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

[Crossbones]

Not in any Parish I’ve ever been member of.

You’ve never seen it suggested that someone being gay or having a gay child is scandalous at the Parish level? I’d say you’re lucky then.

Big Picture:

1. Many faux Catholic leaders blame homosexuality for the molestation scandal (Bill Donohue, for example). I know Bill Donohue and his ilk count for nothing in real Church teaching, but it sets a poor example.
2. The Catholic Church has fought gay unions in the public arena with a level of intensity near that of abortion. Wall Street stealing money from everyone; death penalty and other social issues are on the backburner.
3. African bishops supported what I would consider a fairly draconian law against homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is an issue that Catholic leaders freely enter the public arena very aggressively, creating a lot of vitriol towards the Church. In my opinion, this isn’t a good path for anyone.

 

[St_Francis]

Honestly, because I think a lot of sinners in the Church treat those sinners as somehow worse, similar to the Pharisee and tax collector in Luke 18.

Back during the Iraq military action, Abu Ghraib was on the front pages endlessly. Radical Moslems beheading people was on the back pages. I was so upset about this, but everyone assured me that this discrepancy in treatment was due to the fact that everyone is pretty much against beheading people.

Nowadays, people do not comprehend that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is a sin. Extra-marital sexual activity is normal to our society. The Chirch makes a big deal out of it because people do not understand that it is actually a sin.

But people pretty much agree that stealing is a sin, so the Church does not inveigh against it as they do against sexual sins…

… which also lead to the deterioration of society and to abortion.

 

[Tigg]

That was my point. The Church reaches out to all sinners who are ready to repent. I don’t see why all this furor about reaching out specifically to Homosexuals. Especially since most such calls are predicated on the mistaken belief the Church is bigoted and its member regularly abuse homosexuals . One would think that at the start of every Mass instead of asking for the forgiveness of sins we asked all homosexual to leave!

What we are really seeing is an attempt to remake the Church in accordance with the mores of our culture-that is that the only real sin is believing there is sin.

What I see over and over is that gays wish for themselves a sort of “social distinction” completely unique from others. As though they should be treated not as members of a common community with common interests, but set apart from the general populace. They want to be welcomed, not on an equal footing, but simply because they are gay. This is contrary to church teaching which states all God’s people have a common and fundamental identity as humans created by God and that it is wrong to reduce others to only a sexual orientation that does not take into account the total person. Odd that they themselves are the ones doing this.

 

[Tigg]

Homosexuality is an issue that Catholic leaders freely enter the public arena very aggressively, creating a lot of vitriol towards the Church. In my opinion, this isn’t a good path for anyone.

And I’d say that church leaders would not be doing their job if they were not aggressive in defending traditional values. They need to understand the depravity and threat of the enemy, such as the very well funded and extremist HRC who mean to change the very face of society by forced acceptance of immoral behavior as the norm.

 

[adrift]

How do you know how that person meant it?

Context.

Most people have a very poor knowledge of Scripture and for gay people laws used to attack them until recently are much more vividly in their mind.

I can’t say that you are wrong but when it comes to this particular event very few do not know about it.

I’m talking about Protestant preachers not Catholic priests. The average person has heard about far more hateful speeches from Protestants than speeches by Catholic priests.

This is a Catholic Forum so it is not unreasonable to think you mean priest unless you state otherwise.

We do a very poor job of preaching. Lots of Catholics act preachy and sanctimonious, but it is very seldom that I hear the Good News preached.

That may be your experience. I travel around a lot attending many different parishes. I can’t say there was even one that the Good News wasn’t what the homily was about.

.

I realized the context that I see sodomy used most and that is in news stories about rape.

 

[adrift]

]The vast majority of sodomites are heterosexual, and the vast majority of acts of sodomy are done between one man and one woman

. Many of them married. If you have ever had oral or anal sex, regardless of the gender of the partner, then you are a sodomite.

.

This statement is backed up by what study? I believe you are using a definition of sodomy that is broader than what the standard definition is. That aside, when heterosexuals engage in copulation sodomy may be involved but when homosexuals copulate it is always sodomy.

