitable. It’s hard to determine why a person is GLBT and unless you’re the one offering professional assistance, it’s better to maintain a hands-off policy. It’s like judging a person with an non-visible disability (ie, someone who’s hearing impaired but wears a small hearing aid, someone with severe epilepsy, someone who’s high-functioning autistic, etc) and saying they can’t be disabled since they’re not in a wheelchair/have a service animal.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

But some people are stubborn as mules. Maybe it’s not so uncharitable to hit them over the head with a 2X4 just to get their attention?

 

[michelleds]

That sin is it’s own punishment, that we choose to love (by grace!) or not to love, and that the reality of not loving is a reality of pain and suffering of our own choosing, that in our sin we reject God’s love and build for ourselves a hell–none of these things mean that we are not responsible for our sin, or that our sin does not destroy us. What it means is that we are called out of sin into love, that God’s justice bears no resemblance whatsoever to our sin, which means too that it shares no resemblance to human violence and, in fact, rejects it completely, because it looks like the incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. That is God’s astounding and bewildering justice. It’s hard to accept, I know, that God doesn’t have it out for us, that he loves us so intensely. Many Christians seem to find that reality and it’s implications particularly incredible.

Do I take from this portion of your quote that you don’t believe in Hell except what we build for ourselves?

 

[OraLabora]

Talk to them like you would talk to a straight person… not that hard people.

Bingo. Many will complain that gays tie up all their self-identity in being… gay. Yet by refusing to consider the whole person, and instead focusing entirely on their homosexuality to determine how they relate to him or her, they are doing exactly the same thing, making their “gayness” central to their identity.

They are “normal” people inasmuch as they have their good aspects and their flaws… just as straight people have their good aspects and their flaws.

I rarely see threads here on how to “fraternally correct” tax evaders or drunks… yet plenty on how to fraternally correct those with sexual flaws or addictions.

We are ALL, and I mean ALL sinners who fall short of the glory of God. Woefully short, ALL of us.

 

[michelleds]

… Very eloquently, and clearly expressed michelleds… So nice to see a little clarity amidst all the obscurity.

Thankyou.

Thank you!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Bingo. Many will complain that gays tie up all their self-identity in being… gay. Yet by refusing to consider the whole person, and instead focusing entirely on their homosexuality to determine how they relate to him or her, they are doing exactly the same thing, making their “gayness” central to their identity.

They are “normal” people inasmuch as they have their good aspects and their flaws… just as straight people have their good aspects and their flaws.

**I rarely see threads here on how to “fraternally correct” tax evaders or drunks… yet plenty on how to fraternally correct those with sexual flaws or addictions.
**
We are ALL, and I mean ALL sinners who fall short of the glory of God. Woefully short, ALL of us.

Precisely. The only time I have ever heard people trying to use broken theologically is when referring to homosexuals. And then there are so many people who wonder why homosexuals don’t “repent their pernicious ways and become heterosexual” while being utterly apathetic to fornicators. There’s no sense of balance in criticism, they spend 95% of their time on maybe 5% of the population. It’s like someone who worries about dying during a plane flight even though they are three time as likely to die driving to the airport.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Do I take from this portion of your quote that you don’t believe in Hell except what we build for ourselves?

I don’t understand your question. Clearly I believe that Hell is a radical possibility of our rejection of love. Moreover, it should be clear that I believe we send ourselves there, that we choose it for ourselves through choosing to sin. All of that is in what I wrote. Are you taking issue with the entirety of my post because you suspect, against the evidence in the post itself, that I don’t believe that there is a hell? Of all the things you could take from that portion of my post, why that? Are you trying to invent things about which we might theoretically disagree?

Again, I don’t understand the question. Unless you misread what I wrote to mean, “hell is what happens to us in this life when we don’t love people like we should.” Yes, I believe we can receive a foretaste of either heaven or hell in this life, but no, I do not believe that our potential experience of hell is limited to such a foretaste–if we refuse love, it is the reality of endless self-destruction and death that we choose for ourselves after this life. It is, as I have written above, a radically possibility of our rejection of love.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!

 

[Kolbe300]

Bingo. Many will complain that gays tie up all their self-identity in being… gay. Yet by refusing to consider the whole person, and instead focusing entirely on their homosexuality to determine how they relate to him or her, they are doing exactly the same thing, making their “gayness” central to their identity.

