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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but I am heartily sick of all this judgemental condemnation. If people see active consensual homosexuality as sinful, then that is their opinion. I do not see it as a sin, nor other private consensual acts e.g contraception etc, which provoke such outrage in this forum. The thought of watching to see who amongst the Communion line is sinful and perhaps shouldn’t be there :eek: What incredible presumption! Surely our thoughts should be prayerful and joyful, as we go to receive such special Grace.
Should we not try to be more focussed on the love, mercy and wisdom of Our Blessed Lord instead of trotting out Biblical passages to support what is at best intolerance.
 
Seraphim73 said:
My reaction? You ain’t Jesus.
Click to expand...
I think it better to say that we are not Jesus, except that collectively, we sort of are. We are parts of his body. Pharisees though are not the same as homosexuals and the two do not need identical treatment. So, as part of the body of Christ, let us stop trying to be the head and listen to the teaching that comes from this synod.
 
Emily2014 said:
Sorry, but I am heartily sick of all this judgemental condemnation. If people see active consensual homosexuality as sinful, then that is their opinion.
Click to expand...
This is actually Church doctrine, not opinion. Any change from this synod will not contradict doctrine.

Do you consider active and consensual adultery as sin? Multiple partners? Adults and children? If not, do you think we should all be permitted to act in accord with our opinion?
 
pnewton said:
This is actually Church doctrine, not opinion. Any change from this synod will not contradict doctrine.

Do you consider active and consensual adultery as sin? Multiple partners? Adults and children? If not, do you think we should all be permitted to act in accord with our opinion?
Click to expand...
Hopefully Church Doctrine will eventually be contradicted or at least modified.

I don’t see it as any business of mine to concern myself with the private, personal, loving relationships between any consenting adults. I don’t go around delving into people’s private affairs unless someone asks my opinion or advice.
God created us all and loves each one of us. The best I can do is struggle with my own many faults and trust in Him to help me. It was non-judgemental love and prayers which led me back to the Catholic Faith. This is what I can only humbly try to give to others in return.
 
Emily2014 said:
Hopefully Church Doctrine will eventually be contradicted or at least modified.

I don’t see it as any business of mine to concern myself with the private, personal, loving relationships between any consenting adults. .
Click to expand...
My goodness. Do you have any understanding of why the church teaches what it does and why it can’t conform to this secular ideology of human sexuality you have been promoting since you joined CAF?

If something is true, then it can’t change to suit the spirit of the times, even if you express it in this lovely language .
 
LittleFlower378 said:
My guess is what you are saying here is this: lets use cohabitation as an example. a person that believes and finds that cohabitation is sinful but is already living with someone goes to confession and tries his best to change his situation but for some reason can’t change it right away. This person maybe even sleeps in a different room or at a family members house until he can change his situation and possibly move out until marriage. That person should not be refused communion? If that is what you are saying that seems understandable because the person is trying his best to change his situation without putting himself in a dangerous situation to sin.
Click to expand...
I don’t think sexuality can be turned off like a switch, after many years of a normal conjugal life with a partner, even if the situation is “irregular”. The other partner may not be Catholic and may have expectations. The lesser evil may be maintaining a healthy relationship especially of kids are involved, while the Catholic partner tries to convince the non-Catholic partner to regularize the situation. IMHO, the sexual relationship in this case, while “grave matter” may have mitigated culpability due to lack of full freedom of the will. It’s up to a confessor to judge each case. We need to remember that everyone’s capacities and response to temptation are different. From the strong, much effort is expected. To the weak, much grace given.

Each case has to thus be evaluated pastorally on an individual basis, preferably with some guidelines from the Magisterium in order to ensure at least some consistency across all dioceses, parishes and confessors.

The fact that a Catholic, or a Catholic couple enters a church and says to the priest “I/we want to change our situation”, is a great thing and we need to nurture and help them progress to a regularization of their situation.

The same situation may apply to the divorced and remarried especially if the divorced partner bore no guilt in the divorce (abandonment, infidelity, abuse), and remarried a long time ago. Immediate continence may simply not be a realistic expectation, especially if an annulment process takes a very long time. Of course a streamlined annulment process could be helpful.

