Cardinal Nichols: synod's final document insufficiently welcoming toward homosexuals [CC]

[St_Francis]

Let’s see, maybe anything but “disordered”. Clinging to stereotypes from fifty years ago does no one a service. In my small brain I picture an overly straight person congratulating themselves because they are not disordered, except, of course I do believe that any kind of irrational prejudice is most certainly more disordered and a challenge in one’s life.

That someone’s sexual desire is with members of his or her own sex is disordered in a way that lusting after a member of the opposte sex is not. The homosexual’s desire is ordered in the wrong direction; this is why it is called disordered, because it is not ordered towards the ends of sexual activity.

This seems to he a statement of fact that homosexuals are unwilling to accept. They want us to change the words we use in order to suit them, so they can feel more confortable in their sin? Because I think chaste homosexuals accept their cross and understand the Church’s teaching on this issue.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I know an older man who married a Catholic over 50 years ago, and he still brings up the fact that he is not permitted to receive the Eucharist. Unfortunately, he is neither homosexual nor divorced and remarried: no one is looking out for the group of non-Catholics married to Catholics.

Maybe we shoukd have no restrictions on who receives the Body and Blood of our Lord? Maybe the Church should not concern Herself with the condemnation one reaps by receiving unworthily?

Did he apply to RCIA at all? I can not imagine a parish denying him if he did and sat through a few instruction classes in the faith.

From the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults

1. Since the days of the Apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey could be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements always had to be present: (1) the proclamation of the Word, (2) acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, (3) a profession of faith, (4) the Sacrament of Baptism itself, (5) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and (6) admission to Eucharistic communion. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1229)
2. This initiation of believers into the Catholic Faith has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. The entire RCIA process covered a long period of time. It included a series of “rites”, these being liturgical landmarks along the path of preparing those who were never baptized and who wished to become Catholics. The process was completed when the Sacraments of Christian initiation were celebrated. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1230)
3. The second Vatican Council’s involvement consisted of restoring within the Latin Church the “catechumenate for adults” (the several distinct steps of the entire RCIA process). The rites for these stages are to be found in the manual, the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1232)

,

 

[St_Francis]

Did he apply to RCIA at all? I can not imagine a parish denying him if he did and sat through a few instruction classes in the faith.

From the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults

1. Since the days of the Apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey could be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements always had to be present: (1) the proclamation of the Word, (2) acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, (3) a profession of faith, (4) the Sacrament of Baptism itself, (5) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and (6) admission to Eucharistic communion. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1229)
2. This initiation of believers into the Catholic Faith has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. The entire RCIA process covered a long period of time. It included a series of “rites”, these being liturgical landmarks along the path of preparing those who were never baptized and who wished to become Catholics. The process was completed when the Sacraments of Christian initiation were celebrated. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1230)
3. The second Vatican Council’s involvement consisted of restoring within the Latin Church the “catechumenate for adults” (the several distinct steps of the entire RCIA process). The rites for these stages are to be found in the manual, the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1232)

,

No, he wants to be accepted just as he is, an Anglican.

 

[estesbob]

No, he wants to be accepted just as he is, an Anglican.

So he wants to church to change her doctrines to accommodate him?

 

[St_Francis]

So he wants to church to change her doctrines to accommodate him?

He would like the Church to change sufficiently that he could receive the Eucharist without becoming Catholic, yes. He’s not theologically in lined, so I imagine he has no idea of the difference between Transubstantiation and consubstantiation and all that.

 

[estesbob]

He would like the Church to change sufficiently that he could receive the Eucharist without becoming Catholic, yes. He’s not theologically in lined, so I imagine he has no idea of the difference between Transubstantiation and consubstantiation and all that.

Their it’s an Anglican Rite that is in communion with the Church

 

[St_Francis]

Their it’s an Anglican Rite that is in communion with the Church

No, he doesn’t want to change. He just thinks the Church should not restrict him from receiving Communion, but he doesn’t want to make any changes. He doesn’t even want to go to Mass all that often; he just thinks that when he wants to go, the Church should not restrict him from receiving.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think that what the Synod was essentially trying to say was that in order for gay people to turn to god, give up their sins, and lead a different life they first have to feel welcome by the church community.

What do so many of you think is going to happen? That gay people are going to see all of these Catholics harsh, abrasive language and think “Gee, these people are so loving and great! Why not leave my partner, lead a life alone, and see if these people will treat me any better than they did when I was sinning.”

 

[estesbob]

I think that what the Synod was essentially trying to say was that in order for gay people to turn to god, give up their sins, and lead a different life they first have to feel welcome by the church community.

What do so many of you think is going to happen? That gay people are going to see all of these Catholics harsh, abrasive language and think “Gee, these people are so loving and great! Why not leave my partner, lead a life alone, and see if these people will treat me any better than they did when I was sinning.”

The only time I see strident language is when homosexuals insist the church change her teaching accommodated their lifestyle.

 

[John_Savage]

I think the next Synod should name about 40 sins and welcome people who practice them

“Do not _________ have special talents that the Church needs. We welcome you.”

