Cardinal Nichols: synod's final document insufficiently welcoming toward homosexuals [CC]
- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
We value people because of the good in them, not because of their sin. If a burglar came into the Church, would we value his burgling skills? If a mentally ill person came into the Church, would we value their delusions?
If a chaste homosexual person comes into the Church, we would value his chastity but not the disordered tendency.
If a chaste homosexual person comes into the Church, we would value his chastity but not the disordered tendency.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think the problem with the inclusion of these words is that to tie them specifically to people who are homosexual would sound like they are being valued, respected and welcomed for this part of their life. The Church values, respects and welcomes all. I think some of the language was dropped because the first document said something to the effect that the sexual orientation was valued.
P
phil19034
Guest
Well said
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
So are the disabled and mentally retarded from birth (both victims of original sin) of no value since they are consumed by s sinful nature that affects most aspects of their life?
I find your post most uncharitable.
Perhaps at the door to your parish you quiz people on if they’ve masturbated or used birth control so you can call out there sin and describe them as not valuable.
While I fully agree homosexuals should be chaste, I do not seem to understand the fear of saying they are as valuable as any other sinner.
J
JimG
Guest
When members of the group ACT-UP entered into St. Patrick’s Cathedral and approached in the communion line dressed in outrageous outfits, what was their intent? To be welcomed? I wonder if this sort of thing has ever happened to the bishop in the UK.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Oh please, come on! Do you really think that’s who the cardinal is thinking about, instead of individual homosexuals seeking God?
J
JimG
Guest
I’m sure that he IS thinking about individual homosexuals seeking God. That doesn’t mean that some of the ACT-UP group might not show up expecting to be welcomed.
I
ialsop
Guest
That was not the point of his post, the point was to show that they ARE valued as much as any other sinner, which is a lot, but NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS. All the people mentioned are welcome because of their dignity, not their imperfections. Same with us. So are you insisting we must value gays BECAUSE of their sins? i think now, there are better reasons to value them.
P
phil19034
Guest
I fail to see what was uncharitable here. This is a “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin” situation.
Gay PEOPLE have value, just like other sinners. But other sinners do not introduce themselves as a sinner. People who masturbate do not publicly introduce themselves saying, “Hello, I’m John Doe and I’m a masturbator” or “Hello, I’m Jane Doe and I’m on birth control.”
Most sinners do not identify themselves by their sins. But for some reason, gay people are identifying themselves by the sin they have difficulty with. Even the chaste ones often identify themselves with their temptation.
The “divorce and remarried outside the church” and “the trial marriage” crowds are similar to the ACTIVE homosexuals, in that their sins are very much public.
Chaste homosexuals are no different than anyone else and have NEVER been part of the problem, especially if they identify themselves as simply Catholic. We all have temptations from time to time for sexual sin. That’s not an issue.
But when we give into sexual sin, we must confess and repent. But if we are doing it publicly then it’s more of an issue.
For example, a practicing homosexual (where everyone knows) is like a masturbator who goes around saying masturbation is healthy, should be done by everyone and not a sin. Guess what… that masturbator cannot receive communion either.
ANYONE who practicing sexual sin and is not repentant or doesn’t not believe they are sinning must refrain from Communion; to save their soul from further damage.
Again, we love the sinner and hate the sin.
We show them mercy by inviting them to mass, to parish/diocesan events, to adoration, to pray sessions, to Bible Study, etc. We make them feel welcome by doing these things and not looking down on them. But we CANNOT give them communion, else we are allowing them to further kill their soul.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
That’s like saying we should detest and unwelcome all environmentalists because the ELF group burned some Hummers once.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am wondering what is sufficiently welcoming towards homosexuals ?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
The problem is people are making unfair assumptions about them. They judge them and assume they live unchaste.
We could equally assume all 20 something’s are living unchaste but we don’t. We give them the benefit of the doubt.
Someone saying they are homosexual is letting you know something about themselves, about how they see the world.