That’s a great point, thanks!

 

[michelleds]

Mark, it was a question for clarification. Nothing more or less. It’s also very late. I’ll try to find time tomorrow to respond more fully.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Originally Posted by OraLabora
Bingo. Many will complain that gays tie up all their self-identity in being… gay. Yet by refusing to consider the whole person, and instead focusing entirely on their homosexuality to determine how they relate to him or her, they are doing exactly the same thing, making their “gayness” central to their identity.

But this can’t be avoided. If a person shouts to the world that he is gay, as many gay people do, the world can hardly ignore the shouting. If a person keeps his sexual preference to himself and focuses on some other aspect of his own personality, others will gladly focus with him on the same aspect that he chooses to show the world.

Marilyn Monroe chose to make her sexuality the center of focus on herself. And so she was largely treated as a sex object. To what extent this contributed to her personal problems we cannot be certain, but we may rightly suspect that the world treated her mainly as she offered herself to be treated.

 

[OraLabora]

Originally Posted by OraLabora
Bingo. Many will complain that gays tie up all their self-identity in being… gay. Yet by refusing to consider the whole person, and instead focusing entirely on their homosexuality to determine how they relate to him or her, they are doing exactly the same thing, making their “gayness” central to their identity.

But this can’t be avoided. If a person shouts to the world that he is gay, as many gay people do, the world can hardly ignore the shouting. If a person keeps his sexual preference to himself and focuses on some other aspect of his own personality, others will gladly focus with him on the same aspect that he chooses to show the world.

Marilyn Monroe chose to make her sexuality the center of focus on herself. And so she was largely treated as a sex object. To what extent this contributed to her personal problems we cannot be certain, but we may rightly suspect that the world treated her mainly as she offered herself to be treated.

But if we think it is wrong to make our sexuality the center of our identity, then even if certain gays do so, that does not mean we need to reinforce it as well by playing that game. In Christian charity, we need to consider the whole person even if the gay person centers his or her identity on sexuality. We can refuse to play that game, for instance by saying that we don’t like to discuss matters we consider highly personal (sexuality) or gently moving the conversation into another direction. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Our duty is not to treat a person “as (s)he offered (him)herself to be treated”, but as him/herself ought to be treated.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ora

**Our duty is not to treat a person “as (s)he offered (him)herself to be treated”, but as him/herself ought to be treated. **

Yes, very good!

But in the real world that is not how it often turns out. The person who offers himself to be mistreated often gets mistreated. If no one else chooses to mistreat him, he may mistreat himself. And sometimes the person who offers himself to be punished or disgraced, often gets punished or disgraced, as when Paul came down on the Corinthian who slept with his mother. Jesus offered himself to be killed, and was killed … even though he deserved instead to be glorified. Imagine how it would be if Judas had refused to betray him, or Pilate had refused to execute him.

We should treat people with respect, which is how they ought to be treated; but if they offer themselves by their sins to be treated with chastisement, that is how they ought to be treated. There is a marked difference between charitable chastisement on the one hand and ridicule or cruelty on the other hand.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo Volente
**
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?**

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” Matthew 21:12-13

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giotto_-Scrovegni--27--_Expulsion_of_the_Money-changers_from_the_Temple.jpg

 

[BobCatholic]

1. Agree to their terms: Truth is not a language game.

If we agree to their terms, then we must accept their lifestyle as 100% holy. The homosexual agenda has redefined “tolerance” to mean that if you do not accept their lifestyle, you are hateful. We are not allowed to disagree with them.

Remember when “gay” meant “happy”? You’ve seen how that was redefined.

Remember when “freedom of religion” meant that you could gasp actually practice your religion without the government punishing you for it? Now the government uses pro-gay laws to punish Christians who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Remember when “tolerance” meant you actually put up with another person’s viewpoint, even though you personally disagreed with it? That term was redefined to basically permit hatred of anyone disagreeing with the homosexual agenda.

Watch how the term “sexual orientation” is being redefined at every chance, to accept more “lifestyles” than the homosexual agenda pushed for in the beginning. In Denmark, there is a pedophile political party, and they have 20% of the legislature at this point. All because of what “sexual orientation” means today, and what will it mean tomorrow?

Pay attention to how the homosexual agenda perverts the language to push their agenda.

For the homosexual agenda, language is a game. And ordinary homosexuals bought into it hook, line and stinker. Your typical homosexual actually believes what he/she was told, was true. Brainwashing of the finest order.

