Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

  • Thread starter Thread starter MBS1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
frommi said:
“intrinsically disordered” is a phrase lifted directly from several vatican produced documents about sexual orientation. And while I think it gets misintrepreted often by activists, it still feels like something that could perhaps be stated in a more pastoral way.

The risk of harm comes from the possibility of making people of different sexual orientations feel exiled from the church. That doesn’t seem fair to me, but I think this presentation can make a church that should be welcomign to all, feel decidedly unwelcoming.

In my perfect world, I’m not going to lie, I think the gifts and relationships brought by all would be recognized by the church. I do however, accept current teaching on the matter. I don’t know that will happen ever. I just think the church needs to take a posture of listening to these concerns and responding to them in a caring manner, even if the answer is no.

Dear frommi,

In post #443 you said, “I’m actually pretty happy with the church (small c?) I’m a part of currently.”

Please tell us how that church speaks of homosexuality so as not to refer to what the Catholic Church Latin Rite refers to as “intrinsically disordered,” that we might learn from those people.

Thanks for info,

Anna
 
Anna Elizabeth:
Dear frommi,

In post #443 you said, “I’m actually pretty happy with the church (small c?) I’m a part of currently.”

Please tell us how that church speaks of homosexuality so as not to refer to what the Catholic Church Latin Rite refers to as “intrinsically disordered,” that we might learn from those people.

Thanks for info,

Anna
I honestly dont understand the question
 
I just posted a poll in regards to how people feel its going in Saginaw with Bishop Carlson at this point. If you wanna vote there, great, but let me ask you, what do you think about the Diocese in the month he has been Bishop?
 
40.png
bknebel:
I just posted a poll in regards to how people feel its going in Saginaw with Bishop Carlson at this point. If you wanna vote there, great, but let me ask you, what do you think about the Diocese in the month he has been Bishop?
I am encouraged to hear that he is trying to visit all the parishes in the diocese asap. I hope he doesn’t forget us up here. I am impatient for change here so that we may return to our parish. I have to pray for patience.

I heard that the Saginaw Blessing was “eliminated” from an RCIA service. Can’t say I was disappointed to hear that.😉
 
40.png
frommi:
I honestly dont understand the question
I’m so sorry. That was pretty garbled. I’ll try once more, although now I’m so rattled between Terri’s death and the Pope’s “grave” illness that perhaps this won’t be any better! (Also, we’ve had other surprises in the Twin Cities area today.)

So: How’s this: What would you prefer that the Church say of homosexuality if not that it is an “intrinsic disorder?” Hope that question makes more sense. :gopray:

God bless,

Anna
 
Well Anna…I think that not using the word “disordered” would be a start.

How about, as with all people in the church, we just recognize the gifts brought by people of all shapes and sizes and move from there.

I think the clarion call of the church should be to reaffirm committed relationships, not to call them disordered.

I’m critical of the church’s teaching in this area, and wish it even had the appearance of thoughtful dialogue and respect.
 
40.png
frommi:
Well Anna…I think that not using the word “disordered” would be a start.

How about, as with all people in the church, we just recognize the gifts brought by people of all shapes and sizes and move from there.

I think the clarion call of the church should be to reaffirm committed relationships, not to call them disordered.

I’m critical of the church’s teaching in this area, and wish it even had the appearance of thoughtful dialogue and respect.
So where do you draw the line on committed relationships? Could 3 people be in a committed loving relationship and the church should approve it? You aren’t asking the church to change the language, you want the church to sanction and advocate a lifestyle that is has deemed to be sinful. I think disordered is a much kinder word than sinful. Most people are content to live and let live when it comes to homosexuality, but that’s not enough for the militant gay movement. It wants sanction and approval. It wants to get in your face and insist that you love and accept it. The clarion call of the church is not to dumb down the definition of sin, but to evangelize and draw people to Christ through teaching God’s Word.
 
40.png
singerlady:
So where do you draw the line on committed relationships? Could 3 people be in a committed loving relationship and the church should approve it? You aren’t asking the church to change the language, you want the church to sanction and advocate a lifestyle that is has deemed to be sinful. I think disordered is a much kinder word than sinful. Most people are content to live and let live when it comes to homosexuality, but that’s not enough for the militant gay movement. It wants sanction and approval. It wants to get in your face and insist that you love and accept it. The clarion call of the church is not to dumb down the definition of sin, but to evangelize and draw people to Christ through teaching God’s Word.
By point of clarification, in my perfect world, yes the church would sanction many things it currently does not.

