Bishop Lynch (St Pete) comments on gay marriage in Florida

[JimG]

Judas was a bishop too. Don’t ever forget that.

“complexities”
“pastoral challenge”
“reality of today”

Keep track of these kinds of modernist buzzwords, it’s great for realizing when the person you’re talking to or hearing from is just playing from a script. I mean this is just textbook modernism à la St. Pius X’s Pascendi, contradictions, speaking out of both sides of your mouth, implicature.

He also denies the natural law by saying “changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage”.

Yes, those sorts of buzzwords and vague phrasings can lead to confusion. The primary task of the magisterium is to hand down the faith which has been handed down to them, not to re-imagine it.

 

[AnnieHall]

Perhaps he wasn’t talking about the sexual component, but everything else that comes with a relationship? As others have mentioned gay couples are still quite capable of showing love, care and compassion to each other. Gay relationships are no more just about sex than straight marriages are only about sex.

Claiming that there is nothing good in their relationship will do nothing but drive them further from the Church. We can not claim their sexual behaviour is not sinful but lets acknowledge the good they have in their lives as well. Just as we can acknowledge the good that all of us do, despite our many sins.

Well said.

I think by welcoming a person into the Church, we should be doing just that. Welcoming the person. Not welcoming as long as they are without sin (good luck with that one!), or welcoming them as long as they sin in a way that’s easier for others to sympathize with. I grew up being taught that all are welcome, and I hope that’s still what is being taught. Making people feel unwelcome, especially if they’re trying to reach out, doesn’t seem like a Christian attitude to have.

Shutting them out of the church won’t mean that children won’t see them in other places, and won’t still have questions. Excluding children who have two dads or two moms just seems like you’re punishing the child by not giving him or her the religious education they could otherwise be receiving. I don’t see there being some great and easy answer, but when that’s the case, I tend to (try my best to!) err on the side of compassion, love, understanding, education, etc.

 

[CarolNoel]

Glad he is not our Bishop.

 

[philipl]

I am certainly glad it’s not my place to judge others and try to untangle these situations. I believe firmly in the Sacrament of Matrimony and NOTHING else. God Bless, Memaw

How can you forgive someone, for example a child that has done something wrong, if you can not judge what they did as wrong?

 

[JimG]

Well said.

I think by welcoming a person into the Church, we should be doing just that. Welcoming the person. Not welcoming as long as they are without sin (good luck with that one!), or welcoming them as long as they sin in a way that’s easier for others to sympathize with. I grew up being taught that all are welcome, and I hope that’s still what is being taught. Making people feel unwelcome, especially if they’re trying to reach out, doesn’t seem like a Christian attitude to have.

Shutting them out of the church won’t mean that children won’t see them in other places, and won’t still have questions. Excluding children who have two dads or two moms just seems like you’re punishing the child by not giving him or her the religious education they could otherwise be receiving. I don’t see there being some great and easy answer, but when that’s the case, I tend to (try my best to!) err on the side of compassion, love, understanding, education, etc.

Of course, if their children are attending a Catholic school, they will learn in catechism class that same sex marriage is contrary to the Catholic faith, and that homosexual sexual activity is morally wrong. Will their parents complain that their children are being turned against them? Will they wish the content of the catechism class to be changed? Who knows. In biology class they will also learn that it is quite impossible biologically to have two dads or two moms.

 

[Trader]

Just more and more of the slow creep towards Laodicea.

We dilute the words love, marriage, holy, sacred, etc. to the point where they simultaneously mean anything and nothing.

…and our hedonistic, relativist, blasphemous society is lapping it up as fast as they can.

Hozier - Take Me To Church
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis - Same Love

The Beatles sang, “Love is all you need.”

Saint Augustine said, “Love and do what you will.”

Did they mean the same thing by the word, “Love”? I don’t think so. If love does not change your behavior, it is not authentic. It would be like the cheating husband saying that he loves both his wife and his mistress. In reality his actions show that he loves neither.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Beatles sang, “Love is all you need.”

I think that you will need more than that.

 

[AnnieHall]

Of course, if their children are attending a Catholic school, they will learn in catechism class that same sex marriage is contrary to the Catholic faith, and that homosexual sexual activity is morally wrong. Will their parents complain that their children are being turned against them? Will they wish the content of the catechism class to be changed? Who knows. In biology class they will also learn that it is quite impossible biologically to have two dads or two moms.

These are good questions, and of course I have no idea how all of that would work.

But opening your arms to all people would also mean making single homosexuals feel welcome, as well as those in relationships who don’t have children.

 

[CatholicSheila]

There are two possibilities.

1. He doesn’t want to hurt someone’s feelings, and be considered ‘judgmental’.
2. He wants to give tacit support of something completely against Church doctrine.

There’s no point in a ‘pastoral’ response if the shepherd doesn’t even want them to acknowledge their sin.

He didn’t say they shouldn’t acknowledge their sin. He didn’t say they need to, but that isn’t the same. It’s a subtle but important difference.

Why is it necessary to bring up their sin every single time?

Do you think they don’t know the church position? Do you think there is any confusion?

There is more confusion amongst conservative/orthodox Catholics (I say that as one ) about how to treat gays than there is amongst liberal Catholics (and non-Catholics) about what the Church teaches on the morality of homosexual activity. They know the church teaches it is a sin. They might not like it and they might not agree with it, but they know the teaching.

 

[zz912]

I don’t see there being some great and easy answer, but when that’s the case, I tend to (try my best to!) err on the side of compassion, love, understanding, education, etc.

Let’s stop right there.

This type of talk is setting up some sort of dichotomy or separation of love and compassion from truth and fraternal correction, when there is no such thing.

Refusing to speak the truth because you might hurt someone’s feelings is the opposite of being loving.