They were sold a bill of goods. The challenge is proving to them that they’ve been gamed. Hard to do when they have society stroking their egos.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Deo Volente
**
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?**

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” Matthew 21:12-13

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giotto_-Scrovegni--27--_Expulsion_of_the_Money-changers_from_the_Temple.jpg

Hi, Charlemagne.

I think St. John, in his version of the story in the second chapter of his Gospel, provides us with the needed gloss in order to better understand the story: Psalm 69:9, “For the zeal of thine house hath even eaten me : and the rebukes of them that rebuked thee are fallen upon me.” What’s being illustrated here is zeal. Moreover, the subsequent verses in John reveal much–when Jesus is asked for a sign indicating the authority by which he cleansed the temple, he makes an allusion to the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Which is to say that his zeal is twofold: his zeal for the temple, and his zeal for us, that we be healed and restored just as his act of cleansing represented a restoration of the temple. Indeed, all of Jesus’ acts are acts of restoration, and the cleansing of the temple prefigures the cleansing of the world through his passion.

Now, does that mean that Jesus wasn’t angry? Well, Jesus was human, too. And I would imagine that he experienced not a small amount of sorrow, not just for what the moneychangers had done to the temple, but also what that indicated about what the moneychangers had done to themselves. But did he visit upon those moneychangers the proverbial wrath of God? No. In fact, he shows them only a few days later how much he loves them when he hangs on the gibbet of the cross. I would argue, then, that to insist on a reading of this story as an example of God’s wrath is to miss the boat entirely.

I maintain that Julian of Norwich was right: that there is no wrath in God, only friendship. The cleansing of the temple must therefore be seen as an act of friendship, a healing act, restoring the temple and the moneychangers and putting them into a right relationship with God and each other.

I’m very glad, in fact, that you mention this story, Charlemagne. It’s particularly relevant to Advent. The temple represents our own hearts which need to be cleansed of all the false things which buy and sell our affections. Moreover, we are the moneychangers–our false egos attached to the things of this world must be driven out in order for Christ to reign in us. Let’s pray that God visit our hearts and cleanse them, that the Key of David open us to receive the graces that he is always showering upon us!

Advent tells us to watch and prepare for a coming judgment, only to step aside and reveal what that judgment looks like: a poor, helpless child who is, nonetheless, God With Us. What an unfathomable, profound and deep mystery is God’s love for us!

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo Volente

But did he visit upon those moneychangers the proverbial wrath of God? No. In fact, he shows them only a few days later how much he loves them when he hangs on the gibbet of the cross. I would argue, then, that to insist on a reading of this story as an example of God’s wrath is to miss the boat entirely.

Would you also say the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah also were not examples of the wrath of God?

I don’t doubt that Christ’s love compels us to believe in his mercy. But we must also believe in his justice, for what is love if it is not also a just love? Hell was made for sinners. Those who choose hell are justly sent there. We have an obligation, in charity, to chastise those who are hell bent on going there. What is love if it never chastises the sinner, but leaves him to congratulate himself on his sins?

 

[liturgyluver]

In Denmark, there is a pedophile political party, and they have 20% of the legislature at this point. All because of what “sexual orientation” means today, and what will it mean tomorrow?

What is your source for this piece of sensationalist nonsence?

 

[OraLabora]

We have an obligation, in charity, to chastise those who are hell bent on going there:

Then I would say carry out that obligation with great wisdom because if you mis-choose your words or are overly harsh and drive the person even further from God, then you have done no better than someone who simply validates their lifestyle.

For we laity I say in these cases evangelize, don’t proselytize. Evangelization doesn’t require words and the risk of offense is small. Chastisement requires use of words and risks hurting the cause by achieving exactly the opposite of your goal.

Here’s something I read recently in a book by Richard Rohr: always apply three filters to what you are about to say:

1. is it true?
2. is it charitable? Chastisement carried out clumsily often isn’t.
3. is it necessary? Think of what your goal is and how your words will help you attain it. If your assessment is that it won’t change the other person or worse, drives them further away, then it is best to avoid the issue.

Benedictines try to use their own holiness, not words, to evangelize. Moreover, they cultivate active listening. A gay person in distress will gain far more from being heard than behind chastised. Same for anybody with a serious moral issue such as an addict.