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

[Sy_Noe]

And yes, describing homosexuality to gays and lesbians as “unnatural” is the same as describing it as “intrinsically disordered” – and both have inflammatory and ugly connotations, no matter what you mean denotatively.

Writers must always concern themselves with what is commonly referred to as audience awareness – know how to speak to different groups of readers or risk failure. It seems reasonable for the Church to consider the same concern.

Well said.

 

[Sy_Noe]

And yes, describing homosexuality to gays and lesbians as “unnatural” is the same as describing it as “intrinsically disordered” – and both have inflammatory and ugly connotations, no matter what you mean denotatively.

Writers must always concern themselves with what is commonly referred to as audience awareness – know how to speak to different groups of readers or risk failure. It seems reasonable for the Church to consider the same concern.

Well said.

 

[OraLabora]

It seems to me to basically be an acknowledgement that some actions – even though objectively wrong – are at least indicative that the person is coming along. So, while we cannot condone the act, we can use it as a springboard to talk about moving towards Christ in a positive way rather than using it as an opportunity to condemn them outright with no other qualifications.

There’s certainly plenty of pitfalls to be avoided surrounding such ideas, but it seems like a topic worth developing further.

I think it’s more than that. I think “graduality” recognizes that conversion, true inner conversion, is not a “yes!” moment, but a long process of peeling the onion to find the truth within. The “yes!” moment is actually a beginning. I believe it recognizes that we have to meet people where they are, get them into the Church, and allow their faith flourish and mature, and not expect them to be perfect before we allow them in.

In practical terms I think it could mean, using the example of irregular marriages or unconventional family arrangements, that the sacraments not be denied to people taking concrete steps to regularize their situation but that rather they be allowed to work at a pace they can manage and do their best as they mature in their faith. Such a philosophy could, IMHO, be supported in the confessional and with pastoral/spiritual direction. It would recognize that the graces coming from the sacraments are often what’s needed to give the faithful the strength to move to the next rung up the ladder, and that cutting them off from those graces may instead do irreparable harm and move them away from Christian perfection.

I’m no theologian of course, so this may just all be blather on my part. But I do see parallels with the concept of conversatio morum in monastic life where perfection in monastic life is not something attained at monastic profession, but is worked at for an entire lifetime with the help of counsel from the community’s elders, the abbot, and the monk’s confessor.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I respond by pointing out that Our Lord seems to have reserved this kind of harshness for those who prided themselves on not being sinners and upholding the Law (while in reality they were sinners, just not openly), on not having anything to do with sinners and so on. They placed additional burdens on people, rather than lead them to God.

Ironically, the harshest language in our time seems to be reserved for those to whom Our Lord was gentle, while it is close to taboo in conservative circles to bring up the above. Times certainly don’t change.

You give a good response and make an excellent point.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think it’s more than that. I think “graduality” recognizes that conversion, true inner conversion, is not a “yes!” moment, but a long process of peeling the onion to find the truth within. The “yes!” moment is actually a beginning. I believe it recognizes that we have to meet people where they are, get them into the Church, and allow their faith flourish and mature, and not expect them to be perfect before we allow them in.

In practical terms I think it could mean, using the example of irregular marriages or unconventional family arrangements, that the sacraments not be denied to people taking concrete steps to regularize their situation but that rather they be allowed to work at a pace they can manage and do their best as they mature in their faith. Such a philosophy could, IMHO, be supported in the confessional and with pastoral/spiritual direction. It would recognize that the graces coming from the sacraments are often what’s needed to give the faithful the strength to move to the next rung up the ladder, and that cutting them off from those graces may instead do irreparable harm and move them away from Christian perfection.

I’m no theologian of course, so this may just all be blather on my part. But I do see parallels with the concept of conversatio morum in monastic life where perfection in monastic life is not something attained at monastic profession, but is worked at for an entire lifetime with the help of counsel from the community’s elders, the abbot, and the monk’s confessor.

Well put!

 

[Eternal_One]

I respond by pointing out that Our Lord seems to have reserved this kind of harshness for those who prided themselves on not being sinners and upholding the Law (while in reality they were sinners, just not openly), on not having anything to do with sinners and so on. They placed additional burdens on people, rather than lead them to God.

He reserved the harshest words for them because they would not admit they were sinners. And also because they would not show mercy and forgiveness on people, even the ones who asked and begged. That is why Jesus was upset with them.

