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

[pnewton]

Let me ask something. Has anyone here every converted a person from homosexuality while calling him a sodomite? Since the mission of the Church is evangelization, this is the type of question that some are also asking about terms like 'disordered."

 

[adrift]

Let me ask something. Has anyone here every converted a person from homosexuality while calling him a sodomite? Since the mission of the Church is evangelization, this is the type of question that some are also asking about terms like 'disordered."

You probably could not get an answer to this anymore than you could answer that has anyone been converted by saying what you are doing is fine.

You can neither say that a person was converted or not.

I guess you could use John the Baptist as an example. He was cold hearted, and uncharitable to Harod for chastising him for his sin. Shame on John, as his tactics only got him killed and didn’t convert him.

 

[TEPO]

It’s very simple. A homosexual who identifies his sin with pride in it, is not the same as a homosexual who openly and publicly identifies his sin as an honest form of repentance to help draw others to the truth.

…so there is value in Catholics with SSA publicly identifying with their sin. What more is there to talk about…?

 

[Jerurussia]

Cardinal Nichols: WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST. “Family” isn’t a sacrament; “marriage” is, the bond of two un-same things united as one. Respectfully, prelates need to concern themselves with sacramental vigor and canonical rigor. Prelates should not prioritize sanitizing human relations cobbled up by the world, the flesh and the devil.

Remember that Jesus wasn’t pro-family, He was anti-family and pro-marriage. Jesus says, “Go home to mama” to those who don’t hear and obey, even inviting spiritual eunuchs to minister to His betrothed Church. Marriage is the first and last sacrament when Christ returns for His Bride, the Church.

Worrying about the richest demographic, the sexual loose canons whether homosexual, heterosexual, pansexual, trans-sexual, i.e., humans with no appropriate chastity or duties or marital ties and no children from their contracepted, aborted or sterile unions, is a major misfire. This policy doesn’t look like pastors in search of lost sheep, it looks to my jaded eye like soliciting invitations for a free cruise awash in mojitos.

My diagnosis is a “love of money” issue, the crippling faith in cash that has stymied the post-conciliar Church that alienated donors. This has led to dropping true ministries to the poor and uneducated and a flight to funding, farming rich demographics like ants on honey. This is pandering to the rich. How’s that? Good analysis, don’t you think?

 

[pnewton]

You probably could not get an answer to this anymore than you could answer that has anyone been converted by saying what you are doing is fine.

You can neither say that a person was converted or not.

Then why not simply listen to what the Church says, accepting in our humility that we do not know better that the Church?

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Nichols: WOMEN & CHILDREN LAST. “Family” isn’t a sacrament; “marriage” is, the bond of two un-same things united as one. .

Cardinal Nichols never said these things. This is slander and you are wrong about what he said.

 

[Path_Finder]

Do you disagree that language is dynamic and changes? Do you still use the “n” word, or do you accept that this word too has become nothing but a slur.

I don’t think we should assume a forum brother or sister ever used such a pejorative.

 

[LongingSoul]

Let me ask something. Has anyone here every converted a person from homosexuality while calling him a sodomite? Since the mission of the Church is evangelization, this is the type of question that some are also asking about terms like 'disordered."

Actually todays Gospel (Monday), demonstrates how attitudes towards ailments and conditions has changed with time and growth in our understanding of the human condition.

The woman in the Gospel had been bent over crippled for 18 years. She was considered possessed by a spirit… bound by Satan. People then were considered to have deserved their disability and were treated with judgement, condemnation and exclusion.

Jesus healed her on the Sabbath and that incensed the Synogogue leaders who considered healing not a work for the Sabbath. Jesus calls them hypocrits and reminds them that even they lead their animals out for water on the Sabbath.

Today we know that the tendency of homosexuality while not fully understood is something that ‘constitutes a trial’ for most people. I think we are being asked by Pope Francis consider that fact with compassion and allow them to approach for ‘healing’ without the rigidity or judgement that we’ve been accustomed to.

