Building a Bridge Between the Church and the LBGT Community

[friardchips]

Christ did not mince words in His discourse on the Eucharist in John 6. Many of His followers were alienated and left Him because of His words, and He did not chase after them.

I do believe that we should go out and preach, as Christ commissioned us to do, and that we should accept as brothers *all *who respond, but I think that watering down Christ’s teaching to bring people in the door has already been condemned in Pope Leo’s Testem benevolentiae.

Grace converts, IOW. Also, in Scripture, when people didn’t accept peace offered, the apostles were told to shake the dust off and walk on! Not wait around, placating everyone for the sake of numbers. Conversion is, first of all, a very personal experience. It becomes something to share, after the initial conversion. If we were able to coerce people into changing their ways, then it would be like patting ourselves on the back. Only God can be glorified, and so often, the work of the saints would go seemingly unrewarded in this life; unless they were really so humble that they could immediately pass the glory to God for the conversion of a soul (and rightly so), would probably not get to know about the conversion (I think another poster has made this exact point).

God would accept a person, of course, even if that person says “no” first time, but this doesn’t mean changing definitions from logical to illogical, when someone does not accept the Good News.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Pretending that everyone is on equal footing is just that…pretending.

I don’t see any pretense in being kind to people.

Edited to add, I find it absolutely hysterical that you have a Chesterton quote in your sig, and you’re here trying to sell the “compassion and inclusion are always good things” fallacy. Maybe it’s time to go back and read “Orthodoxy” and “Heretics”.

I find it sad that you would make rude remarks about someone’s quote and viewpoint because you disagree with them. I will pray for you.

 

[exnihilo]

My concern is that bridge building often means covering up Catholic teaching. The bridge analogy doesn’t really work for me. We are not connecting two peoples firmly rooted on land. The LGBT lifestyle is like being lost at sea. What we need to build is a lifeboat to rescue these folks.

For a sin to be “mortal” requires grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will. A member of the LGBGQT community that is not and has never been Catholic can not even remotely have “full knowledge”. Full knowledge does not only require knowing that this is what the Church teaches, he or she has to understand why. In other words, that person needs catechesis. How one is to catechize a non-Catholic from one’s high mountain remains a mystery to me.

Is having been Catholic and well catechized necessary? St. Paul in his letter to the Romans makes clear God has revealed himself through nature. He suggests we know some degree of right and wrong just by nature. He says this regarding sexual sin, particularly homosexuality.

I don’t think I have to know why the Church teaches something is gravely wrong for it to be a mortal sin. With our limited intellects it is unlikely we could ever ultimately completely understand the reason for anything. We are like children who follow each explanation with a further question as to why.

The idea we must understand and agree with something in order for it to be true seems to me entirely modern. It makes us into God where the rules are only the rules if we say so. Contrast this with the Blessed Virgin who says ‘let it be done to me according to thy word’. I don’t think she understood everything and yet she followed.

 

[1neophyte]

I don’t see any pretense in being kind to people.

I find it sad that you would make rude remarks about someone’s quote and viewpoint because you disagree with them. I will pray for you.

“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.” - the incredibly rude G.K. Chesterton

Please pray for his soul instead, because his rude and unkind remarks have far more influence than mine.

 

[commenter]

So how do we get them to want to choose Jesus?

First, by ourselves choosing Jesus. Next, by ourselves, choosing to love them, as persons.
Like for all of us, some of their lives are not based on choices. They did not choose to be homosexual. But some of their actions **are **based on choices.

They might choose to be part of a group or “community” that rejects the Catholic Faith on sexuality; keep in mind most of those groups have publicly opposed the Catholic Faith on
other things as well. This social or political participation encourages other individuals to also oppose Christianity. These choices have hurtful - sinful - consequences.

I readily accept that other sins, including mine, may be greater than the sexual or social evils engaged in by gay persons. But the most dangerous sins at any given time are those which are not currently recognized as sins. I can’t judge the other individual whose actions I disagree with, whether it be homosexual actions or smoking. They as persons may holier or healthier than me. But I **can **judge the actions themselves, that no one is holier **because **they continue promoting “gay rights”, just as no one is healthier **because **they continue smoking.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why does the church need to build a bridge to a “community”
They aren’t a government, or another faith, or anything really except people who identify themselves by thier sexuality which cannot be brought onto the faith.
Instead of trying to dialogue with a “community” or movement with no “head” or governing body, the Church should focus on individuals, not this phony community…

 

[commenter]

Why does the church need to build a bridge to a “community”
They aren’t a government, or another faith, or anything really except people who identify themselves by thier sexuality which cannot be brought onto the faith.
Instead of trying to dialogue with a “community” or movement with no “head” or governing body, the Church should focus on individuals, not this phony community…

The only “bridge” the Church should rely on are programs such as Courage, and enCourage. They offer mutual support to Christians who are struggling with the issue of SSA, and their families. They offer a kind of “community” but only in a limited sense - those individuals receive most of their pastoral care, and most of their lay participation, as part of parishes - eventually.