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The only time I see strident language is when homosexuals insist the church change her teaching accommodated their lifestyle.

That’s hysterical. You don’t think "intrinsically disordered’, ‘sodomite’, ‘cries to heaven for vengeance’, etc qualify as “strident language”? The church singles out homosexuality as the only sin to receive such abusive language.

Even if you can come up with some sort of justification that makes it seem hunky-dory, the people that the church wants to reach out to will not buy it. Ever. Imagine what the father of a lesbian would say if you started throwing out those terms about his child.

If you want to reach out to others, you have to appeal to them, not to yourself.

Oh, and I’ve never heard a homosexual want to change church teachings. They just want to change civil law.

 

[St_Francis]

That’s hysterical. You don’t think "intrinsically disordered’, ‘sodomite’, ‘cries to heaven for vengeance’, etc qualify as “strident language”? The church singles out homosexuality as the only sin to receive such abusive language.

First, these are terms from the Bible. You are an atheist, so you don’t believe God inspired the Bible, but Catholics do.

If a homosexual wants to be Catholic, he needs to accept the Church’s teaching regarding homosexual activity.

Second, homosexual activity is not the only sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance: thee are 3 others: defrauding the worker if his wages, oppressing people (foreigners?), and murder. The other samples of harsh language you cited are too specific to homosexuality to be attributed to other sins, and the “intrinsically disordered” phrase has been fully explained, including that it refers ti the *inclination, *not the person, and that it means the act longed for does not fill the ends of the act.

Even if you can come up with some sort of justification that makes it seem hunky-dory, the people that the church wants to reach out to will not buy it. Ever. Imagine what the father of a lesbian would say if you started throwing out those terms about his child.

If you want to reach out to others, you have to appeal to them, not to yourself.

The idea that we must give in to the idea that some of the more difficult teachings of the Church should be sugar-coated is a heresy known as Americanism. We do not stop preaching the truth because it is unpopular.

Oh, and I’ve never heard a homosexual want to change church teachings. They just want to change civil law.

No? There are no homexual couples who want to be anle to receive the Eucharist? No ex-Catholic Buddhists bragging about their relationships and expecting to receive?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

First, these are terms from the Bible. You are an atheist, so you don’t believe God inspired the Bible, but Catholics do.

If a homosexual wants to be Catholic, he needs to accept the Church’s teaching regarding homosexual activity.

Second, homosexual activity is not the only sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance: thee are 3 others: defrauding the worker if his wages, oppressing people (foreigners?), and murder. The other samples of harsh language you cited are too specific to homosexuality to be attributed to other sins, and the “intrinsically disordered” phrase has been fully explained, including that it refers ti the *inclination, *not the person, and that it means the act longed for does not fill the ends of the act.

The idea that we must give in to the idea that some of the more difficult teachings of the Church should be sugar-coated is a heresy known as Americanism. We do not stop preaching the truth because it is unpopular.

No? There are no homexual couples who want to be anle to receive the Eucharist? No ex-Catholic Buddhists bragging about their relationships and expecting to receive?

Seriously, I’m not arguing with your theology. I simply don’t care to.

I’m saying that if you really want to reach out to homosexuals, you will meet them where they’re at. But so far, the church has done NOTHING, absolutely nothing, to make clear their teachings on the value and dignity of all persons, homosexual or not, to people unfamiliar with Catholic theology.

You can go on and on about it being in the bible, but when you use those words, no one is going to listen to you long enough for you to explain. That’s why the original document would have been a good thing for the church. There is not one person that doesn’t know how Catholics feel about homosexuality. But there are a lot that don’t know how they feel about homosexuals.

 

[estesbob]

That’s hysterical. You don’t think "intrinsically disordered’, ‘sodomite’, ‘cries to heaven for vengeance’, etc qualify as “strident language”? The church singles out homosexuality as the only sin to receive such abusive language.

Even if you can come up with some sort of justification that makes it seem hunky-dory, the people that the church wants to reach out to will not buy it. Ever. Imagine what the father of a lesbian would say if you started throwing out those terms about his child.

If you want to reach out to others, you have to appeal to them, not to yourself.

Oh, and I’ve never heard a homosexual want to change church teachings. They just want to change civil law.

Why would a homosexual who wanted to be in the Church want to change civil law. The idea that homosexuals are singled out by the Church is nonsense.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Why would a homosexual who wanted to be in the Church want to change civil law. The idea that homosexuals are singled out by the Church is nonsense.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. Cohabitation is so much more common than homosexuality, but what does the church talk about more? Which one is way more normalized? Realistically, is your child more likely to be a homosexual or a fornicator? The catholic church has been obsessing about homosexuality for two decades.

And again, I’m on the outside. You’re on the inside. If you want people on the outside to come inside, you need to take a step back and look at how your message sounds to them, not you. They aren’t hearing what’s on the inside until they get there. It’s extremely arrogant to say “They need to come around to my way of thinking. I’ll make my way of thinking more clear to them after they agree to it”.

No one is going to give up everything before they believe that Catholicism holds the truth. It is crazy to think that you’ll welcome them only after they do. You have to welcome them, and let them experience the love and the “fullness of truth” as you guys put it. Then their actions will change.

