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

[Rin]

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?

I think perhaps we mean different things by “admit to being sinners” - I do not necessarily mean they admit to gay sex being a sin. But the people I know who are gay for sure admit to being sinners (or in the case of those who are not religious, at the very least they admit doing things that are wrong or that hurt others); it is not as if all conscience suddenly disappears because they disagree with Catholicism on one moral teaching.

I know some who would accuse me of bigotry if I explained my view on sexual acts, and some who wouldn’t; disagreement on morals isn’t always as controversial as people seem to think. The issue is with how it is presented; is it because they want to know my opinion, or because I have a compulsive need to tell them? Do I limit myself to Catholic teaching, and only Catholic teaching, or do I add in un-Catholic claims like “you’re going to hell” or “you must have had a dysfunctional family”? Most end up surprised that I can actually disagree with them morally, while still respect them and not think less of them as human beings.

The problem with the very common fear among Americans (I’m serious here - I never meet this attitude even among very conservative Catholics in my own country) of “not calling out sin”, or even more commonly, “giving them the impression I condone their actions”, is that calling out sin the wrong way may well stand in the way of charity, and drive them away. I think that will be held against us on the final day of Judgement too. Given some of the parables about that day, I truly fear alienating people from Christ more than I fear being too “lenient”.

As for Pharisees, it is not really my intention to call anyone out. I have no idea about people’s private lives, as I unlike Our Lord am not omniscient. Therefore, I cannot know whether someone is a hypocrite. I do however warn against falling into such a pattern, especially when people mention Our Lord being harsh, since the Pharisees (and those who made the Temple into a marketplace) were the target of His ire. It is the sin I fear the most, and one I will readily admit I have committed, and probably will commit again.

Not sure what you mean about equal opportunity, but if you mean the calling out of Pharisaism vs. the calling out of other sins, my point is simply that there is a difference between how Our Lord called out the Pharisees, and everyone else. Of course we are not Him, but on this, I think His example is well worth following - perhaps more in the sense of “should I be this harsh now?” than in the sense of looking for Pharisees. I believe most conservatives to be honest, well-meaning people who truly care for souls. I believe most liberals to be the same. Consequently, I do not believe either group to be by default Pharisaic, but I believe both to be misguided.

 

[Rin]

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.

The sin of the Pharisees was at least to a great extent hypocrisy combined with harsh condemnation, even shunning, of other sinners, effectively making themselves look good.

I think what you miss is that in many cases, the denial of gay sex being a sin does not necessarily stem from ill will or from intentional rejection of Christ, but from honestly not being able to wrap their heads around why their expression of love to another person is supposed to be sinful. Were it not for finding the teleological elements of Catholic teaching on sexual morals convincing, I would probably not be able to wrap my head around it myself. And sadly, few people today, even among Catholics, have even a basic understanding of teleology. Because of this, I see such denial as often being inculpable, as opposed to that of the Pharisees.

 

[McCall1981]

The way I see it, at any given point in time, the Church is strong on calling out certain sins, and weak on calling out other certain sins.

For example. in the Middle Ages, the Church was strong on calling out things like pre-marital sex, divorce, homosexuality, etc.

Conversely, at that time the Church was weak on calling out things like economic inequality, slavery, human rights, rights of women, etc. The Church was pretty complicit in perpetuating these kinds of things. The reason why is because these particular sins were the sins of elites of the day. The aristocracy was totally bound up in these sins, so the Church became wishy-washy in letting them slide.

Today, the Church is very strong in calling out sins like economic inequality, slavery, human rights, etc (and that is great).

But, today the Church is very weak in calling out sins like contraception, abortion, homosexuality etc. The reason, again, is because these are the primary sins of our cultural elite, and for that reason the Church will be wishy-washy and let these slide.

The problem I see is that if the Church adopts “softer” language, it will obviously only be for sins like contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Does anyone think for one moment the Church is going to “soften” it’s language on topics like immigrants, inequality, women’s rights, slavery? Of course not. The softening will only come on the language for our culture’s “pet sins”.

So this debate about softening language is basically just a big notice to the world that A, B, and C are the particular sins we’re not going call out anymore.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

In the whole scheme of things I might call it rarely but I think I’m just going to leave it between Jesus and conservatives and for Him to make the final determination as to how well conservatives are imitating Him in their frequency and degree of harshness. I only know I can’t walk on water. Peace.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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

Yes I have found that agreeing to disagree is often the only/best option.

