I would suggest a good way to do this would be to have a group meeting in the Parish Hall and invite gay people. Tell them you just want to talk to them, advertise it as what you called a “sit down and talk”. See who comes. Then have a priest speak with them, and those willing to give up their lifestyle would be welcomed back into the Church. They would go to confession, give up their gay relationships, be able to receive the Holy Eucharist, attend Church etc
/…/ I would like to hear him say they are welcomed in the Church, but they must give up their lifestyle, as it goes against Church teaching
After your encounters with them, will they give up their lifestyle and live chaste lives? Will they go to confession before receiving the Holy Eucharist? Will they stop having sex with their gay partners? /…/ What do you think?
As others wrote, this is a sort of caricature of “accompanying pastorally” that makes outreach to those on the periphery more challenging frankly
It had the same presumption that our Lord is capable of bringing everyone to sufficient repentance and the embracement of holiness /…/
That the very first key is a decisive break with sin. From there, the progressive path begins
Well then let us go with the analogy between the Vademecum and you and JosieN
First, I’ve had sessions with people who wish “to ask a priest a question/ask a theologian a question.” I enjoy them. They give opportunity to do what Pope Francis and Cardinal Marx ask: encounter people who have very legitimate grievances against Christianity and enter dialogue…and
apologise for the terrible errors of the past. It’s a chance to speak with people you often don’t get listening to you from the pulpit
I had “The New Evangelisation” events that invited anyone wanting to come. I’d NEVER have an event to “invite gay people” anymore than I’d have an event to “invite people with black skin” or people of Asian descent. To say I find that utterly revolting is inadequate. I invite “people”…unqualified by some trait they possess. I encounter the person as “person.” I don’t encounter “a gay person”…I simply encounter a person
Using the analogy above with the Vademecum…let’s replace the “invite gay people” with “invite people using artificial contraception”
According to the premise offered, we invite “these people” (!), have the priest explain to them the Church’s teaching, and then say “now, if you’ll realise how wrong you have been – because you’re in error (of course that may not be the conclusion they’re anywhere near) – and change your minds and live this way, which is true because we tell you so from our Faith, and if you go to confession, we’ll welcome you with open arms and you can then receive our Eucharist.” Because “you contracepting people” are living in sin and we want you, instead, to be with us in our Church
Of course, how many people in the parish are themselves practicing artificial contraception? How many of them are engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage or otherwise struggling with the moral issue that we are going to fix in these others?
The reality is, in the external forum, as priest, I don’t see scarlet letters on the foreheads of people sitting at Mass…this one is homosexual and sexually active…this husband and wife are using birth control…this college boy has sex with his girlfriend…this lawyer is having an affair with his secretary…this doctor is embezzling money via his medical practice…this professor is beating his wife…this businessman committed fraud…this college girl just had an abortion
The response of a parish priest is a profoundly personal one in the face of the situation, the person, the need, and the available possibilities. There’s no one pastoral response for “gay people” or “contracepting people” or “abortion guilty people.” First of all: They’re people. Wounded people. I’ve dealt with people who struggle to come to the Lord and walk with Him, reached a moment where they couldn’t walk further and stopped; they knew the door was open and when ready, could came back. Some came back but unable yet to commit…so they didn’t. We walked side by side as priest and parish with them. They were welcomed, wherever they were in their journey, and they knew it
Now, they may not be in a position to receive the sacraments. It was NEVER said that the sacraments were refused…they were – delayed. Their process had to go forward. But they were loved, welcomed and part of the community. Others could receive, by counsel of the Vademecum, for example
So looking at the Vademecum, it is about pastorally accompanying married couples (I am not even speaking of the unmarried people using what is euphemistically called in English “protection”) who struggle with the Church’s teaching on this issue. A struggle that may span their reproductive years. Which is why the Vademecum admonishes confessors, in the four points I cited above, that a) the ultimate resolution lies with the grace of the Lord who is the One to lift from sin; b) prudence and reserve are to be employed by the confessor in his interventions lest he cause the one for whom he is a physician of souls to simply withdraw from the struggle all together; c) to lead, gradually, the penitent in their journey both of self-discovery and the discovery of the full implications of God, grace and the moral life; d) and realisation that growth in holiness is a life long endeavour
The paradigm of the Vademecum I apply to those who are homosexual or in unsolvable marriage situation. A pastoral journey/process of priest & a soul
Those who have the
cura animarium become quickly and profoundly aware of just how many souls he cares for live on the margin, and beyond, in terms of their moral life and trying to live the Catholic Faith