 

[adrift]

And I’d say that church leaders would not be doing their job if they were not aggressive in defending traditional values. They need to understand the depravity and threat of the enemy, such as the very well funded and extremist HRC who mean to change the very face of society by forced acceptance of immoral behavior as the norm.

What I see over and over is that gays wish for themselves a sort of “social distinction” completely unique from others. As though they should be treated not as members of a common community with common interests, but set apart from the general populace. They want to be welcomed, not on an equal footing, but simply because they are gay. This is contrary to church teaching which states all God’s people have a common and fundamental identity as humans created by God and that it is wrong to reduce others to only a sexual orientation that does not take into account the total person. Odd that they themselves are the ones doing this.

---

Exactly!

 

[estesbob]

You’ve never seen it suggested that someone being gay or having a gay child is scandalous at the Parish level? I’d say you’re lucky then.

Big Picture:

1. Many faux Catholic leaders blame homosexuality for the molestation scandal (Bill Donohue, for example). I know Bill Donohue and his ilk count for nothing in real Church teaching, but it sets a poor example.

Since 88% of the molestations were homosexual rape of post pubscesent boys I think Donohue has a point.

1. The Catholic Church has fought gay unions in the public arena with a level of intensity near that of abortion. Wall Street stealing money from everyone; death penalty and other social issues are on the backburner.

The Catholic Church is fighting to not allow grevious sin to become the law of the land. And that is wrong because?

1. African bishops supported what I would consider a fairly draconian law against homosexual behavior.

As they do adultery and polygamy

Homosexuality is an issue that Catholic leaders freely enter the public arena very aggressively, creating a lot of vitriol towards the Church. In my opinion, this isn’t a good path for anyone.

So you believe the Church should just cede the political arena to the culture of death? The Church has every right, in fact they are compelled by their mission, to get involved in these issues. God forbid that only the amoral and immoral should have (name removed by moderator)ut into our laws.

The idea that the Church should welcome sinners by affirming their sin ludicrous

 

[Rin]

This statement is backed up by what study? I believe you are using a definition of sodomy that is broader than what the standard definition is. That aside, when heterosexuals engage in copulation sodomy may be involved but when homosexuals copulate it is always sodomy.

It’s based on numerous studies showing the prevalence of oral sex in all age groups among heterosexual people. Anal sex is rarer (as it also is among homosexual people!), but still rather common - in terms of numbers, more people have had heterosexual anal sex than homosexual anal sex. Sodomy is rampant in the heterosexual population, between man and woman, married as well as non-married.

I am not using a definition that is broader than the standard definition is. Or, that is, I’m using the Catholic definition of “sodomy” (which is, by the way not the same as “the sin of Sodom”; that would also include quite the constellation of other, less than desirable traits). The definition I’m using was also the one used in sodomy laws. It is also the one you posted (#73): “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex”.

You are however exemplifying the problem I’m trying to demonstrate; most people today who still use the word ‘sodomy’ use it only about gay people, but that is not the Catholic definition of the word, and it therefore also does not reflect Catholic doctrine correctly. It does not even reflect the sodomy laws of old correctly! For people who lament the change of language so much, it is interesting that they cannot even use old words in their original meaning…

How is it relevant that heterosexual couples only sodomize each other part time? Even though I hate the comparisons to crime so popular among American conservative ideologues, your implication is that someone is not a thief if one only steals part of the time, and pays the rest…

I will end this here, since (judging from your latest post in response to other posters) you’re mainly doing mental gymnastics now - feel free to delude yourself that most people won’t see your usage of “sodomite” as a slur, but rest assured they will. I’ve even heard very orthodox, holy priests describe use of the term in our day and age as a slur. Rest assured, you will not bring anyone a half inch closer to Our Lord and the Church by using it - but if it makes you feel good, then by all means…

 

[Corki]

You’ve never seen it suggested that someone being gay or having a gay child is scandalous at the Parish level? I’d say you’re lucky then.

I have never seen this at the parish or diocesan level either and I have lived in over a dozen parishes in my adult life in several dioceses.

1. Many faux Catholic leaders blame homosexuality for the molestation scandal (Bill Donohue, for example). I know Bill Donohue and his ilk count for nothing in real Church teaching, but it sets a poor example.

