A conundrum!

[GRATEFULONEjim]

I have been reading Tomas Keating’s, Open Mind Open Heart. I have also been having a discourse of late with a friend on his acceptance of moral relativism. In Mark’s Gospel, Chapter 12 verse 31 it says to accept everyone unconditionally and by doing so we fulfill the Commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself.” I am a staunch defender of the traditional definition of marriage and I am wondering how I can defend Mark’s passage in verse 31 yet uphold the teachings of the Church at the same time? I hope I made my point clear enough.

 

[FCEGM]

I have been reading Tomas Keating’s, Open Mind Open Heart. I have also been having a discourse of late with a friend on his acceptance of moral relativism. In Mark’s Gospel, Chapter 12 verse 31 it says to accept everyone unconditionally and by doing so we fulfill the Commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself.” I am a staunch defender of the traditional definition of marriage and I am wondering how I can defend Mark’s passage in verse 31 yet uphold the teachings of the Church at the same time? I hope I made my point clear enough.

31 The second is this: You must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.’

Loving one’s neighbors does not mean condoning the evil they do. We must love them enough not to be afraid to speak the truth in love to them. Do you see the Lord condoning the sin of the woman caught in adultery? Our Lord was hardly a moral relativist!

No matter how sinful a person is, that person is made in the image and likeness of God and so respect for the person must always be prime, while not accepting of the evil they have embraced.

 

[Mumbles140]

I have been reading Tomas Keating’s, Open Mind Open Heart. I have also been having a discourse of late with a friend on his acceptance of moral relativism. In Mark’s Gospel, Chapter 12 verse 31 it says to accept everyone unconditionally and by doing so we fulfill the Commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself.” I am a staunch defender of the traditional definition of marriage and I am wondering how I can defend Mark’s passage in verse 31 yet uphold the teachings of the Church at the same time? I hope I made my point clear enough.

The Church is very clear on treating those with same-sex attractions with compassion, charity, and respect, which is definitely loving one’s neighbor as oneself. However, it does not say to condone their sinfulness. Just as the friends should tell someone they are in a state of sin, we must not let people believe homosexual relations are acceptable because people want them to be. As my priest always says - it’s not bigotry, it’s biology. Loving them would be helping them live a happy, meaningful, and chaste life - not pretending it is okay for them to live in sin.

 

[edward_george]

To love is to will the good of another. The highest good is God Himself, and so the highest good for a human being is to attain union with God, goodness itself. To love one’s neighbor as himself is to desire nothing other than union with God for him, as he would desire for himself. Sin impedes us from union with God, and so to love would mean the opposite of condoning one’s sinful lifestyle. It is not hatred to oppose someone’s sins. It is the height of love, for you are simply desiring the highest good for them.

-ACEGC

 

[JRKH]

I have been reading Tomas Keating’s, Open Mind Open Heart. I have also been having a discourse of late with a friend on his acceptance of moral relativism. In Mark’s Gospel, Chapter 12 verse 31 it says to accept everyone unconditionally and by doing so we fulfill the Commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself.”
I don’t see the bolded section in the verse you mention.
Is this how you define Loving yourself? That you love yourself unconditionally? How about when you sin against God…Do you love yourself then - or perhaps put better - do you love the “self” that commits sin?
I’m just trying to understand how you get “unconditionally” out of “love your neighbor as yourself”…

I am a staunch defender of the traditional definition of marriage and I am wondering how I can defend Mark’s passage in verse 31 yet uphold the teachings of the Church at the same time? I hope I made my point clear enough.

I ran across a passage in 1 Corinthians 5 that I thought quite interesting and perhaps will help here…
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber–not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”
If the person you are dealing with does not carry the name “brother” (Christian) then we maybe are not to judge them. That is for God to do.
If the person DOES carry the name “brother” then…

Don’t know if this is of any help but thought I’d toss it out there…

Peace
James

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

I don’t see the bolded section in the verse you mention.
it says to accept everyone unconditionally
That was out of Keating’s book.

 

[Womanoffaith10]

I have been reading Tomas Keating’s, Open Mind Open Heart. I have also been having a discourse of late with a friend on his acceptance of moral relativism. In Mark’s Gospel, Chapter 12 verse 31 it says to accept everyone unconditionally and by doing so we fulfill the Commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself.” I am a staunch defender of the traditional definition of marriage and I am wondering how I can defend Mark’s passage in verse 31 yet uphold the teachings of the Church at the same time? I hope I made my point clear enough.

I experienced the same issue recently(thank you Chik Fil A lol). Anyway, what I learned is to hate the sin not the sinner.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH;9649616:

I don’t see the bolded section in the verse you mention.
it says to accept everyone unconditionally

That was out of Keating’s book.

Ah - thanks for that clarification…

In such a case - where one is dealing with another persons interpretation of a verse - it is necessary to understand what he (Keating) means. In this case it would mean getting at what he means by “accept”.
Hopefully he explains this in his his text.

Peace
James