They are totally consistent with the Catholic Faith. They are different in that sense from other religious groups, including those that claim to be Catholic.

 

[polki]

So how do we get them to want to choose Jesus?

By teaching the Truth.

 

[commenter]

For a sin to be “mortal” requires grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will. A member of the LGBGQT community that is not and has never been Catholic can not even remotely have “full knowledge”. Full knowledge does not only require knowing that this is what the Church teaches, he or she has to understand why. In other words, that person needs catechesis. How one is to catechize a non-Catholic from one’s high mountain remains a mystery to me.

The Church is not a resort for the righteous but a hospital for sick souls. All of our souls are sick since the Original Sin. If we are to close the door to the hospital, how can we ever hope to put the LGBQT on the path of God and righteousness?

Of course they should repent. But they need to know why they should do so, and to know that, they need to be evangelized and catechized. It’s a long journey started by throwing open the doors to the Church and making them just as welcome in the pew as the next sinner, be it a tax cheat, a thief, a philanderer, an alcoholic, a porn addict, a masturbator or whatever, in other words, as welcome as all of us who are sinners.

Actually many members of the “community” **were **raised Catholic, though in recent years many got ambiguous or content-less catechesis here, and in other denominations. I’m not blaming them for this, but recognizing the Church still has a responsibility to provide information - and other supports.

Whether they commit mortal or venial sin is not for us to judge. Some very good people may have belonged to the KKK in the late 1800s, because of their personal situation. That said, nobody benefitted from **remaining **in the KKK. Some very good people continued to smoke in the 1960s, with the impression it was harmless, or even beneficial. No one blames them, but other people could and did give them accurate information. Some individuals acted on that information, to their benefit. The fact that some got faulty “catechesis” about smoking in the 1950s did not make it harmless to continue smoking now.

A “hospital” only is effective for those who recognize a need for some sort of change (not change in orientation, change in behavior). The Church may have to, for now, reach out to John as part of that “community” as one way of reaching the individual. But in the long run John, like all of us, will convert or not convert as an individual, not a community, whether the “community” by the Gay Rights organization, the Communist Party, whatever.

You can only go to Confession as an individual, not as a “community”. But I realize the Church sometimes has to try to reach people in a questionable community, for the time being. Pope JP II reached out to Communists, for instance, because that is where they were. Pope Benedict tried to reach out to very, very secular academic communities. But it was likely not his hope that they remain in the secular communities permanently.

 

[commenter]

Sorry to belabor the point, just saying the analogy - that the Church is a hospital - is valid in some contexts, very incomplete in others.

Suppose there is an alcoholic who shows up at church, kind of smelly, a little loud and out of place. The last thing you want is someone to tell him “Go home, come back when you are clean, and are in a good and stable mood, preferably 3 months sobriety”. No, the Church reaches people - loves people - where they are, right now.

An alcoholic may be in denial for awhile about their own degree of difficulty, but most alcoholics recognize that active alcoholism is a bad state to remain in. 60 years ago, someone who was currently engaged in same sex activity probably would also know that was wrong; not wrong because it was illegal, but morally wrong. They needed the Church, as the hospital.

Today gay individuals likely are in denial of the reality that same sex activity is wrong, a denial reinforced by “the gay community”. Thus they need the Church as the school, or they won’t benefit from the Church as the hospital. The secularists want the Church to function **only **as the hospital, knowing that in the long run it would be an **empty **hospital. The Church needs to be both.

 

[Peter_J]

The bishop who commented in the OP is the Bishop in charge of CA if I’m not mistaken.

If you mean Catholic Answers then you are definitely mistaken. It is a lay organization founded and headed by Karl Keating, and he is not a bishop.

 

[StudentMI]

The only “bridge” the Church should rely on are programs such as Courage, and enCourage. They offer mutual support to Christians who are struggling with the issue of SSA, and their families. They offer a kind of “community” but only in a limited sense - those individuals receive most of their pastoral care, and most of their lay participation, as part of parishes - eventually.

