N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
A distinction between desire and attraction might be important here…
Archbishop Under Fire for Church Teaching on Homosexuality Supported by Catholic Parents
- Status
B
bones_IV
Guest
Thank you Neil.
G
goofyjim
Guest
I’ve had enough of these threads. Same sex attraction is beyond one’s control. It is not a sin unless one commits lust in the heart or actually commits a sexual act. If you guys cannot understand that I don’t wish to discuss it any further until I meet you in heaven, which my faith still tells me I will arrive there, SSA and all.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I’m sorry Jim. I think there is a distinction between desiring to sin and being inclined towards sin and being attracted to the same sex. Sometimes I’m able to limit my attraction to the opposite sex to just an attraction, other times it becomes a desire. I think that in heaven we won’t have inclinations to sin.
M
Moneo
Guest
No, the Church teaches that one must be free of mortal sin and of attachment to all sin, even venial sin, in order to enter Heaven directly upon death.
The inclination towards sin is called concupiscence, and it remains with us until the day we die. It is one of the effects of Original Sin in our nature. Its pull on us is weakened by God’s grace, penance and sacrifice, and by the repeated practice of virtue.
The only human being apart from Our Lord who was free of all inclination towards sin was Our Lady who, being immaculately conceived, did not suffer from concupiscence.
T
The_Rock
Guest
I am certainly not an expert in these maters but wouldn’t God rid us of concupiscence as well before we enter heaven? I can’t imagine the inclination towards sin remaining with us when we are in Heaven…
T
The_Rock
Guest
But doesn’t the Chuch teach that SSA is objectively disordered and opposite sex attraction is not? I believe it is because the “object” of attraction i.e. a person of the same sex (hence the phrase “objectively” disordered) makes the attraction contrary to the order which God Himself has established. I think some try to make the case that there is nothing disordered about the attraction. Certainly there is nothing disorded about a husband being attracted to his wife. But it is disordered to be attracted to the same sex. They are not the same. That being said, I have nothing but admiration for those who courageously struggle against SSA.
B
bones_IV
Guest
From looking at most of your posts regarding this issue. You to act very sensitively towards threads that deal with homosexuality. Plus you tend to lean more towards the gay agenda. Just an observation.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Then you haven’t examined my position correctly. I am opposed to both the gay agenda and the extreme right wing that says one cannot even be SSA without harboring evil. One has to tread the middle ground somewhere.
W
Walt_Oliver
Guest
The topic of this thread is: Archbishop Under Fire for Church Teaching on Homosexuality Supported by Catholic Parents.
Please return to discussing the topic and not each other. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please return to discussing the topic and not each other. Thank you for your cooperation.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
This is the paragraph that upset everyone (not out of character for Nienstedt) in the Archdiocese.
What this infers is that any show of compassion is a “mortal sin”. That unless same-gender preference people stay deep in the closet they are not worthy of the Archbishop.
The trend in reading his writings is a sad lack of compassion and strict interpretation of the rules. It is black and white with humanity taken out of it.
There is a place for open acceptance of same-gender preference people. Gender preference does not effect their entire character (for same or different gender preference people).
Also this comes on the heels of the sex abuse scandle and is seen as hypotricial and a diversion to those problems which still dog the Hierarchy. Sufficient forgiveness has not been seen on the level of the regular person in the pew. Acceptance of others has always been a strong suit of the Archdiocese of St Paul/Mpls and surrounding Dioceses in the state (Winona, New Ulm, Duluth, St Cloud, Crookston).
thecatholicspirit.com/main.asp?SectionID=14&SubSectionID=14&ArticleID=1079&TM=69714.52
What this infers is that any show of compassion is a “mortal sin”. That unless same-gender preference people stay deep in the closet they are not worthy of the Archbishop.
The trend in reading his writings is a sad lack of compassion and strict interpretation of the rules. It is black and white with humanity taken out of it.
There is a place for open acceptance of same-gender preference people. Gender preference does not effect their entire character (for same or different gender preference people).Also this comes on the heels of the sex abuse scandle and is seen as hypotricial and a diversion to those problems which still dog the Hierarchy. Sufficient forgiveness has not been seen on the level of the regular person in the pew. Acceptance of others has always been a strong suit of the Archdiocese of St Paul/Mpls and surrounding Dioceses in the state (Winona, New Ulm, Duluth, St Cloud, Crookston).
T
The_Rock
Guest
So are you are saying that it would be show of compassion to encourage people to sin? The Archbishop did not say showing compassion was a sin. Reread his comments . You can not infer what you stated. I believe this Archbishop will be a great one considering the flack he is taking for stating clearly what the Church teaches. It reminds me of the quote by St Theresa of Avila…“If this is how you treat your friends Lord no wonder you have so few”. May God reward him greatly!This is the paragraph that upset everyone (not out of character for Nienstedt) in the Archdiocese.
thecatholicspirit.com/main.asp?SectionID=14&SubSectionID=14&ArticleID=1079&TM=69714.52
What this infers is that any show of compassion is a “mortal sin”. That unless same-gender preference people stay deep in the closet they are not worthy of the Archbishop.
The trend in reading his writings is a sad lack of compassion and strict interpretation of the rules. It is black and white with humanity taken out of it.
