Among first synod discussions: changing harsh language, trying 'graduality'

[RosyAnne]

Hopefully I am saying the right thing here. But if you are in a conversation with someone of SSA and call them “intrinsically disordered,” it would not only be false but uncharitable as well. You can say kindly that the *homosexual inclination *is objectively disordered and *homosexual acts *are intrinsically disordered.

We as Catholics would do good to have a better understanding of this subject so as not to call someone what they are not. Although atleast in my experience I see the greater problem at this point of the problem of many Catholics who do not even read the Church teachings on this and believe that the homosexual inclination is NOT objectively disordered and homosexual acts are NOT intrinsically disordered or even a sin!

I think the problem is that so many homosexuals and those who support their sexual behavior associate the ACT with the PERSON. Meaning, for them, when you condemn the ACT, you condemn the PERSON. There is no separation.

The homosexual person is identifying himself with the sexual act.

We know they are two separate things. One is a divine creation (human), our brother or sister that we love. The other is the disordered behavior (the sexual act). But there’s something about this sexual behaviour that seems to become ingrained in a person’s essence, or at least perceived in that way.

So even though we call the ACT deviant behavior or disordered (in any way)…it translates internally (to them) that we are saying THEY, as a person/individual, are to be rejected.

I don’t know if I’m using the right terminology or expressing this in a way that is understandable.

 

[LittleFlower378]

To label people in such a bigoted, negative way can hardly serve to promote productive discussion within the synod.

I dont think Jim is being a bigot here. He is talking about the acts and the terms not individual people.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I think the problem is that so many homosexuals and those who support their sexual behavior associate the ACT with the PERSON. Meaning, for them, when you condemn the ACT, you condemn the PERSON. There is no separation.

The homosexual person is identifying himself with the sexual act.

We know they are two separate things. One is a divine creation (human), our brother or sister that we love. The other is the disordered behavior (the sexual act). But there’s something about this sexual behaviour that seems to become ingrained in a person’s essence, or at least perceived in that way.

So even though we call the ACT deviant behavior or disordered (in any way)…it translates internally (to them) that we are saying THEY, as a person/individual, are to be rejected.

I don’t know if I’m using the right terminology or expressing this in a way that is understandable./QUOTE

 

[Weejee]

When I was a kid, my relative used to say, “Living without benefit of the clergy.” I think I was eleven years old before I asked what that meant.

Living without benefit of the clergy has become all too common, and I think the church really needs to speak up about it, not gild the lily. Jesus called it a sin.

Meanwhile, I think they should change their attitude entirely about homosexuality. Promote gay marriage. How can something that’s inside you, and such an innocuous thing as being attracted to adults of the same sex, be intrinsically wicked.

Approve Birth control: It’s 2014 A.D. not 2014 B.C. We already have enough people on the planet. And get cracking on taking care of the people already here. i.e. refugees.

 

[ProVobis]

Briefing reporters Tuesday on the event, known as a Synod of Bishops, Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica said one or more synod members specifically referred to three terms commonly used by the church:

• “Living in sin”: a reference to couples who live together before marriage;
• “Intrinsically disordered”: a reference to gay people; and
• “Contraceptive mentality”: a reference made by some prelates to refer to a society that does not respect life.

“To label people … does not help in bringing people to Christ,” said Rosica, summarizing the synod member. “There was a great desire that our language has to change in order to meet the very difficult situations.”

And if you play by the rules, you are labelled a “prude.”

Can’t win.

 

[gilliam]

Video: Cardinal Reinhard Marx discusses the idea of “graduality” in church teaching on sexuality.

youtube.com/watch?v=P5sANdne-o4&feature=youtu.be

 

[_Abyssinia]

Fr Thomas Rosica said:

There was a great desire that our language has to change in order to meet the very difficult situations

There was no language whatsoever of a need to change doctrine

‘Intrinsically disordered’ is doctrine, it is in the Catechism, so if doctrine is not going to be changed, how do you change the language?

 

[McCall1981]

Video: Cardinal Reinhard Marx discusses the idea of “graduality” in church teaching on sexuality.

youtube.com/watch?v=P5sANdne-o4&feature=youtu.be

To add some context to this:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404149.htm

Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster, who also spoke at the Oct. 6 session, told reporters the next day that the “law of graduality” is a “law of pastoral moral theology which permits people, all of us, to take one step at a time in our search for holiness in our lives.”

The cardinal, who attended the 1980 synod as a priest assisting a participating bishop, recalled that St. John Paul II had made an important point on the subject at the conclusion of the synod.

“He said, yes, there is a law of graduality, but it should not be confused with a graduality of the law,” Cardinal Nichols said. “He was saying the vision, the teaching of the church is consistent and is offered to everybody. So it’s not as if there’s one law at this time in your life and another law later in your life, but there is a pathway on which we’ll walk.”

Another synod father, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising, Germany, told reporters Oct. 6 that the idea of graduality could help the church develop a new way of speaking about sexuality.