If you are talking about the priest sexual misconduct scandals, yes, several of the researchers identified the encounters as predominantly homosexual in character. While it would be wrong to “blame” homosexuality in general, it is not wrong to point out the correlation.

1. The Catholic Church has fought gay unions in the public arena with a level of intensity near that of abortion. Wall Street stealing money from everyone; death penalty and other social issues are on the backburner.

Same sex “marriage” and/or civil unions is a major threat to the family at this point in history, especially in western countries. It’s also a binary issue. Like abortion it is always and everywhere gravely immoral and complete opposition is the response. The death penalty isn’t always gravely immoral and the other issues you mentioned are addressed in a variety of ways. There is no “yes” or “no” answer to the question of regulating Wall Street - it’s a question of “how”. With both abortion and same-sex “unions”, there is a clear answer - NO.

1. African bishops supported what I would consider a fairly draconian law against homosexual behavior.

And the majority of the Church leaders spoke out against that particular law, especially the penalty portion of the law. A country should be able to protect itself from outside forces trying to drive a pro-homosexual agenda without such severe penalties.

Homosexuality is an issue that Catholic leaders freely enter the public arena very aggressively, creating a lot of vitriol towards the Church. In my opinion, this isn’t a good path for anyone

It is absolutely appropriate for Catholic leaders to address the issue of the attempted normalization of homosexual behavior - in the public square and with the Church’s own members. “Clear and emphatic opposition” is the term the Church uses. If that opposition results in vitriol from others, is that the fault of the Church or of those with the vitriol who, for the most part, haven’t really listened to what the Church is saying? Is there a way that Church leaders, and the faithful, can continue to voice “clear and emphatic opposition” to the efforts to change the definition of marriage that would** not **result in a vitriolic reaction?

I think that as much as people talk about “tone” and “welcoming language”, what they really want is for the Church and Catholics to be silent and not voice opposition at all. In every thread on this topic, I have posed the question “what language would be acceptable?” or “what would that welcoming look like?” in a manner that would stay true to Church teaching and not appear to be condoning sinful behavior. No one has answered.

 

[adrift]

It’s based on numerous studies showing the prevalence of oral sex in all age groups among heterosexual people.

I question the validity of studies. oral sex means ejaculation/copulation. I sincerely doubt that more heterosexuals do so then homosexuals.

Anal sex is rarer (as it also is among homosexual people!), but still rather common - in terms of numbers, more people have had heterosexual anal sex than homosexual anal sex. Sodomy is rampant in the heterosexual population, between man and woman, married as well as non-married.

I doubt this to be true. I would have to see how the survey was written. But my point is not who has more but that homosexuals always do.

You are however exemplifying the problem I’m trying to demonstrate; most people today who still use the word ‘sodomy’ use it only about gay people, but that is not the Catholic definition of the word, and it therefore also does not reflect Catholic doctrine correctly. It does not even reflect the sodomy laws of old correctly! For people who lament the change of language so much, it is interesting that they cannot even use old words in their original meaning…

You have not read my post. You exemplify those people who see what they want to see dang the facts.

How is it relevant that heterosexual couples only sodomize each other part time? Even though I hate the comparisons to crime so popular among American conservative ideologues, your implication is that someone is not a thief if one only steals part of the time, and pays the rest…

The point is that you object to the term as not being accurate description but it is. You are misrepresenting what I wrote. The point was sex between homosexuals is always sodomy. When between heterosexual, it is also sodomy.

I will end this here, since (judging from your latest post in response to other posters) you’re mainly doing mental gymnastics now - feel free to delude yourself that most people won’t see your usage of “sodomite” as a slur, but rest assured they will. I’ve even heard very orthodox, holy priests describe use of the term in our day and age as a slur. Rest assured, you will not bring anyone a half inch closer to Our Lord and the Church by using it - but if it makes you feel good, then by all means…

What I am seeing is the attempt to cover up exactly what homosexuality is. The delusion is being attempted by those who wish to promote this sin. It is an attempt to make a word a slur because of this attempt.

 

[phil19034]

It’s based on numerous studies showing the prevalence of oral sex in all age groups among heterosexual people. Anal sex is rarer (as it also is among homosexual people!), but still rather common - in terms of numbers, more people have had heterosexual anal sex than homosexual anal sex. Sodomy is rampant in the heterosexual population, between man and woman, married as well as non-married.