These are all complex issues of course. The brokenness of our society knows no bounds. The Church’s important job of evangelizing and converting all of us over to Jesus requires a loving, not punitive, approach. Again, IMHO.
 
Emily2014 said:
. It was non-judgemental love and prayers which led me back to the Catholic Faith. This is what I can only humbly try to give to others in return.
Click to expand...
Non-judgmental love is very important. I would suggest you listen to what the synod decides. Just because it says something is sinful, does not mean that we do not love these people and treat them with respect.

You say that you have enough to do struggling with your own faults. In this, you understand that you do have faults. I think I what we lack sometimes is what you have. You come from the understanding of sin as faults. We owe those that come to the Church the same dignity. If something is sinful, then we can accept that they too would want to understand what is sin and their life and want to learn to live in greater sanctity.
 
Emily2014 said:
Hopefully Church Doctrine will eventually be contradicted or at least modified.

I don’t see it as any business of mine to concern myself with the private, personal, loving relationships between any consenting adults. I don’t go around delving into people’s private affairs unless someone asks my opinion or advice.
God created us all and loves each one of us. The best I can do is struggle with my own many faults and trust in Him to help me. It was non-judgemental love and prayers which led me back to the Catholic Faith. This is what I can only humbly try to give to others in return.
Click to expand...
Which is good. We are, after all, not judged until we die at our Immediate Judgement.

But what comes into play is a presumption that scandalous behavior will be judged in one’s favor when Christ specifically condemned it.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matt 18:6 also Mark 9:42

Why should scandal be rewarded with a pleasureable event such as communion? Isn’t there also a sin of presumption here, that we can’t ignore, and committed not only by the cohabitors, etc?
 
Emily2014 said:
Hopefully Church Doctrine will eventually be contradicted or at least modified.

I don’t see it as any business of mine to concern myself with the private, personal, loving relationships between any consenting adults. I don’t go around delving into people’s private affairs unless someone asks my opinion or advice.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but this is against Church teaching. God is unchanging, so his teachings will not change ether. It is a skewed version of love that can never be made holy. Anyone that says otherwise is heretical.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
But first you have to get someone to listen. And people who are told they are “living in sin” or their sexuality is “intrinsically disordered” are not likely to listen to whatever follows. Instead they come away thinking the Church is harsh, uncaring, and unloving. Their attitude is “who needs it?” and I can’t really blame them.
Click to expand...
There are equal and opposite hazards on this front. It’s true that condemnation isn’t what attracts people to Christ. They must be attracted to the joyful message that although we all suffer from our sinfulness, we have hope of being redeemed, saved and eventually sanctified.

However, in my opinion it is equally dangerous to so “soften” the church’s public stance that the popular perception of church teaching is “I’m OK, you’re OK, we’re all just fine, just as we are.” That’s the spiritual wasteland of Kumbaya Catholicism and in the long run, that hold no appeal to ANYBODY. This is pretty much the lesson of the 1980’s approach to catechesis in the USA church. I’m a survivor of that and I will NOT go back to it.
 
manualman said:
There are equal and opposite hazards on this front. It’s true that condemnation isn’t what attracts people to Christ. They must be attracted to the joyful message that although we all suffer from our sinfulness, we have hope of being redeemed, saved and eventually sanctified.

However, in my opinion it is equally dangerous to so “soften” the church’s public stance that the popular perception of church teaching is “I’m OK, you’re OK, we’re all just fine, just as we are.” That’s the spiritual wasteland of Kumbaya Catholicism and in the long run, that hold no appeal to ANYBODY. This is pretty much the lesson of the 1980’s approach to catechesis in the USA church. I’m a survivor of that and I will NOT go back to it.
Click to expand...
Good point. I know there really are people out there who would view any softening of language as signifying that change in moral teaching is “just around the corner” if not already here.

I think the simple fact is that the hazards are unavoidable. Whatever the Church does or says will turn away someone. It seems like it’s an exercise of minimizing rather than eliminating that possibility.