 

[Tigg]

That’s precisely what I think the Pope is trying to get us to work on, though. We can no longer avoid what’s in our midst, but must respond in love so that those outside the church will come back.

Neither can the Church capitulate or compromise. Gays must approach with sincere hearts and be open to the message, not expecting to be affirmed in their own error. I sometimes wonder if this is what they anticipate with all this “welcoming” talk and amorphous language. I would hope they be able to humbly hear and accept that which can open up a new course for them .

 

[Tigg]

No, the outreach should NOT be the same. The cohabitating couple CAN have their relationship regularized by being married. The sacrament of marriage makes their sinful behavior change into holy behavior.

There is NO POSSIBILITY of this happening with a same sex couple. If we have outreach the same, we are lying to the same sex couple into believing there is a way to make their relationship “okay” in the Church.

YES!

 

[Tigg]

Judas was a bishop too. Don’t ever forget that.

“complexities”
“pastoral challenge”
“reality of today”

Keep track of these kinds of modernist buzzwords, it’s great for realizing when the person you’re talking to or hearing from is just playing from a script. I mean this is just textbook modernism à la St. Pius X’s Pascendi, contradictions, speaking out of both sides of your mouth, implicature.

He also denies the natural law by saying “changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage”.

Sophisms and casuistry instead of plain language which dispels that which is vague. Is the faith so complex we are not meant to understand it?

 

[pnewton]

I’ve seen used more and more, where the person claims fidelity to orthodoxy, but inserted into their words is a very subtle poison. Claims of orthodoxy are made, but when the rubber meets the road, the orthodoxy is gone.

Yes, it was. Marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is also part of God’s creative design. What is unorthodox about that? Shouldn’t a bishop affirm these points?

 

[pnewton]

That crass analogy isn’t going to win any hearts or minds.

No doubt. It is hard to take moral discussion seriously with such filthy language.

 

[YoungTradCath]

He’s saying that the immoral sex, if present, does not invalidate the goods that are also found within the relationship, namely the mutual caretaking and love between partners. Just because gay sex is immoral does not mean that gay relationships have no good components.

That’s true (really, it is) but isn’t that true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all well-intentioned-but-still-sins sins? I believe it is.

Any time someone genuinely has an internal disposition of good will, that is a good thing, even if what they do is gravely wrong.

But that does not change reality.

 

[pnewton]

That’s true (really, it is) but isn’t that true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all well-intentioned-but-still-sins sins? I believe it is.

It is true of other sins and I think that is exactly the point the Bishop is making. Homosexuality is not the only sin, nor is it such a singular sin that it must be treated with more contempt than all other sin combined. I think it is easier for use to talk about the sinfulness of homosexuality because we do not have any temptation (most of us) in this area. However, such discussion does us not good personally, whereas a focus on those sins which really get to us is far more profitable and much more difficult.

 

[SMGS127]

That’s true (really, it is) but isn’t that true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all well-intentioned-but-still-sins sins? I believe it is.

Any time someone genuinely has an internal disposition of good will, that is a good thing, even if what they do is gravely wrong.

But that does not change reality.

Absolutely, I agree with you.

I think what Bishop Lynch is doing is attempting to get people to stop focusing entirely on the sin though. I didn’t convert because of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality; in fact, I 100% guarantee you that I would have never converted if all I had heard about when converting was how sinful my life was. But God led me to the Church first through grace and love. Once I believed, I started focusing on the teachings and reconciling them to my life.

I have no respect for the argument that we must approach sinners with an attitude that they need to hear how horrible their sins are. Convert them first and show them the love of Christ. Let them reconcile their beliefs once their beliefs actually exist. I’ve never understood the attitude that we can force someone to believe in the Church through discussions of their sins.

 

[SMGS127]

It is true of other sins and I think that is exactly the point the Bishop is making. Homosexuality is not the only sin, nor is it such a singular sin that it must be treated with more contempt than all other sin combined. I think it is easier for use to talk about the sinfulness of homosexuality because we do not have any temptation (most of us) in this area. However, such discussion does us not good personally, whereas a focus on those sins which really get to us is far more profitable and much more difficult.

Ex-actly. Spot on, pnewton.

You see this all the time where gay people are thrown under the bus, gay groups are called by despicable names, and even morally good initiatives by the LGBT community (anti-homelessness efforts, anti-bullying efforts, even feeding the poor) are thrown out with the bathwater and trashed with vile language.

Yet complain about the morally evil actions of the Family Research Council or some fringe organizations within the Southern Baptist Church or complain about Catholics who would remotely think to associate with any of them (such as the Catholic Defense League) and you get the “no, hold on, they don’t realllllly mean it when they do X, Y, or Z horrible action. They’re one of us.”

Sorry, but I judge actions, not words or people. And someone being a Christian or not-Christian, gay or straight, active sinner or repentant sinner, whatever, does not matter to me. I will recognize (and applaud) the good they do and I will recognize (and condemn) the evil they do.

 

[PTL]

Homosexuality is not the only sin, nor is it such a singular sin that it must be treated with more contempt than all other sin combined. I think it is easier for use to talk about the sinfulness of homosexuality because we do not have any temptation (most of us) in this area.

I think the reason homosexuality is being discussed so much lately has at least two major reasons:

1. the homosexuality group yells so loud to make it a “marriage” (where in reality it is NOT) so it causes lot of attention.
2. the Synod gave ambiguous statements made people think the Church will change her doctrine.

It is not anyone wants to specially condemn the sin of homosexuality. I am sure if someone wants to make murder legal, it will cause lot of attention also. If there is ambiguity of the Church to say there is “holiness” in a murder, it will causes the same attention. In that case, murder is not a singular sin, not the only sin either.