I am not using a definition that is broader than the standard definition is. Or, that is, I’m using the Catholic definition of “sodomy” (which is, by the way not the same as “the sin of Sodom”; that would also include quite the constellation of other, less than desirable traits). The definition I’m using was also the one used in sodomy laws. It is also the one you posted (#73): “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex”.

You are however exemplifying the problem I’m trying to demonstrate; most people today who still use the word ‘sodomy’ use it only about gay people, but that is not the Catholic definition of the word, and it therefore also does not reflect Catholic doctrine correctly. It does not even reflect the sodomy laws of old correctly! For people who lament the change of language so much, it is interesting that they cannot even use old words in their original meaning…

How is it relevant that heterosexual couples only sodomize each other part time? Even though I hate the comparisons to crime so popular among American conservative ideologues, your implication is that someone is not a thief if one only steals part of the time, and pays the rest…

I will end this here, since (judging from your latest post in response to other posters) you’re mainly doing mental gymnastics now - feel free to delude yourself that most people won’t see your usage of “sodomite” as a slur, but rest assured they will. I’ve even heard very orthodox, holy priests describe use of the term in our day and age as a slur. Rest assured, you will not bring anyone a half inch closer to Our Lord and the Church by using it - but if it makes you feel good, then by all means…

I agree that we need to teach about sodomy. As you correctly defined. Oral Sex, Anal Sex and Bestiality are all sodomy.

And I think this is where the problem is. A lot of heterosexual couples have oral sex. If you teach that sodomy is mortally wrong, then they would be hypocrites. So they either drop the sodomy part and focus solely on homosexual acts or they become fine with homosexual acts because they are sodomites themselves.

NOTE: I believe (though I might be wrong) that oral sex is OK if (and only if) the organism takes place inside the wife’s vagina. Anal sex is never OK.

This is why Our Lady of Fatima said that there are more people in hell due to sexual sin than due to any other sin. We have become a society of sodomites.

Definition of sodomy according to Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy?s=t

noun

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

1. copulation with a member of the same sex.

1. bestiality (def 4).

 

[Rin]

NOTE: I believe (though I might be wrong) that oral sex is OK if (and only if) the organism takes place inside the wife’s vagina.

Is it then OK if a gay couple have oral sex, but not to completion? And (to follow the line of thought I often see posted in threads about married oral sex), if they accidentally orgasm, then it would be okay, since it was unintended, right?

That said, many in the Church, including theologians, agree with you. Yet, I cannot help but feel this is a kind of mental gymnastics to excuse something traditionally thought sinful by the Church. Just adding marital coitus after the act, does not change the act; it smells of hypocrisy to say that oral sex not to completion is not sinful for married couples, while sinful for gay couples, or unmarried couples for that sake. It can be rationalized, but it is exactly that - a rationalization. There might be other reasons to label it sinful among those who are not married (near occasion of sin, etc, etc), but that sounds a bit ad hoc to me. At any rate, it would still not be sodomy, even if sinful - something does not become sodomy based on who it happens between, but on the nature of the act.

But then again, I have to admit I am personally unconvinced of any of this. I assent to Catholic teaching, as is my duty as an orthodox Catholic, but I am intellectually unconvinced. That said, I will not argue against it, and I will not wish for the Church to change it - I will however point out that if one is to proclaim traditional Catholic theology in relation to sodomy, then one should do so fully, acknowledging that most heterosexual couples in our time are in fact sodomites, and not try to equate “sodomite” with “gay”. Such is inaccurate, and at best uninformed, at worst hypocritical, through applying double standards; much like police did when they specifically targeted gay people by entrapment, while not targeting straight men, even though sodomy laws also included oral sex between man and woman.

In my personal opinion (which is just as valid as anyone elses, since this is a matter of speculation, not dogma - that said, any theologian from before the 20th century would probably agree with me, and strongly at that), oral sex not to completion, married or not, is rightly classified as sodomy according to Catholic teaching. Though please note that your opinion might be correct too - I just find it inconsistent.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t like using the word “sodomite” or “gay”. The former is inflammatory, the latter a euphemism for sinful behavior.