If people are willing to “live and let live”…explain to me why the churches in Michigan gave so much money to a polticial campaign in support of an amendment that everyone knew was going to pass by 20 points?

It’s amazing to me how someone like Anna can ask me questions about my point of view in a simple and respectful manner, and you choose to talk in a way that treats me like a 5 year old child.
 
FromMi -

I don’t see how I am being disrespectful of you, nor how I am speaking to you as to a 5 year old child. I have not called you names, I have not spoken down to you. You just don’t like what I’m saying. In the end it is God’s Word we obey. If tomorrow the Church were to sanction the homosexual lifestyle, it would have to answer to the Holy Spirit because God has already spoken on this issue. Changing what you call something does not change the nature of what it is. I will not apologize for what I have said because I have said nothing wrong.

I’m done for now. I am accomplishing nothing here and the Pope is dying. Feh!
 
I can’t believe I’m locked in this debate…

But I always love when people say “God has spoken on the issue”…which of course makes it sound like God retired some great number of years ago and completely and totally ignores the holy spirit at work in us today. Your theology is wrong on this.

If God has spoken on this issue…why is there such a diversity of opinion on how to promote appropriate pastoral care of people ‘afflicted by this disorder’? Our Bishops can’t decide who to ban, who to give communion to, etc.

I’m not saying teaching will change, I’m not even sure that it should change. But I definitely object to a disgruntled choir marm who finds no room in the church for critical questions to be asked and put forth.
 
Folks, I think we had better let all this go for now. It so happens that my scheduled hour in our Adoration Chapel is coming up in about 20 minutes, and since the news tells me that the Pope has lost consciousness, I, for one, had best turn my conscious attention to prayers, however inadequate.

Piety has never been my “thing,” but I shall try.

May God bless all of us,

Anna
 
40.png
frommi:
But I definitely object to a disgruntled choir marm who finds no room in the church for critical questions to be asked and put forth.
I definitely object to this type of name-calling. Singerlady has a right to express her opinion without your resorting to this.
 
FromMi

I would like to point out a few things if you have the openess to hear them.

First of all to say somone has spoken on an issue doesn’t mean they have retired. I could easily say you have spoken on this issue through your post and I would not be incorrect. Sor your estimation of the statement itself is faulty. When you make the statement about God it does imply a finality because God does not change his mind. To imply a change of mind would imply that God in his perfection decided a new decision would be better than the old. This cannot be done. So when God has spoken on the issue of Homosexuality (which he has clearly through his word) then that will not change.

Those suffering from Same Sex Attraction (SSA) do suffere from a disorder. They are attracted to an object/action that is bad or sinful for them. That is where the disorder is. We all suffer from disorders of some sort or another. A man experiencing lust for a woman is a “disorder” because sating lust is sinful action.

SSA is “intrinsically disordered” because in no way can that desire ever be fulfilled in a non-sinful way. No homosexual act can ever be morally good. God has said that.

Now you need to distinguish between the act and the attraction. It isn’t a sin to be attracted to something bad for you. That is a temptation. It is a sin to act on the bad impulse toward an object/action.

Your argument about marriage is faulty as well. You argued that we should be in favor of committed relationships. Marriage isn’t just about committment. It is about how that committment is expressed as well. That committment needs to be expressed in a way open to life. If it does not then it fails to image the Trinity and thus becomes sinful. Homosexual actions are no more sinful that a married couple that contracepts and refuses to be open to God’s blessing of life.

I would suggest reading Good New about Sex and Marriage for a more thourough treatment of this.

All this being said the fact that you turn to insulting people personally instead of dealing with their argument shows you do not have an argument to stand on and thus you need to resort to the fallacy of ad hominem. It is uncharitable and you owe Singerlady an apology.

Finally if you feel “locked in” to an argument and you are turning toward attacking people in a hurtful way then I would suggest your are experiencing another disorder or temptation and you are acting on it. I would offer the advice of St. Francis of Assisi: In the face of temptation flee. If you can’t discuss in something without personal attacks it would be better for you to walk away.
40.png
frommi:
I can’t believe I’m locked in this debate…

But I always love when people say “God has spoken on the issue”…which of course makes it sound like God retired some great number of years ago and completely and totally ignores the holy spirit at work in us today. Your theology is wrong on this.