I often tell people I’m divorced and identify with being a divorced person. Not because I celebrate my sin of divorce, but because it is part of my life. It explains why I have 3 kids but no wife around. It helps people know a bit of my struggle.
Equally homosexuals may say this because of how it affects their lives.
I would like to give more benefit of the doubt regarding this issue like we do for everyone else while maintaining our firm teaching on sin.
The birth control users and fornicators are allowed to self police. Why not someone who is homosexual. It’s their soul not yours. How will they ever come to understand the truth if they aren’t among us.
C
CarolNoel
Guest
Me too.
C
chero23
Guest
I second your taught
C
chero23
Guest
I understand that people are waiting to see what the Church had to teach about homosexuals. But we are not the only one’s going through this struggle. I found this article in a Catholic website, and apparently Anglicans and Lutheran Bishops were at the Synod thinking about their own Church and what this topic bring to them.
ncronline.org/news/vatican/anglican-lutheran-delegates-say-synods-concerns-are-theirs-too
I don’t think the Church has to change, nor feel overwhelmed in making everyone happy. It has to be strong yet loving. It has always done that and have faith that she will continue to do so,
ncronline.org/news/vatican/anglican-lutheran-delegates-say-synods-concerns-are-theirs-too
I don’t think the Church has to change, nor feel overwhelmed in making everyone happy. It has to be strong yet loving. It has always done that and have faith that she will continue to do so,
P
phil19034
Guest
Not true. There is a gay man who comes to daily mass every day and prays the rosary every day at Church. But he’s practicing so he does not receive. But NO ONE thinks he shouldn’t be there.
The MAIN difference is do they advertise? If a 20 something heterosexual was public with the fact that he was unchaste, then I would expect him to refrain from communion. Personally, I wish we had this problem because frankly there are not enough 20 somethings at Mass right now (or children from that matter).
why is this? I’ve never understood this. I don’t go around telling people I’m straight. I don’t go around telling people that I’ve had trouble with masturbation. I don’t go around telling people that struggled with porn. We are not defined by who we are attracted to. We are defined by the gifts we all receive from the Holy Spirit, not by our attachments to sin.
what do you identify with more? Being Catholic or being divorced? If the answer is divorced, then that’s a problem. People who are physically and mentally handicapped always talk about how they don’t want to be identified by their handicap. They don’t want to be identified by one trait, instead who they are as a person. So why do some groups want to be identified by their one trait, and not be identified as a whole person.
Being divorced is not an ongoing sin. The sin of divorce happens once for the culpable spouse(s) and then it’s over. The culpable spouse repents and that’s it. But an ACTIVE homosexual is sinning every single time he/she commits an unchaste act.
I believe we actually do. But thing is that MOST people who identify themselves as “homosexual” or “gay” who are pushing for Chruch acceptance are looking for the Church to accept homosexual ACTS and RELATIONSHIPS, not the people. We already officially accept the people. And we have programs to help them remain Chaste. But many want the Church to stop the Courage and Encourage programs and accept homosexual ACTS as un-sinful.
No, birth control users and fornicators are NOT allowed to self police. The difference is that they are not PUBLIC about it. If I was talking with the priest and parishioners about being a fornicator or using birth control, do you really think he would allow me to receive communion?
If you publicly advertise that you are committing mortal sin, the priest is going to tell you to refrain from communion. Plan and simple.
Finally, I would bet there are plenty of heterosexual people receiving communion in many parishes who were told by the priest to refrain from communion DURING CONFESSION, but they are receiving anyway (and the priest cannot stop them due to the seal of confession).
I hope this is helpful
P
PTL
Guest
You are right.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Uhm, people are saying that they are valuable because they are humans. Not because of any other factor. Their gayness adds no value to them.
People are saying that it would be bad to use language that would make it seem that we value gay people because they are gay. That would be ridiculous.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I’ve read that some have a problem with homosexuality being referred to as ‘disordered,’ for example.
- Status