One thing we know for sure, whatever happens, the media will misunderstand it and we will be called to correct and explain. 😛
 
manualman said:
However, in my opinion it is equally dangerous to so “soften” the church’s public stance that the popular perception of church teaching is “I’m OK, you’re OK, we’re all just fine, just as we are.” That’s the spiritual wasteland of Kumbaya Catholicism and in the long run, that hold no appeal to ANYBODY. This is pretty much the lesson of the 1980’s approach to catechesis in the USA church. I’m a survivor of that and I will NOT go back to it.
Click to expand...
It’s like the Catholic version of once saved always saved protestants. Jesus loves you and as long as you believe in Him no matter what you do you are saved!
 
OraLabora said:
I don’t think sexuality can be turned off like a switch, after many years of a normal conjugal life with a partner, even if the situation is “irregular”. The other partner may not be Catholic and may have expectations. The lesser evil may be maintaining a healthy relationship especially of kids are involved, while the Catholic partner tries to convince the non-Catholic partner to regularize the situation. IMHO, the sexual relationship in this case, while “grave matter” may have mitigated culpability due to lack of full freedom of the will. It’s up to a confessor to judge each case. We need to remember that everyone’s capacities and response to temptation are different. From the strong, much effort is expected. To the weak, much grace given.

Each case has to thus be evaluated pastorally on an individual basis, preferably with some guidelines from the Magisterium in order to ensure at least some consistency across all dioceses, parishes and confessors.

The fact that a Catholic, or a Catholic couple enters a church and says to the priest “I/we want to change our situation”, is a great thing and we need to nurture and help them progress to a regularization of their situation.

The same situation may apply to the divorced and remarried especially if the divorced partner bore no guilt in the divorce (abandonment, infidelity, abuse), and remarried a long time ago. Immediate continence may simply not be a realistic expectation, especially if an annulment process takes a very long time. Of course a streamlined annulment process could be helpful.

These are all complex issues of course. The brokenness of our society knows no bounds. The Church’s important job of evangelizing and converting all of us over to Jesus requires a loving, not punitive, approach. Again, IMHO.
Click to expand...
You have some good points but some of this still doesnt make sense.
Immediate continence should be expected. For a divorced person to have relations would be a sin regardless. We may still fall into temptation and sin and go back to confession. The terminology you are using is saying its ok to commit sin, even though there may not be much culpability and its a venial sin. We should abhor all sin. I know this is not what you mean but the explanation given is not balanced.
 
Emily2014 said:
Sorry, but I am heartily sick of all this judgemental condemnation. If people see active consensual homosexuality as sinful, then that is their opinion. I do not see it as a sin, nor other private consensual acts e.g contraception etc, which provoke such outrage in this forum. The thought of watching to see who amongst the Communion line is sinful and perhaps shouldn’t be there :eek: What incredible presumption! Surely our thoughts should be prayerful and joyful, as we go to receive such special Grace.
Should we not try to be more focussed on the love, mercy and wisdom of Our Blessed Lord instead of trotting out Biblical passages to support what is at best intolerance.
Click to expand...
I recently read this on a blog and I embrace it: “The love of God is not a tolerant love. It is much better. It is a redemptive love.” Those who do not admonish the sinner as the Church instructs us to do, (classified as a spiritual work of mercy, btw) will have much to answer for, especially those instructed to do that very thing.
 
Tigg said:
I recently read this on a blog and I embrace it: "The love of God is not a tolerant love. It is much better. It is a redemptive love." Those who do not admonish the sinner as the Church instructs us to do, (classified as a spiritual work of mercy, btw) will have much to answer for, especially those instructed to do that very thing.
Click to expand...
I really like that bolded quote there. I’m going to have to “borrow” it. 🙂 Do you remember what blog you saw it on?
 
Joe_5859 said:
I really like that bolded quote there. I’m going to have to “borrow” it. 🙂 Do you remember what blog you saw it on?
Click to expand...
No, I’m sorry. And I just deleted my history. Feel free to steal it though! 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top