Luke 13:10-17 Jesus was teaching in a synagogue on the sabbath.
And a woman was there who for eighteen years
had been crippled by a spirit;
she was bent over, completely incapable of standing erect.
When Jesus saw her, he called to her and said,
“Woman, you are set free of your infirmity.”
He laid his hands on her,
and she at once stood up straight and glorified God.
But the leader of the synagogue,
indignant that Jesus had cured on the sabbath,
said to the crowd in reply,
“There are six days when work should be done.
Come on those days to be cured, not on the sabbath day.”
The Lord said to him in reply, “Hypocrites!
Does not each one of you on the sabbath
untie his ox or his *** from the manger
and lead it out for watering?
This daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now,
ought she not to have been set free on the sabbath day
from this bondage?”
When he said this, all his adversaries were humiliated;
and the whole crowd rejoiced at all the splendid deeds done by him.

 

[Path_Finder]

Actually todays Gospel (Monday), demonstrates how attitudes towards ailments and conditions has changed with time and growth in our understanding of the human condition.

The woman in the Gospel had been bent over crippled for 18 years. She was considered possessed by a spirit… bound by Satan. People then were considered to have deserved their disability and were treated with judgement, condemnation and exclusion.

Jesus healed her on the Sabbath and that incensed the Synogogue leaders who considered healing not a work for the Sabbath. Jesus calls them hypocrits and reminds them that even they lead their animals out for water on the Sabbath.

Today we know that the tendency of homosexuality while not fully understood is something that ‘constitutes a trial’ for most people. I think we are being asked by Pope Francis consider that fact with compassion and allow them to approach for ‘healing’ without the rigidity or judgement that we’ve been accustomed to.

Luke 13:10-17 Jesus was teaching in a synagogue on the sabbath.
And a woman was there who for eighteen years
had been crippled by a spirit;
she was bent over, completely incapable of standing erect.
When Jesus saw her, he called to her and said,
“Woman, you are set free of your infirmity.”
He laid his hands on her,
and she at once stood up straight and glorified God.
But the leader of the synagogue,
indignant that Jesus had cured on the sabbath,
said to the crowd in reply,
“There are six days when work should be done.
Come on those days to be cured, not on the sabbath day.”
The Lord said to him in reply, “Hypocrites!
Does not each one of you on the sabbath
untie his ox or his *** from the manger
and lead it out for watering?
This daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now,
ought she not to have been set free on the sabbath day
from this bondage?”
When he said this, all his adversaries were humiliated;
and the whole crowd rejoiced at all the splendid deeds done by him.

There is no problem calling people adulterers, liars, robbers, thieves, those words have not changed but now, we deal with this issue in political correctness? I’m not so sure about that.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think we should assume a forum brother or sister ever used such a pejorative.

I did not. I asked a question so assumption would not be needed. I never thought I would see a Catholic here use the word “sodomite”! I do not think any Bible translation has used it for a couple of centuries.

 

[pnewton]

There is no problem calling people adulterers, liars, robbers, thieves, those words have not changed but now, we deal with this issue in political correctness? I’m not so sure about that.

By “we” the Catholic Church as a whole needs to be included. I understand the idea of political correctness is really distasteful because of extreme cases where political correctness is seen as too extreme. What I do not understand is the objection to simply following the lead of the Church in just being kind to others. St. Paul wrote:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

We can say something in a way that others will be open to us, as we stand as witness to the above fruits. We can same the same thing using words that shut down any openness by showing ourselves as a jerk.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

By “we” the Catholic Church as a whole needs to be included. I understand the idea of political correctness is really distasteful because of extreme cases where political correctness is seen as too extreme. What I do not understand is the objection to simply following the lead of the Church in just being kind to others. St. Paul wrote:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

We can say something in a way that others will be open to us, as we stand as witness to the above fruits. We can same the same thing using words that shut down any openness by showing ourselves as a jerk.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”

Next thing I know you’ll be saying that Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress is not proof that we should throw verbal rocks at sinners until they repent their sins.

 

[adrift]

Then why not simply listen to what the Church says, accepting in our humility that we do not know better that the Church?

Perhaps you missed this in my post as I didn’t quote properly

I have not seen the Church condemn the use nor has it declared it uncharitable. Yes it is my opinion. Just like it is only your opinion that it is uncharitable to use the correct term of sodomy.

You say listen to the Church but on this matter the Church has been mute. Unless you know of a document?