They are totally consistent with the Catholic Faith. They are different in that sense from other religious groups, including those that claim to be Catholic.

Again trumpeting Courage from a non-member as if it the only option available to homosexual Catholics. I was a member. It didn’t help. It was actually depressing.

 

[St_Francis]

Again trumpeting Courage from a non-member as if it the only option available to homosexual Catholics. I was a member. It didn’t help. It was actually depressing.

Could it be that the different groups of Courage have different atmospheres? Or was it something about Courage inherently that bothered you?

Just wondering…

 

[Peter_J]

Again trumpeting Courage from a non-member as if it the only option available to homosexual Catholics.

Yes, this seems to be a recurring theme on CAF. Which is really sad because I know readers who see things on CAF and assume that they are “the Catholic position” etc.

 

[Meagan34]

The only “bridge” the Church should rely on are programs such as Courage, and enCourage. They offer mutual support to Christians who are struggling with the issue of SSA, and their families. They offer a kind of “community” but only in a limited sense - those individuals receive most of their pastoral care, and most of their lay participation, as part of parishes - eventually.

They are totally consistent with the Catholic Faith. They are different in that sense from other religious groups, including those that claim to be Catholic.

I feel like the only thing the Church can offer is more of a one-way street, rather than a “bridge”. A bridge, at least to me, implies compromise between two parties. The Catholic church will not budge on their requirements of what they expect of the members. Unless people who are gay are 100% okay with those rules, there"s no real “bridge” between the two communities.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Fr Martin is speaking all over the country, and people - both straight and LGBTQ - are coming to speak with him about building bridges. I don’t know numbers, but I see news clips and I read his postings, and I know there are many who want to talk about this honestly and with respect.

I also know that there are parishes in my part of the world that are open and welcoming to LGBTQ members and their spouses and in some cases, their children. I’ve said it before, but it really is the new norm in many congregations.

Fr Martin is striking a chord that is resonating with thousands of Catholics. I don’t think it’s going away. I’m not sure what you all will do with the reality of your brothers and sisters in Christ, standing with you in the pews. There is a lot of reconciliation needed. I’m glad Fr Martin has named it and brought it out of the closet.

 

[Brendan]

So how do we get them to want to choose Jesus?

We certainly cannot use false pretenses to do so. We must be clear from the beginning, on both the necessity of Christ for salvation, and what kind of life Christ is calling them to.

Which is why I have little trust in New Ways Ministries, and trust more in programs like Courage to lead the way.

 

[Peter_J]

So how do we get them to want to choose Jesus?

This may be anathema to many of the more hardcore CAF participants, but I would say we can’t. Not because they are LGBT but simply because I don’t believe we can get anyone to want to choose Jesus. (Hence why our ancestors did things like burning “obstinate heretics” at the stake.) But we can provide them with the opportunity to do so.

 

[OraLabora]

This may be anathema to many of the more hardcore CAF participants, but I would say we can’t. Not because they are LGBT but simply because I don’t believe we can get anyone to want to choose Jesus. (Hence why our ancestors did things like burning “obstinate heretics” at the stake.) But we can provide them with the opportunity to do so.

Let me rephrase my question then: how do we get them to know Jesus?

 

[OraLabora]

We certainly cannot use false pretenses to do so. We must be clear from the beginning, on both the necessity of Christ for salvation, and what kind of life Christ is calling them to.

Which is why I have little trust in New Ways Ministries, and trust more in programs like Courage to lead the way.

I have trust in neither. Personally encountering Christ, i think, is the first step. In my reversion many years ago, i got to know Him through Scripture, and wanted to deepen my communion. That led me to the Catholic Church of my youth, which was the only route that reconciled with the Scripture i read.

The second step for me, was a Church with a wide open door in spite of my irregular marriage situation. With grace I was able to correct that situation though it took years to get my non-Catholic wife on board.

Last came oblation and with that, spiritual direction. I’m wary of one-size-fits all approaches like Courage, or in my case Marriage Encounter.

One gay man I know said that spriritual direction was what he found most helpful. Spiritual direction is what helped me through a trying time in my marriage, not Marriage Encounter which I hated.

Spiritual direction is also, I think, where it is possible to gently train one’s self to reconfigure one’s life to Christ. Monks know that sanctity is a life-long battle. To paraphrase my former confessor, God is realistic, and knows we’ll never be perfect. But He does expect sincere effort.

Some may find support in Courage, for others as the poster above, it did more harm than help.

We need to teach the truth, yes, but we need to meet people where they are and adapt our teaching methods to their individual personalities and circumstances.