If God has spoken on this issue…why is there such a diversity of opinion on how to promote appropriate pastoral care of people ‘afflicted by this disorder’? Our Bishops can’t decide who to ban, who to give communion to, etc.

I’m not saying teaching will change, I’m not even sure that it should change. But I definitely object to a disgruntled choir marm who finds no room in the church for critical questions to be asked and put forth.
 
40.png
FatherTodd:
FromMi

I would like to point out a few things if you have the openess to hear them.

First of all to say somone has spoken on an issue doesn’t mean they have retired. I could easily say you have spoken on this issue through your post and I would not be incorrect. Sor your estimation of the statement itself is faulty. When you make the statement about God it does imply a finality because God does not change his mind. To imply a change of mind would imply that God in his perfection decided a new decision would be better than the old. This cannot be done. So when God has spoken on the issue of Homosexuality (which he has clearly through his word) then that will not change.

Those suffering from Same Sex Attraction (SSA) do suffere from a disorder. They are attracted to an object/action that is bad or sinful for them. That is where the disorder is. We all suffer from disorders of some sort or another. A man experiencing lust for a woman is a “disorder” because sating lust is sinful action.

SSA is “intrinsically disordered” because in no way can that desire ever be fulfilled in a non-sinful way. No homosexual act can ever be morally good. God has said that.

Now you need to distinguish between the act and the attraction. It isn’t a sin to be attracted to something bad for you. That is a temptation. It is a sin to act on the bad impulse toward an object/action.

Your argument about marriage is faulty as well. You argued that we should be in favor of committed relationships. Marriage isn’t just about committment. It is about how that committment is expressed as well. That committment needs to be expressed in a way open to life. If it does not then it fails to image the Trinity and thus becomes sinful. Homosexual actions are no more sinful that a married couple that contracepts and refuses to be open to God’s blessing of life.

I would suggest reading Good New about Sex and Marriage for a more thourough treatment of this.

All this being said the fact that you turn to insulting people personally instead of dealing with their argument shows you do not have an argument to stand on and thus you need to resort to the fallacy of ad hominem. It is uncharitable and you owe Singerlady an apology.

Finally if you feel “locked in” to an argument and you are turning toward attacking people in a hurtful way then I would suggest your are experiencing another disorder or temptation and you are acting on it. I would offer the advice of St. Francis of Assisi: In the face of temptation flee. If you can’t discuss in something without personal attacks it would be better for you to walk away.
A lot of what you say makes a good deal of sense, please just know that it is personally bothersome to me to witness how a lot of friends have felt treated/ostrocized by the church. I understand the church’s need to stand for truth. It is simply a difficult thing to be part of a church that can make people feel so badly about themselves. No theological argument coming from me…simply making a statement.

Now…as far as personal attacks go, it seems kind of odd to me that you would chastise me for such a thing given that within this thread you referred to the place I grew up as “calvary”, which I took as quite an insult.
 
FromMi - I can hear the pain in your posts, but you are lashing out and attacking people who have not attacked you. It was not Fr. Todd who called Saginaw a Calvary. And the one who did simply meant that Bishop Carlson was going to have a lot of hard work ahead of him.

As for ostracizing people because of their personal crosses - no that isn’t right. We are a church of sinners. Bishop Carlson in one of his first homilies that I heard stressed this point. We are all sinners. I have had students come to me in pain when they were coming to terms with their sexuality. This is the reason I don’t think orientation is a choice. These kids are really suffering and my heart breaks for them… One came to me sobbing and said “Am I supposed to be alone the rest of my life? I don’t want to go to hell.” I told him what I tell anyone who is struggling spiritually. “Just be sure that your relationship with Jesus is the highest priority in your life.” That would apply to all of us. We will never be perfect - none of us. We are all in need of God’s mercy. But the answer isn’t to tell people that sinful behavior isn’t sinful - because in the end, we have to answer to God for that. I’m sorry if what I have posted has come across to you as harsh, but I can’t and won’t lie about what I believe.

FromMi, if you are suffering from personal demons (and most of us are on this earth) I hope you find a way to come to peace with your life. I truly do. I don’t wish suffering or ostracization on anyone.
 
40.png
frommi:
I understand the church’s need to stand for truth. It is simply a difficult thing to be part of a church that can make people feel so badly about themselves.
The thing I cannot understand is how on the one hand you seem to agree that the Church should stand for Truth, yet on the other hand you criticize the truthful message that results.