 

[Path_Finder]

I don’t think that’s the case at all. Cohabitation is so much more common than homosexuality, but what does the church talk about more? Which one is way more normalized? Realistically, is your child more likely to be a homosexual or a fornicator? The catholic church has been obsessing about homosexuality for two decades.

And again, I’m on the outside. You’re on the inside. If you want people on the outside to come inside, you need to take a step back and look at how your message sounds to them, not you. They aren’t hearing what’s on the inside until they get there. It’s extremely arrogant to say “They need to come around to my way of thinking. I’ll make my way of thinking more clear to them after they agree to it”.

No one is going to give up everything before they believe that Catholicism holds the truth. It is crazy to think that you’ll welcome them only after they do. You have to welcome them, and let them experience the love and the “fullness of truth” as you guys put it. Then their actions will change.

The Church should welcome homosexuals by putting out big signs outside the Church :idea: saying “Welcome Homosexuals”.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

This is a major problem because gays are NOT disordered. So many, especially, in the CC have little or no understanding or differences of the terms “disordered” and the coined term “intrinsically disordered.” Shortly after the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a disorder the terms “intrinsic disorder” and “objective disorder” gained popularity in the CC theology. Labeling a gay person disordered is derogatory at best. Even the use of “intrinsic disorder” outside of theological circles is derogatory because of the near meaninglessness and ubiquitous misunderstanding of the terms outside of those circles.

I believe Pope Francis is pushing for dignified language in welcoming homosexuals as I am sure he is aware of the harm that the present language is causing. Eventually the rest of the church will catch on.

I definitely do see the phrase intrinsically disordered used as a form of reverse dog-whistle where it means one thing but is used to convey something else to the vast majority of people. The word disordered in the Catechism has nothing to do with mental disorded.

At best it is also theologically untenable to label a gay person as disordered, it is also theologically important to note that objectively disordered only applies to a subcomponent homosexuality.

I think that what the Synod was essentially trying to say was that in order for gay people to turn to god, give up their sins, and lead a different life they first have to feel welcome by the church community.

What do so many of you think is going to happen? That gay people are going to see all of these Catholics harsh, abrasive language and think “Gee, these people are so loving and great! Why not leave my partner, lead a life alone, and see if these people will treat me any better than they did when I was sinning.”

Eve if they did so it wouldn’t get much better.

The only time I see strident language is when homosexuals insist the church change her teaching accommodated their lifestyle.

Certain phrasing makes even devout celibate Catholics feel uncomfortable especially the rants about things like “the gay lifestyle” and “the gay agenda”.

That’s hysterical. You don’t think "intrinsically disordered’, ‘sodomite’, ‘cries to heaven for vengeance’, etc qualify as “strident language”? The church singles out homosexuality as the only sin to receive such abusive language.

Even if you can come up with some sort of justification that makes it seem hunky-dory, the people that the church wants to reach out to will not buy it. Ever. Imagine what the father of a lesbian would say if you started throwing out those terms about his child.

If you want to reach out to others, you have to appeal to them, not to yourself.

Oh, and I’ve never heard a homosexual want to change church teachings. They just want to change civil law.

The problem with the term “intrinsically disordered” isn’t the phrase or meaning itself, it is how it get misused; the Church doesn’t label only gay sex as intrinsically disordered, it also labels fornication as such, the issue lies in that many Catholics focus on gay sex being labelled as such.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe we shoukd have no restrictions on who receives the Body and Blood of our Lord? Maybe the Church should not concern Herself with the condemnation one reaps by receiving unworthily?

I think the question could be an examination of what it means to be unworthy. They Church has the authority to allow communion, as it is disciplinary, and it would not contradict any doctrine to change the requirement from being free of grave sin to being free of mortal sin.

 

[pnewton]

I think that what the Synod was essentially trying to say was that in order for gay people to turn to god, give up their sins, and lead a different life they first have to feel welcome by the church community.

This was my impression, and it is consistent with the pastoral mission to us all. Dean Koontz call it a “meandering journey from sin to salvation”. I like that phrase.

 

[pnewton]

First, these are terms from the Bible. You are an atheist, so you don’t believe God inspired the Bible, but Catholics do.

I do not believe the King James Version, or any English translation, is inspired. “Sodomite” is an English word, a highly-emotional words, a highly inaccurate word, based on the idea that homosexuality is the sin for which Sodom was destroyed. As Sodom also refused to welcome foreigners, it would be equally accurate to call opposition to immigration sodomy.

I invite anyone to look up the passage in which this city was destroyed, as well as subsequent references. Sometimes the Bible doesn’t say what we think it does.

Finally, language is dynamic, not static. We poke fun at the idea of being politically correct, but the principle is sound. There have been many words used to describe people that at one time were acceptable, but over generations of misuse and misunderstanding have become words that cut more than they describe. As a basic principle, if we follow the Golden Rule, we should abstain from unnecessarily insulting people by using more vile language, when more accurate, or more charitable language exists. The Catholic Church changes language in keeping with the principle of charity. If this is something one wants to reject, I would suggest there is always Westboro Baptist Church.