Like how the Pharisees would not admit to their sin, we see that among people who are gay and proud of it, for example. They will not admit that their actions are sinful. They try to rationalize and justify their sin. I believe these are the people Jesus would have the harshest words with.

Btw, make no mistake. That is just one example. Jesus would have the harshest words with any sinner who will not admit to their sin, whether they be thieves, fornicators, liars, adulterers, murderers, and so on.

 

[McCall1981]

I respond by pointing out that Our Lord seems to have reserved this kind of harshness for those who prided themselves on not being sinners and upholding the Law (while in reality they were sinners, just not openly), on not having anything to do with sinners and so on. They placed additional burdens on people, rather than lead them to God.

Ironically, the harshest language in our time seems to be reserved for those to whom Our Lord was gentle, while it is close to taboo in conservative circles to bring up the above. Times certainly don’t change.

I completely agree that Jesus reserved His “harshness” particularly for those people who prided themselves on not being sinners, in other words, for sinners who did not consider themselves sinners.

But this idea that was presented about using softer language would seem to include, and be intended to placate, those people that do not think they are sinning. For instance, say there is a person with struggling with homosexual tendencies in accordance with Church teaching, and another person with homosexual tendencies that embraces that lifestyle and advocates for it. The actions of the two people might be exactly the same, the difference is that one of them accepts that they are sinning in this particular way, the other prides themself precisely on their belief that they are not sinning.

If we made all of the language “soft” we would not be making any distinction between the two. Like Jesus, we should be very gentle with people who make mistakes and fall into sin (as we all do).

But as you said, Jesus was harsh with people who denied that they were sinners. If we make the language describing sin “soft”, then where is that part of the equation? Where is the harshness for those that pride themselves on not being sinners?

I think you and Provobis may have missed the point I was trying to make. It might help if you think of it in terms of the degree and frequency that we humans can come across as harsh. Compared to how often our Lord was. And besides CCC teaches Jesus was without sin. And he walked on water too. None of us are Jesus. Let the one without sin cast the first stone. So I hope that helps you understand better the point I was making. If not, I can’t explain it any better. God bless!

The degree/frequency thing is exactly what I’m pointing out. Jesus was only harsh “some of the time”, or “only occasionally” or “rarely” or whatever you want to call it, but the point is that a certain percentage of the time Jesus was harsh. Thus is order for us to imitate him, we would have to be harsh a certain percentage of the time.

In other words, if we are going to imitate the the instances when Jesus was gentle and merciful (which we should), it is just as incumbent upon us to imitate the times when He was harsh. We can’t say we are going to imitate certain parts of His behavior and ignore others.

 

[ProVobis]

I can understand that point. Softening language can make it more difficult for people to recognize something is wrong. That said, I think there is a difference between the idioms of a local culture and the language that the Catholic Church chooses to use. And, to my knowledge, the Church never used the term “shacking up”.

Precisely. And what are we discussing, the use of some English words that somehow became offensive over time to a few people? Maybe the Church, when it finds time, can go through several hundred other vernaculars and weed out such words that might make sinning sound bad to anyone.

My understanding is that Christ died for our sins and if we feel we haven’t sinned, then Christianity is of no value to us.

 

[Rin]

McCall, Eternal:

Your arguments border on sophistry, since actively gay people do not deny being actively gay. They may not agree that gay sex is sinful, but they are not trying to cover up their actions. Similarly, it is quite possible that the tax collectors had convinced themselves that their activity was not sinful (public servants have always been skilled at this kind of rationalization, after all), until they met Our Lord. Yet, the Pharisees, for all their admonition of sinners, did not move them to repentance. Being met by the Son of God did.

The Pharisees, however, were described as “whited sepulchres” because they presented themselves as free of sin, while still sinning privately. A more fitting comparison would be to those who worked in ex-gay ministries, while covertly having gay sex. That, I agree, would earn the wrath of Our Lord.

 

[Tigg]

Harsh language?? I’ve always thought that calling a spade a spade leaves little room for future misunderstanding and aids in better communication. Of course the direct approach has always been one I’ve appreciated because I appreciate reality.

I hope the synod realizes the 1,000+ ways secular society has already incrementally taken to de-sensitize us toward all manner of sin. Perhaps modification of language would not be best after all.

 

[FollowChrist34]

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands.