 

[Emily2014]

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!

You explained it with wisdom and sensitivity.
We are all far too judgemental. Jesus led through Love. You rightly said that none of us are Jesus, neither can we walk on water - so we had better work harder at loving one another.
God bless you

 

[Joe_5859]

John Allen comments on the idea of “graduality”:

The synod’s key twist: The sudden return of gradualism

Allen made reference to that same quote from Pope Benedict that I did back in post #8. I did it first, though!

 

[McCall1981]

John Allen comments on the idea of “graduality”:

The synod’s key twist: The sudden return of gradualism

Allen made reference to that same quote from Pope Benedict that I did back in post #8. I did it first, though!

This is interesting.

Yesterday, two statements regarding graduality had me slightly encouraged. These were Card Nichols quoting JPII saying “the law of graduality does not entail a graduality of the law”, and Card Marx saying he thinks the law of graduality should “also” be applied to the sacraments (to me, this implied that is had not been implied to sacraments in the meeting).

Really not sure what to think now

 

[Sy_Noe]

You explained it with wisdom and sensitivity.
We are all far too judgemental. Jesus led through Love. You rightly said that none of us are Jesus, neither can we walk on water - so we had better work harder at loving one another.
God bless you

Thank you Emily for your kindness. Your words here and example serve as a good reminder for us all I believe. God bless you too.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Speaking of gradualism:I love the Bishops, they know best and I trust in the Church. But at a time (atleast in America) where people are confused by the secular media, not attending mass, lack of catechisis, etc. etc. why not just go with the straight forward approach of a sin is a sin? While gradualism is trying to be more understanding and kinder, if someone does not fully understand it, they (along with the media and enemies of the Church) are only going to get more confused and think the Church is changing doctrine. This inturn could be scandelous. Another problem is no one has the time now days to sit and read about this, except what they see on TV in their spare time, and people are not always watching EWTN! As long as we go to the right place and with the gifts we have of the TV and internet we can be catechised rather easily, yet how many people would rather read or watch the secular news than all of the noble cathoic media!

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I agree with you there. Almost as soon as the Mass was translated, the PC crowd went bonkers and got them to remove “men” from the consecration among other things. Of course they didn’t stop there.

 

[OraLabora]

why not just go with the straight forward approach of a sin is a sin?

That’s exactly what the Church has been doing but look where that’s gotten us.

The problem is that unless you give people help to break away from their sins, just giving us a list of sins is of precious little help.

A very fit person can easily cross a busy street, but does the fit person not also have the duty to help an elderly or infirm person across?

The spiritually strong must therefore lend a hand to the spiritually weak, the newcomers, the broken reverts, etc. One walks in baby steps before one learns to run. That’s what the gradualist approach really means, let’s help people get away from their sins in a step-by-step manner.

Nobody is suggesting that the Church can no longer define what grave sin is. The Eucharist is supposed to convey grace to us, to help us on our journey, but we sometimes deny access to the Eucharist to the very people that need it most. Medicine for the soul, not a prize for the perfect as the Holy Father says.

 

[Emily2014]

The Eucharist is supposed to convey grace to us, to help us on our journey, but we sometimes deny access to the Eucharist to the very people that need it most. Medicine for the soul, not a prize for the perfect as the Holy Father says.

Very wise, loving words.
God bless you

 

[dfp42]

That’s exactly what the Church has been doing but look where that’s gotten us.

The problem is that unless you give people help to break away from their sins, just giving us a list of sins is of precious little help.

A very fit person can easily cross a busy street, but does the fit person not also have the duty to help an elderly or infirm person across?

The spiritually strong must therefore lend a hand to the spiritually weak, the newcomers, the broken reverts, etc. One walks in baby steps before one learns to run. That’s what the gradualist approach really means, let’s help people get away from their sins in a step-by-step manner.

Nobody is suggesting that the Church can no longer define what grave sin is. The Eucharist is supposed to convey grace to us, to help us on our journey, but we sometimes deny access to the Eucharist to the very people that need it most. Medicine for the soul, not a prize for the perfect as the Holy Father says.

I don’t understand how any of this is a new revelation in 2014. Shouldn’t this have been the case since the beginning then? I find it hard to think that only now we realize that we weren’t doing things correctly.