The Church has spoken on this issue and it is contradictory that on one hand it is said to listen to the Church while on the other hand saying the Church shouldn’t use the language is does.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

You make the assumption that I am not listening to the Church. An assumption that is not substantiated. Show me where the Church says that the word sodomite is wrong? Even the medical profession uses Sodomite

 

[adrift]

I did not. I asked a question so assumption would not be needed. I never thought I would see a Catholic here use the word “sodomite”! I do not think any Bible translation has used it for a couple of centuries.

The question implied an assumption.

You didn’t ask have you ever used the N word but do you still use it that is an assumption that I do. As I have already stated, the medical dictionaries uses it that you find it offensive baffles me.

 

[St_Francis]

Nor do we devalue the disordered tendency.

I don’t know what you mean by this statement. Could you please clarify?

Your post is legalistic and as cold as ice. Today’s gay man or woman is the equivalent of the tax collector in the Gospels. Christ engaged the sinners in order to lift them to holiness and salvation.

I don’t think “engaging the sinner” means accepting their sin as non-sinful or something to be valued.

Whenever I read some post which condemns or otherwise references same-sex attracted people I think the same thing: why the hard line? Why your deep concern with this particular sexual question, when there is so much else to pray for and work toward?

The only reason this particular sin merits so much attention these days is that people with SSA who are actively engaged in political activity promoting the acceptance of the *sin *as non-sinful are causing be subject to be publicized a lot. I’m sure that back in the 70s I would have been trying to explain why the Church cannot accept “open marriage,” or in the late 90s/early 00s explaing why abortion should not be legal.

I shall pray for you.

Thank you, I need all the help I can get. I will pray for you, too.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Perhaps you missed this in my post as I didn’t quote properly

I have not seen the Church condemn the use nor has it declared it uncharitable. Yes it is my opinion. Just like it is only your opinion that it is uncharitable to use the correct term of sodomy.

You say listen to the Church but on this matter the Church has been mute. Unless you know of a document?

The Church has spoken on this issue and it is contradictory that on one hand it is said to listen to the Church while on the other hand saying the Church shouldn’t use the language is does.

You make the assumption that I am not listening to the Church. An assumption that is not substantiated. Show me where the Church says that the word sodomite is wrong? Even the medical profession uses Sodomite

The Church doesn’t have to explicitly rule on everything, it doesn’t need to explicitly say that ejaculating into someone’s ear is sinful for it to be sinful, some things can be extrapolated by anyone with sound grounding in Catholic teaching. The Church doesn’t have to say that comparing masturbation with rape is a bad comparison, anyone with half way decent grasp fo the English language should grasp that it is an inappropriate comparison.

Here is the issue, sodomite refers to anyone who engages in any inherently sterile sexual act with another creature (human or otherwise). A man who gets fellated by a woman is a sodomite as is the woman who did it, to refuse to refer to them as sodomite while referring to two men who engage in the same sex act as sodomite is having double standards. Either use the term to refer to all the people to whom it applies (which means includes most sexually active heterosexuals) or stop using the word as it has become so charged with connotations as to be insulting. Two hundred years ago a white person could refer to a black person with the n word and mean no offense (see Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn) whereas now because of connotation it is assured of being offensive.

 

[adrift]

The Church doesn’t have to explicitly rule on everything, it doesn’t need to explicitly say that ejaculating into someone’s ear is sinful for it to be sinful, some things can be extrapolated by anyone with sound grounding in Catholic teaching. The Church doesn’t have to say that comparing masturbation with rape is a bad comparison, anyone with half way decent grasp fo the English language should grasp that it is an inappropriate comparison.

I somewhat agree with you in that the Church gives general rules which does not have to address everything people can think of.
In your first example, the general rule is you don’t misuse sex. Is your example a misuse of sex? The Church doesn’t have to mention everyway that it can be misused.
The statement was to listen to the Church. The implication was that If you use the term sodomite than your not listening to the Church which really has said nothing about it. Not specifically nor in general terms. It must not be a sin for the Church used the term.

Here is the issue, sodomite refers to anyone who engages in any inherently sterile sexual act with another creature (human or otherwise).
A man who gets fellated by a woman is a sodomite as is the woman who did it, to refuse to refer to them as sodomite while referring to two men who engage in the same sex act as sodomite is having double standards. Either use the term to refer to all the people to whom it applies (which means includes most sexually active heterosexuals) or stop using the word as it has become so charged with connotations as to be insulting. Two hundred years ago a white person could refer to a black person with the n word and mean no offense (see Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn) whereas now because of connotation it is assured of being offensive.