Also this comes on the heels of the sex abuse scandle and is seen as hypotricial and a diversion to those problems which still dog the Hierarchy. Sufficient forgiveness has not been seen on the level of the regular person in the pew. Acceptance of others has always been a strong suit of the Archdiocese of St Paul/Mpls and surrounding Dioceses in the state (Winona, New Ulm, Duluth, St Cloud, Crookston).
M
Moneo
Guest
The archbishop’s statement most certainly does not “infer” that any show of compassion is mortal sin. You are projecting something onto the statement that is not there. The statement very clearly says:
Just what do you understand by “homosexual acts or activity”? Homosexual acts and activity are not friendships, they are sexual acts. The statement does not say that one cannot be friends with a homosexual nor be compassionate towards them, it says that you cannot encourage or promote sexual activity or acceptance of the “gay” lifestyle, and that if you do so knowingly and willingly you are guilty of mortal sin.
If it must be spelled out, then let’s spell it out: if you are friends with someone who is attracted to people of the same gender, but that person understands and accepts the Church’s teaching about sexual activity betwen individuals of the same gender as being sinful and chooses to live a chaste lifestyle according said teachings, NO PROBLEM.
You can listen compassionately when they are suffering and speak of the difficulty of their struggle; you must support and encourage them by affirming their choice of chastity, and you can help them enormously by getting them involved in other activities and helping them to develop healthy and fulfilling relationships with people who are not likely to become their sexual partners. All of that, in fact, is what charity demands of you in such a situation. That is being a genuine friend, i.e., one who is concerned about the spiritual AND emotional welfare of his/her friend.
If, on the other hand, you have a friend who is attracted to people of the same gender but who rejects the Church’s teaching about the sinful nature of sexual relationships between individuals of the same gender as being sinful and chooses to live that lifestyle, PROBLEM.
Because you are called in evey circumstance to give witness to the Truth, you would have to make it perfectly clear that you know sexual activity between people of the same gender to be sinful and offensive to God. Your friend will not like this, certainly. He or she may attack or ridicule you and the Faith. They will certainly be offended and they will probably end their friendship with you. You have to pray for them and love them, but if they are determined to carry on with their “lifestyle”, you will probably have to let them go. If your friend is willing to carry on the friendship with you knowing how you feel, well, that’s not automatically a problem, but it is a very difficult road to negotiate without enormous amounts of prayer and discernment on your part.
Because what you cannot do is sit there and be silent while someone with this disorder talks about their “boyfriend”, “girlfriend”, “lover”, “mate”, “partner”, “companion”, or whatever the term du jour is and indulge them in their fantasy that this is somehow natural, healthy and acceptable. Silence, in the words of St. Thomas More in the film A Man For All Seasons, implies consent.
So when they phone you up all bubbly and bouncy because they’ve met someone and they are in love, you’re going to have to respond. And you cannot approve. If they’re having problems in their “relationship” and they want to go out for coffee with you and get it off their chest, you can’t sit there and pat their hand and try to help them work it out, because they shouldn’t be in that kind of a relationship with someone of the same gender in the first place. And when you get that “wedding” invite, you’re going to have to say NO. Because your presence at the ceremony, once again, would imply consent, and when we consent or approve or in any way participate in the mortal sins of others, we share the guilt for those sins.
That is what the archbishop is talking about.
A
agangbern
Guest
I agree with Moneo, and fully support the campaign of the good Archbishop if there is a way to do so.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Then I resign myself to a state of mortal sin here. I am not about to get all preachy to those outside the Church and will befriend anyone no matter what lifestyle they practice.
M
MrS
Guest
I think that is best. However, if you are going to “befriend”, then be a friend and tell them the truth.
I think this is the only thread I have viewed multiple times and re-read posts, and come back to so often, before commenting.
In summary… God will bless the Archbishop.
M
Moneo
Guest
You need to do both. The subjectivist environment in which we live which denies that there are any absolute or objective moral truths, all personal choices are presumed to be valid. No one will presume that you are adhering to an objective moral law with real spiritual consequences unless you say it. They’ll just put it down to your “personal choice”, perhaps presume that you are a “self-loathing homosexual” and get on with their immoral and destructive behaviour.
Jesus did not spend time with prositutes and tax collectors and keep silent about the sinfulness of their behaviour, nor did He indulge their narcissistic fantasies or confirm them in their sin. HE CALLED THEM TO CONVERSION. Every single prostitute, adulteress or tax collector cited in the Gospels was moved to conversion by Christ, and yes, he certainly preached to them as well.
In this the good bishop is imitating Christ far more closely by refusing to apply the social (not the Gospel) standard of “accepting you just the way you are.” God doesn’t accept us the way we are, he calls us to conversion.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
To many (and myself), this is not a “sin”. I view this a greater scapegoating (sad as that is) to deflect from the sex scandals of the past and present.
Same-gender preference is not a defining personal characteristic. What the Archbishop is doing is a divide and conquer as he later on unfairly relates this to Alochohics.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
Part of the discussion is what is defined as a “sin” in this case. Gender preference for sexual relations is not a defining personal characteristic. They are who they are and should not be looked as lesser people as this statement infers. Same-gender relationships are not just some fling to be taken lightly, there is a true connection there that is no different than different-gender relationships. What is “truth” in this case is not uniformly defined in the Church and human respect is being lost in statements like these.
- Status