Love,
Jesus Christ

Mark 9:43

 

[McCall1981]

McCall, Eternal:

Your arguments border on sophistry, since actively gay people do not deny being actively gay. They may not agree that gay sex is sinful, but they are not trying to cover up their actions. Similarly, it is quite possible that the tax collectors had convinced themselves that their activity was not sinful (public servants have always been skilled at this kind of rationalization, after all), until they met Our Lord. Yet, the Pharisees, for all their admonition of sinners, did not move them to repentance. Being met by the Son of God did.

The Pharisees, however, were described as “whited sepulchres” because they presented themselves as free of sin, while still sinning privately. A more fitting comparison would be to those who worked in ex-gay ministries, while covertly having gay sex. That, I agree, would earn the wrath of Our Lord.

It doesn’t matter whether a person tries to “cover up” their sin one way or the other, some do, some don’t. The issue is the denial that they are a sinner, the denial that their sin is a sin.

You’re making it all hinge on whether the person is a hypocrite or not. Hypocrisy is bad (obviously), but the issue is the denial of the sin.

 

[Rin]

Precisely. And what are we discussing, the use of some English words that somehow became offensive over time to a few people? Maybe the Church, when it finds time, can go through several hundred other vernaculars and weed out such words that might make sinning sound bad to anyone.

I think it is at least part of what we are discussing.

I actually believe that bishops’ conferences should go through their translations from time to time and consider whether the wording now conveys what it conveyed when it was originally chosen.

And for this exact reason, I find it immensely important that Latin remains in use for doctrinal documents, liturgy and so on, exactly because of this problem. To go back to the “disordered” problem, the Latin is not in my opinion offensive. It simply says “wrongly directed”. This is tautological - since the Church teaches that sexuality is directed towards reproduction and unification of man and woman in Holy Matrimony, then obviously gay sex is not directed towards this.

Most actively gay people (except those who agree with Catholic doctrine, but have problems living by it) would of course disagree with this teleology, but it is hardly offensive to say that gay sex is directed towards something else. However, I can well understand why many find the English translation of it offensive, since it is too easily misunderstood.

My understanding is that Christ died for our sins and if we feel we haven’t sinned, then Christianity is of no value to us.

While I heavily dislike the alcoholism comparisons, this is similar to saying that detox has no value if an alcoholic does not feel he or she has a problem. Of course it has. Additionally, the way to get the alcoholic to agree to detox is rarely to harshly confront the person - if it helps, it is an exception. Generally, it is a long process where much charity is needed.

Further, the biggest disaster of detox politics was when institutions got the idea that patients must be sober to be admitted. I can see some useful parallels here, but it should still be noted that I dislike them; for example, gay people are not generally sex addicted.

 

[Rin]

It doesn’t matter whether a person tries to “cover up” their sin one way or the other, some do, some don’t. The issue is the denial that they are a sinner, the denial that their sin is a sin.

You’re making it all hinge on whether the person is a hypocrite or not. Hypocrisy is bad (obviously), but the issue is the denial of the sin.

Hypocricy was the major sin of the Pharisees. It is also what drew the ire of Our Lord.

But we seem to read the Gospels very differently on this, and since I doubt neither of our understandings are normative and binding on Catholics, I will drop this here. I find the “gay people are the modern Pharisees” idea (this is hardly the first time I’ve seen it expressed) absurd, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[McCall1981]

Hypocricy was the major sin of the Pharisees. It is also what drew the ire of Our Lord.

But we seem to read the Gospels very differently on this, and since I doubt neither of our understandings are normative and binding on Catholics, I will drop this here. I find the “gay people are the modern Pharisees” idea (this is hardly the first time I’ve seen it expressed) absurd, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Oh come on, you know I’m not saying “gay people are modern Pharisees”.

Anyone that denies that they are a sinner is a modern Pharisee, regardless of what the sin is.

And ok, I will agree to agree to disagree

 

[FollowChrist34]

Anyone that denies that they are a sinner is a modern Pharisee, regardless of what the sin is.

Exactly. It is true of a lot of us in our darker moments. I think all people are a mixture of good and evil, right? Evil inclinations include pride, hypocrisy, hating one’s enemies, lust, could go on and on. I do think the sins of the “conservatives” frankly get called out a LOT more than those of their “progressive” brothers and sisters, for whom we are typically directed to stand in a constant, unwavering state of “forgiving mercy.”

 

[Rin]

Oh come on, you know I’m not saying “gay people are modern Pharisees”.

Anyone that denies that they are a sinner is a modern Pharisee, regardless of what the sin is.

And ok, I will agree to agree to disagree

I probably misunderstood you then - my apologies.