“We cannot have always 100 percent, and I would say good and bad, that’s not so easy to make the difference,” the cardinal said in English. “There is a development, a way, in the biography or in a relationship and so on.”

Cardinal Marx, chairman of the German bishops’ conference, also said that the “great majority” of German bishops support German Cardinal Walter Kasper’s controversial proposal to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, even if they have not obtained annulments of their first, sacramental marriages.

“I think it is very important to see that we have ways or that there is a graduality also in the way to the sacrament,” Cardinal Marx said.

 

[RosyAnne]

Meanwhile, I think they should change their attitude entirely about homosexuality. Promote gay marriage. How can something that’s inside you, and such an innocuous thing as being attracted to adults of the same sex, be intrinsically wicked.:

Who decides it’s innocuous?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

‘Intrinsically disordered’ is doctrine, it is in the Catechism, so if doctrine is not going to be changed, how do you change the language?

If you’re trying to communicate rather than condemn, you need to find words that communicate.

If someone hears “intrinsically disordered,” what do they hear? At best it sounds rather clinical – like something a psychiatrist might say. At worst it sounds like you’re condemning the person. How is that attractive to someone? Why should they want to hear more or think they would be welcome in the Church?

If you want to START a process of communication, then you need to use words that actually communicate and don’t shut things down before they even start.

 

[Weejee]

“Graduality.” Another new entry in :newidea: the Lexicon of Jargon! :whacky:

 

[Weejee]

Anybody here remember the old Oscar Wilde Memorial Book Store on Christopher Street in Manhattan? Here’s a quote I have on a button I bought there:

HOW FAR CAN YOU OPEN YOUR MIND
UNTIL YOUR BRAINS FALL OUT?

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Weejee, you just made my day.
That question is priceless!

 

[dfp42]

If you’re trying to communicate rather than condemn, you need to find words that communicate.

If someone hears “intrinsically disordered,” what do they hear? At best it sounds rather clinical – like something a psychiatrist might say. At worst it sounds like you’re condemning the person. How is that attractive to someone? Why should they want to hear more or think they would be welcome in the Church?

If you want to START a process of communication, then you need to use words that actually communicate and don’t shut things down before they even start.

I wonder if the words do get toned down or changed will the ccc and and other catholic books need to be revised as well?

 

[ProVobis]

‘Intrinsically disordered’ is doctrine, it is in the Catechism, so if doctrine is not going to be changed, how do you change the language?

I’m on your side on this but the wording is an English translation, which means it can be changed. But that would have to be initiated with the bishops and approved by the Vatican. If that happens the English CCC will be changed.

 

[ProVobis]

“He said, yes, there is a law of graduality, but it should not be confused with a graduality of the law,” Cardinal Nichols said. “He was saying the vision, the teaching of the church is consistent and is offered to everybody. So it’s not as if there’s one law at this time in your life and another law later in your life, but there is a pathway on which we’ll walk.”

My personal take on this is that is sounds more like desensitization to sin in general but I will not argue his point.

 

[dfp42]

I’m on your side on this but the wording is an English translation, which means it can be changed. But that would have to be initiated with the bishops and approved by the Vatican.

I think people just don’t want the hear the dirty little word sin anymore. To make matter worse mortal sin. Is there really any nice way of saying sin in English? Grave matter? Not very nice? Disordered? Just not right? Sick?..

I can’t believe this is really an issue with toning down words. First you tell someone sin isn’t what it’s called, then once they enter the church and come to knowledge they find out the whole time it was called sin. I’d feel like I was lied to.

 

[McCall1981]

I think people just don’t want the hear the dirty little word sin anymore. To make matter worse mortal sin. Is there really any nice way of saying sin in English? Grave matter? Not very nice? Disordered? Just not right? Sick?..

I can’t believe this is really an issue with toning down words. First you tell someone sin isn’t what it’s called, then once they enter the church and come to knowledge they find out the whole time it was called sin. I’d feel like I was lied to.

To be fair, we don’t actually know if this IS an issue. All we know is that one participant suggested it, and the press office chose to mention it.

Remember, we’re not getting a comprehensive and thorough report of the proceedings, we’re only getting little blurbs of whatever the press office happens to mention.

 

[Kindness]

I live in Germany and the churches are virtually empty of anyone under 65. There are literally two or more generations missing. There are of course faithful Catholics of all ages but they are a tiny minority. There is no adult catechisis or any evangelism to speak of. My local parish church has been completely stripped of all Catholic decoration, statues, stained glass etc. The alter and tabernacle are a bare metal modernist design. I sincerely thought I was in a Lutheran church when I first entered, I kept telling my husband this is not a Catholic church we must be in the wrong building. To think that the synod would listen to the German Bishops when the church is collapsing here is scary. But I trust they are more likely to listen to bishops where the church is growing.

Bishop Vincent Nichols is also very wishy washy and liberal.

 

[dfp42]

My personal take on this is that is sounds more like desensitization to sin in general but I will not argue his point.

“The sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin. – Pope Pius XII