 

[St_Francis]

The difference is that homosexual coupling by its nature is “sodomitical”–I also don’t use any of those words. So if two members of the same sex are “together,” then it is known that this is what they are doing or putting themselves into a near ocassion of sin to do.

It’s like the difference between seeing an ad for latex gloves manufactured by Company X and seeing an ad for condoms manufactured by the same company.

 

[Rin]

The difference is that homosexual coupling by its nature is “sodomitical”–I also don’t use any of those words. So if two members of the same sex are “together,” then it is known that this is what they are doing or putting themselves into a near ocassion of sin to do.

It’s like the difference between seeing an ad for latex gloves manufactured by Company X and seeing an ad for condoms manufactured by the same company.

The point still stands - an act cannot be sodomy between a gay couple but not sodomy between a married couple. It may be sinful through being a near occasion of sin, but it cannot be sodomy in one instance and not sodomy in another. The term ‘sodomy’ describes an act, not a circumstance.

Additionally, there have always been, and still are, chaste homosexual couplings - where the couple is romantically, but non-sexually and chastely, involved. To describe such couplings as “sodomitical” by their nature is blatantly wrong.

However, while this has been entertaining, I don’t really like using the word ‘sodomy’ all the time, so I’ll withdraw I think. I hope I’ve got my point across, which is basically that using the word ‘sodomy’ or (worse, times and times worse) ‘sodomite’ only about gay sexual acts and actively gay people, is not only offensive and inflammatory, but also inaccurate. The word can be used to describe most married couples too.

 

[St_Francis]

The point still stands - an act cannot be sodomy between a gay couple but not sodomy between a married couple. It may be sinful through being a near occasion of sin, but it cannot be sodomy in one instance and not sodomy in another. The term ‘sodomy’ describes an act, not a circumstance.

Additionally, there have always been, and still are, chaste homosexual couplings - where the couple is romantically, but non-sexually and chastely, involved. To describe such couplings as “sodomitical” by their nature is blatantly wrong.

However, while this has been entertaining, I don’t really like using the word ‘sodomy’ all the time, so I’ll withdraw I think. I hope I’ve got my point across, which is basically that using the word ‘sodomy’ or (worse, times and times worse) ‘sodomite’ only about gay sexual acts and actively gay people, is not only offensive and inflammatory, but also inaccurate. The word can be used to describe most married couples too.

Yes, you’re right, the thread seems to have been dragged off-course.

I guess that one thing we agree that the Church and Catholics in general can do is to stop using terms which they rarely use, those derived from the name of the city of Sodom.

What else could Catholics do to be more welcoming to homosexuals which would not involve compromising Church teaching?

 

[Rin]

What else could Catholics do to be more welcoming to homosexuals which would not involve compromising Church teaching?

I do not know the solutions here, since the situation really has become difficult - our sticking our heads in the ground pretending there’s not a problem for decades has contributed to making it worse. But I do have some thoughts:

Worry less about the activists who have a bone to pick with the Church, and more about the vast amount of gay people who are of good will, but simply cannot find their place in the Church, even if they often want to.

Related to the above, get rid of polemic and inflammatory language. It will not convert anyone.

Catholics again need to value lay celibacy. The increased focus on the family over the last few decades may have been beneficial for families, but it has been extremely detrimental for those who cannot marry for some reason or another. Unmarried people are now met with suspicion, because nobody would choose that unless there’s an impediment to marriage and/or ordination, right? We need to again elevate such a choice to the status it once had.

We also again need to value commited friendship between two people (regardless of gender), the kind of friendship which has sometimes been called romantic. Close friends often even shared a household in the past, and there was (in some regions of the world, in the West as well as the East) even a ceremony where one could adopt each other as brothers, in the Church. This was not marriage, which is important to specify, but they were seen as a family, as truly adopted siblings. They could even in some places and times adopt children together. They may or may not have been gay, and may or may not have been chaste (I prefer to think they usually were), but chastity was presumed, and for that reason, it did not cause scandal.