The beautiful thing about truth is that it is what it is. If the truth is being expressed, I think there is only one way to express it. However, there may be innumerable ways to receive it and that is where the controversies arise.
 
40.png
frommi:
Now…as far as personal attacks go, it seems kind of odd to me that you would chastise me for such a thing given that within this thread you referred to the place I grew up as “calvary”, which I took as quite an insult.
I did say that the Bishop was going to Calvary. But Calvary is about ther person going. I would point out that I have never singled out a person and called them names or denigrated them as you did Singerlady. A personal attack is an attack on a person not a reference to a place. And in the case of Calvary that refers to what one person went through, namely Jesus Christ and ultimately it is where ever priest is called to go.

You still owe singerlady an apology.
 
:tsktsk: Frommi - been reading the history of your opinions. I must commend you on your ability to use the truth backwards; reminds me of the good old communist propaganda. If you really are only 28 years old you may not have been aquainted with its style but have stumbled on it thru just plain old stupidity. I hope you can regain your balance. Let me help you. Your praise and loyalty to the former Bishop of Saginaw, “Call me Ken”, is a symptom of your condition that is so gravely ill. Its the result of sincerity to the me, myself, I - want to make major change in the Catholic Church. The damage to the Faith has been incredible in the Saginaw Diocese as a result so I guess we have to hand it to Ken, he made a major change! How to be proud of being humble without humility in 10 easy lessons - strip the churches of reminders of the Faith - like statues of the Blessed Mother, after all she was no one special, no more than any other saint. So humble. Take the crucifixes out of the churches and lets just concentrate on the happy time and remove the stations of the cross too while we are at it. Forget the kneelers - nobody wants to suffer and besides you might feel guilty about something so lets get rid of the confessional - oooH, that was a biggy. But the BIGGEST - lets get rid of the tabernacle. We will say its to provide for a special place and it won’t be a distraction when the people come into the church. A good place is a small closet or backroom - stick a couple of chairs in there; don’t need anymore than that because nobody is going in there. Why do we want to get rid of the tabernacle? Because then there won’t be too many questions raised about why we don’t kneel for the Consecration at Mass
and the substance used for the Holy Eucharist can be bread like in the “Early” church (even if we put all kinds of stuff in it to make it palatable or sweet - everybody likes sweet). When everyone has accepted these changes - well almost everyone, but who cares about those so called faithful Catholics, they can go somewhere else because we are church and we are friendly. Okay, next we discourage ordaining new priests unless they
can fit our profile - open on married priests, women priests, gay priests, tolerant of abortion, contraception and shacking up - we are very friendly. We are so proud of being humble.
Well another good idea - we will have the people arise out of their chairs and walk up in front of the assembled to deposit their
offering and return to their seat - gives everyone a chance to get a good look at everyone’s appearance as they share. Conversation is more than okay - feel free to speak right up to your neighbor as they pass by or are seated next to you. After all, its fellowship.
So open, relaxed, friendly. By the way, what are we here for?
Oh, Sister Suzie will tell us in her homily after she puts on her
fancy imitation priest garments, reads the Gospel, and gets ready to “assist” the “retired” priest who sits amongst the people until his moment to consecrate the basket of bread and glasses of wine. She does everything so much better than he could because he is retired and she knows the people better than him anyway.
So friendly is Sister Suzie, so humble. She does all this because Ken told her she could. She’s special and so are the other ten “sisters” he placed in charge of parishes. Sacraments? Put
receiving First Eucharist ahead of First Confession because after all children don’t commit sins. Come to think of it not many of the people who are coming to this church are sinners - just drop personal Confession - do it as a group - General Absolution - once a year is enough - don’t want that guilt trip on anybody. See?? To be continued - I’m tired of the history.
 
Grotto,

Our Father in Heaven has heard our prayers and answered us. He has so graciously granted us a man, Bishop Carlson, who is in every way a blessing.

I heard Bishop Carlson explain to one parisoner the other day that “We will be following the new GRIM and apostolic letter.” and “We will be following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Please, tell us the rest of the history so that we understand and learn from the problems and illogic of the past. But also, be of good cheer because God has acted in our favor.

Time to heal,
Scapular
 
40.png
Scapular:
Grotto,

I heard Bishop Carlson explain to one parisoner the other day that “We will be following the new GRIM and apostolic letter.” and “We will be following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.”
He definitely mentioned that “We will adhere to authentic Church teaching” in an interview with the Michigan (cafeteria) Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top