You do have a valid point. Your opinion is well expressed. I don’t share it. The way we express ideas is through words. When you start saying a word is insulting just because it accurately describe what you are engaging in than it isn’t time to shut down speech. This is just another attempt to make homosexuality just another option. It is misplaced charity.

 

[Rin]

The question implied an assumption.

You didn’t ask have you ever used the N word but do you still use it that is an assumption that I do.

Since the N word was commonly accepted in society not really that long ago, I read the “still” as a reference to society, not to you specifically. It did not even occur to me to read it the way you and others did; it is quite a common expression to say “do you still…” in reference to societal history, without assumption about the individual.

As I have already stated, the medical dictionaries uses it that you find it offensive baffles me.

The fact that a word exists in some medical dictionary does in no way mean it is not offensive; and if the dictionary is a few decades old, it will be full of offensive vocabulary. Some of it may not have been at the time of writing, but language is not static. You may think you are making your point of view clear by refusing to adjust your language, but in reality you are obscuring it.

The word “sodomy” today mainly has connotations to sodomy laws, which by the way were a predominantly Protestant phenomenon. When people hear the word, they will think of persecution by police, of horrible “treatments” (sometimes forced), and about those who call themselves Christian who defend such (or worse) measures. Those with above normal knowledge of this history, will also think of the double standard and hypocrisy where sodomy laws, while forbidding all sodomy, were virtually never used to persecute heterosexual sodomites.

Even more importantly, it does in no way convey Catholic teaching. This is why the Church no longer uses the word. Of course, the Church does not “forbid” Her children from using such words. There is however no prohibition in canon law or other discipline against using the n-word either. But it would be a very un-Catholic thing to do, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Corki]

Next thing I know you’ll be saying that Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress is not proof that we should throw verbal rocks at sinners until they repent their sins.

Well, the “take away” line of that Gospel story is “go, and sin no more”. And that’s the message of the Church. We love everyone, we welcome everyone but we are going to keep saying “sin no more” whether a person’s sin is homosexual activity, adultery, anger or stealing. The Church can’t create what amounts to a “protected class” of homosexuals and not expect them to “sin no more”. Nor can the Church turn the other way when any sinner wants to “celebrate” or “value” their sins.

 

[adrift]

Since the N word was commonly accepted in society not really that long ago, I read the “still” as a reference to society, not to you specifically. It did not even occur to me to read it the way you and others did; it is quite a common expression to say “do you still…” in reference to societal history, without assumption about the individual.

This is the first I have heard of it. It may be common to you but obviously I was not the only one to read that way. It was a question directly asked of me. Hardly, in the context of society.

The fact that a word exists in some medical dictionary does in no way mean it is not offensive; and if the dictionary is a few decades old, it will be full of offensive vocabulary. Some of it may not have been at the time of writing, but language is not static. You may think you are making your point of view clear by refusing to adjust your language, but in reality you are obscuring it.

Since I linked the dictionary you would see that it is modern not a few decade old. Language does change meanings that is why a dictionary is used. What is being attempted here is to force a change.

The word “sodomy” today mainly has connotations to sodomy laws, which by the way were a predominantly Protestant phenomenon

.
This is decades old thinking. Sodomy laws are archaic. You may believe there is a connotation but I would not make that connection.

When people hear the word, they will think of persecution by police, of horrible “treatments” (sometimes forced), and about those who call themselves Christian who defend such (or worse) measures. Those with above normal knowledge of this history, will also think of the double standard and hypocrisy where sodomy laws, while forbidding all sodomy, were virtually never used to persecute heterosexual sodomites.

You may hear but what do base such an unwarranted generalization?.

Even more importantly, it does in no way convey Catholic teaching. This is why the Church no longer uses the word. Of course, the Church does not “forbid” Her children from using such words. There is however no prohibition in canon law or other discipline against using the n-word either. But it would be a very un-Catholic thing to do, wouldn’t you agree?

I can’t think of any word that would convey a teaching. Comparing a word that is uncharitable to a person and a word that accurately describes a sin is comparing apples to oranges What I see is an attempt to make homosexuality an accepted way of life. I have never really used this word but now I realize that it must be used to fight this evil.