The last sentence touches upon my last point: People need to learn to not assume the worst, and to mind their own business. If two men or two women come together to Mass, then people should automatically assume them to be chaste - even if they were to hold hands or anything of the like. They could well be just that. Friends hold hands too. And if they are not chaste, then that’s between them and Our Lord. People have to stop being “scandalized” on purpose - step one in doing that, is getting rid of the Puritan impulses so prevalent in American culture (even among liberals, but sometimes with the opposite effect; a basic trait of Puritanism is an obsession with sex). These impulses have nothing to do with Catholicism, and they should have no place in the Church.

At least those are some thoughts - I doubt they’re the whole answer, but they’re at least something to consider.

Edit. And gradualism. Gradualism, gradualism, gradualism. It is the Catholic approach to growing in holiness, and it needs to regain prominence. As a principle, it is as old as the Church, and as traditional as saying Mass on the graves of the Saints.

 

[Brygida]

Firstly, please forgive my English, as I am quite out of practice and certain to make grammatical errors (and spelling errors without the help of this wonderful spell correction).

I am now and old lady, in retirement, but for many years I was in the practice of Clinical Psychology, providing therapy to gay and lesbian individuals and their families. I quite accidentally fell into this specialty but consider it now to be a great blessing from God. I believe that because of my experience, I may have many insights into this issue that could aid in this discussion.

The discussion here is very reflective of the type of conflict that occurs in many families dealing with this issue. If I may be so bold, I would like to offer some advice in this regard. It may go without saying, but my first piece of advice is always prayer, prayer and more prayer. Especially if one is able to move from a pure dialogue to meditation, and eventually to contemplative prayer, it is in that silent communion with our Lord that we are most able to receive answers/illumination.

On a more practical level but perhaps just as challenging, I suggest that we listen to the words of Jesus. When questioned about which of the commandments were most important, He summarized all of the law in the two Great Commandments. Love of God and love of each other is the premise on which the entire law is based. When we are stuck, it is wise to change our focus to the fundamental. The first reaction of most families is dismissiveness. Of course they love homosexual peoples, that goes without saying. But after reflecting for a time, I begin to hear them acknowledge that instead of listening, they were formulating responses in their own mind. Sometimes we hear each other without listening. Sometimes the gay individual will realize they said something out of anger, and not out of love.

If we go back to basics, evaluating ourselves and making love our primary focus, we cannot violate the law, which is based in love. And in that love for one another, we open ourselves to the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us through this process.

I have much more to say on this issue, but for now, I hope that my fellow Catholics might share in the blessings I have received and consider these words with open heart and mind.

Peace and Joy and blessings of our Lord upon you all.

 

[estesbob]

Firstly, please forgive my English, as I am quite out of practice and certain to make grammatical errors (and spelling errors without the help of this wonderful spell correction).

I am now and old lady, in retirement, but for many years I was in the practice of Clinical Psychology, providing therapy to gay and lesbian individuals and their families. I quite accidentally fell into this specialty but consider it now to be a great blessing from God. I believe that because of my experience, I may have many insights into this issue that could aid in this discussion.

The discussion here is very reflective of the type of conflict that occurs in many families dealing with this issue. If I may be so bold, I would like to offer some advice in this regard. It may go without saying, but my first piece of advice is always prayer, prayer and more prayer. Especially if one is able to move from a pure dialogue to meditation, and eventually to contemplative prayer, it is in that silent communion with our Lord that we are most able to receive answers/illumination.

On a more practical level but perhaps just as challenging, I suggest that we listen to the words of Jesus. When questioned about which of the commandments were most important, He summarized all of the law in the two Great Commandments. Love of God and love of each other is the premise on which the entire law is based. When we are stuck, it is wise to change our focus to the fundamental. The first reaction of most families is dismissiveness. Of course they love homosexual peoples, that goes without saying. But after reflecting for a time, I begin to hear them acknowledge that instead of listening, they were formulating responses in their own mind. Sometimes we hear each other without listening. Sometimes the gay individual will realize they said something out of anger, and not out of love.

If we go back to basics, evaluating ourselves and making love our primary focus, we cannot violate the law, which is based in love. And in that love for one another, we open ourselves to the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us through this process.

I have much more to say on this issue, but for now, I hope that my fellow Catholics might share in the blessings I have received and consider these words with open heart and mind.

Peace and Joy and blessings of our Lord upon you all.

Thank you and welcome to CAF!