 

[LittleFlower378]

That’s exactly what the Church has been doing but look where that’s gotten us.

The problem is that unless you give people help to break away from their sins, just giving us a list of sins is of precious little help.

A very fit person can easily cross a busy street, but does the fit person not also have the duty to help an elderly or infirm person across?

The spiritually strong must therefore lend a hand to the spiritually weak, the newcomers, the broken reverts, etc. One walks in baby steps before one learns to run. That’s what the gradualist approach really means, let’s help people get away from their sins in a step-by-step manner.

Nobody is suggesting that the Church can no longer define what grave sin is. The Eucharist is supposed to convey grace to us, to help us on our journey, but we sometimes deny access to the Eucharist to the very people that need it most. Medicine for the soul, not a prize for the perfect as the Holy Father says.

Who are we denying access to the Eucharist? My own personal view is that alot of us are ‘gradually’ trying to do better. We are all sinners and need Gods grace and we need to help ourselves to avoid sin. But sin is sin regardless, and if I or anyone else commit a sin we should repent and go to confession. That to me is the best remedy…confession. I dont know too much about Gradualist approach. With all do respect the bishops in Germany seem to like it but from what I heard they have really low attendance. From my own experience the people who are staying away from Church is not because of the Catholics that are boldly professing the faith to them, but because they have an individualistic mindset that they are right and the Church is wrong. They do not want to submit their will to the Church. After all it is not easy road. All in all I pray for the synod and the Bishops.

 

[OraLabora]

Who are we denying access to the Eucharist?

Well, for starters, the divorced and remarried, cohabiting couples, gay couples, couples using contraception. At least nominally, we expect them to refrain from the Eucharist because they’re in an objective state of grave sin, though those that do turn up in the communion line don’t seem to get turned away but many have been ostracized from their parishes.

I agree it’s an objective state of sin. But every case is different, and culpability may be mitigated in many instances to make the culpability somewhat lesser (grave matter, full knowledge and full assent of the will being the three conditions for culpability to be mortal). These need to be assessed case-by-case, and these folks encouraged with the help of their confessors, to regularize their situations. That’s all that the gradual approach means as far as I can gather. It means “let’s be realistic here, there are good reasons why someone may not be in a position to regularize their situation immediately”. It doesn’t mean a license to sin indiscriminately and forever.

 

[johnnyc176]

Nobody is suggesting that the Church can no longer define what grave sin is. The Eucharist is supposed to convey grace to us, to help us on our journey, but we sometimes deny access to the Eucharist to the very people that need it most. Medicine for the soul, not a prize for the perfect as the Holy Father says.

Okay I’m a little confused here. Some of this is from the book Catholicism. Sacrament means oath. When we say Amen to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity we are saying Amen to the teachings of the Church. I thought Communion was the final fruit of unity with the Church. Only those in communion should receive the Eucharist and mortal sin means we are not in communion. And of course what about St. Paul’s admonition?

 

[LittleFlower378]

This is confusing. I hope the synod stresses there are no changes in doctrine. Wait untill I have family members who are already in opposition to Church teaching saying the Church is getting lax on there teachings and they can do what they want. We are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, for starters, the divorced and remarried, cohabiting couples, gay couples, couples using contraception. At least nominally, we expect them to refrain from the Eucharist because they’re in an objective state of grave sin, though those that do turn up in the communion line don’t seem to get turned away but many have been ostracized from their parishes.

I agree it’s an objective state of sin. But every case is different, and culpability may be mitigated in many instances to make the culpability somewhat lesser (grave matter, full knowledge and full assent of the will being the three conditions for culpability to be mortal). These need to be assessed case-by-case, and these folks encouraged with the help of their confessors, to regularize their situations. That’s all that the gradual approach means as far as I can gather. It means “let’s be realistic here, there are good reasons why someone may not be in a position to regularize their situation immediately”. It doesn’t mean a license to sin indiscriminately and forever.

It does seem like we’re agreement on confession. And we know the Pope is big on that.

 

[johnnyc176]

That’s exactly what the Church has been doing but look where that’s gotten us.

The problem is that unless you give people help to break away from their sins, just giving us a list of sins is of precious little help.

.

You blame the Church when it is society that does not see sin as sin. Jesus called sin a sin.

Jesus and His Church, the Catholic Church are One and the Same.