However, to clarify, we disagree on whether actively gay people deny they’re sinners. I have yet to meet anyone who does that. They may disagree on one specific moral teaching, but that hardly means they do not admit to being sinners.

Admonishing the sinner rarely works in the form of A: “This action of yours is a sin.” B: “Oh, okay.” followed by a swift visit to the confessional. Of course there will be some initial, and possibly long-lasting, resistance. Especially when it’s about something that feels so integral to a person as sexual attraction.

I think two elements are essential in the sin of the Pharisees; hypocricy and facade. Some of the most honest, least hypocritical people I’ve met are gay - we just have an honest disagreement on sexual morals.

As for interpretation of Scripture, yes, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on so on

 

[FollowChrist34]

I probably misunderstood you then - my apologies.

However, to clarify, we disagree on whether actively gay people deny they’re sinners. I have yet to meet anyone who does that. They may disagree on one specific moral teaching, but that hardly means they do not admit to being sinners.

Admonishing the sinner rarely works in the form of A: “This action of yours is a sin.” B: “Oh, okay.” followed by a swift visit to the confessional. Of course there will be some initial, and possibly long-lasting, resistance. Especially when it’s about something that feels so integral to a person as sexual attraction.

I think two elements are essential in the sin of the Pharisees; hypocricy and facade. Some of the most honest, least hypocritical people I’ve met are gay - we just have an honest disagreement on sexual morals.

As for interpretation of Scripture, yes, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on so on

Well, your experiences with the gay community are very different from mine. I can think of one or two among many gays who would admit to being sinners. Most would accuse me of hate and bigotry if I went so far as to mention it (which I don’t). And remember, sin in a brother or sister that you are aware of and that you don’t call out can stand against you as well. You are very adept at calling out Pharisees. How about equal opportunity?

 

[Ridgerunner]

He reserved the harshest words for them because they would not admit they were sinners. And also because they would not show mercy and forgiveness on people, even the ones who asked and begged. That is why Jesus was upset with them.

Like how the Pharisees would not admit to their sin, we see that among people who are gay and proud of it, for example. They will not admit that their actions are sinful. They try to rationalize and justify their sin. I believe these are the people Jesus would have the harshest words with.

Btw, make no mistake. That is just one example. Jesus would have the harshest words with any sinner who will not admit to their sin, whether they be thieves, fornicators, liars, adulterers, murderers, and so on.

Like a lot of things, this concern with eliminating “harsh language” strikes me as perhaps misdirected, evidencing a problem of an entirely different kind.

I recall someone (I think maybe it was Kenneth Clark) talking about the morals of times past, particularly the Renaissance. He said that, by comparison, moderns “Neither sin well nor repent well.” By that, he meant that our caviling with the nature of our acts causes us to deny or excuse sinfulness to which we are all subject, and also causes us to repent lightly, if at all.

Interesting how different people can be about it. I recall what a comfort and a “righting of the mental boat” it was when, as a kid, I would be punished without hesitation or let, but then be told “…but you can be a good boy starting now”. That was the announcement that I was purged of my fault. It was over.

Does anyone really achieve comfort and moral sanity better by denying they did anything wrong, or by softening it with nuance? I doubt they do. Better to just call it what it is, admit it and repent. Then it’s over.

 

[McCall1981]

I probably misunderstood you then - my apologies.

However, to clarify, we disagree on whether actively gay people deny they’re sinners. I have yet to meet anyone who does that. They may disagree on one specific moral teaching, but that hardly means they do not admit to being sinners.

Admonishing the sinner rarely works in the form of A: “This action of yours is a sin.” B: “Oh, okay.” followed by a swift visit to the confessional. Of course there will be some initial, and possibly long-lasting, resistance. Especially when it’s about something that feels so integral to a person as sexual attraction.

I think two elements are essential in the sin of the Pharisees; hypocricy and facade. Some of the most honest, least hypocritical people I’ve met are gay - we just have an honest disagreement on sexual morals.

As for interpretation of Scripture, yes, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on so on

I’m not saying an actively gay person would deny that they are a sinner as an overall human being.

I’m saying (in this particular example) that they would deny that they are a sinner in regards to their active homosexuality being a sin. The same would go for any other sin that any other person commits.

The problem is in committing an action that is a sin, while believing/advocating that the action is not a sin.

As far a hypocrisy, I don’t believe that it is the one sin that is somehow singled out as deserving harshness, while all other sins deserve leniency.