Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to)?

[blessedtoo]

Finally, no matter what the sin, remember the teaching of Francis, hate the sin, regardless of which sin we’re talking about, but show the utmost respect for the sinner

Agreed. However, the confusion seems to be in the application of this principle.

When I worked in the homosexual community, it was a challenge to convey respect for the person while making it clear that their behavior was immoral. In order to properly express love while denouncing sin, it was imperative to remain prayerful and reflective at all times. There were (and still are!) so many instances where a tone of voice or a facial expression or a wrong turn of phrase could have sparked an angry response but I did find that if I turned to God each time He offered an opportunity, He would provide the words.

It doesn’t always work, of course. Some folks, even Catholics on CAF, can’t separate their own feelings about sin from those who commit the sin and drag their own confusion into situations. If our brothers and sisters who are active homosexuals know that we are clear on this, they will most likely feel the love and respect, even if they hate the message.

 

[estesbob]

---

Third, my intention in posting the Catholic Catechism’s citations was an attempt to balance the tone. Upon first glance, the word hate comes up in so many posts and there are some very emotional posts. Obviously, it is a word that triggers a great deal of emotions. Some of these lead to debates. I observed that some posts were confrontational. In my mind, I thought that by posting both the Church’s position on the sin and the sinner, it would help relieve some of the emotional intensity in the thread.

I am afraid you got caught is an overflow of frustration over a poster who overthe course 500 +posts has claimed repeatedly that the Church never tells us that we are told to hate sine, that perhaps if Scripture does the Church doesnt, then that the Church rarely does it and finaly that even they do refer to hate the sin it is not dogmatic and we that have taken the some 3,000 references to hateing the sin in online vatican documetns alone out of context and oh, BTW, all of us who claim that we should hate sin are homosexual bigots… So when you come along with your post about loving the snner, sincere as it was, we assumed we were about to get more of the same. i apologize for misreading your attentions. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There are so many strawmen in the above one wonders if theres any left for the manger. Some people are gracious enough to admit when they were wrong-some just prattle on.

Is there a problem asking you to live by your own teachings?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Is there a problem asking you to live by your own teachings?

http://yankeeschick.mlblogs.com/yankees_fans_are_the_true/images/broken_record.jpg

 

[catharina]

I am afraid you got caught is an overflow of frustration over a poster who overthe course 500 +posts has claimed repeatedly that the Church never tells us that we are told to hate sine, that perhaps if Scripture does the Church doesnt, then that the Church rarely does it and finaly that even they do refer to hate the sin it is not dogmatic and we that have taken the some 3,000 references to hateing the sin in online vatican documetns alone out of context and oh, BTW, all of us who claim that we should hate sin are homosexual bigots… So when you come along with your post about loving the snner, sincere as it was, we assumed we were about to get more of the same. i apologize for misreading your attentions. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt

First, Bob, thank you for being so gentle and reasonable about this.

Now, JReducation, I greatly appreciate your thoughts and the explanation of your thinking. I’m not in the habit of speaking up for another poster and frankly, I don’t know estesbob in any way other than his posts (in this and other threads). I’ve never even looked at his profile. My decision to speak in his behalf was/is simply my decision. He has presented countless sources of documentaion regarding Church teaching in this matter and it seemed quite unfair that he was singled out for any (even vague) rebuke. I defended him while knowing that he requires NO defense. He’s correct again as is blessedtoo, that this thread has gone beyond any true exchange on matters of faith. There is faith and then there is dissent. You came in at that point. I apologize for my strong reaction to your post. I apologize to bob as well, certain that he needed no defense. As far as your exchanges with your son, maybe all of us need to remember that we are approaching one another with the written word only, no facial cues as to intent, no personal history to shade understanding. It can lead to some confusion since the exchanges are bare bones.

So, welcome and Happy New Year.

 

[catharina]

Is there a problem asking you to live by your own teachings?

The point of hating sin (all sin) is ever before us in the Act of Contrition.

“… and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell but MOST OF ALL, BECAUSE THEY OFFEND THEE, MY GOD, WHO ART ALL GOOD AND DESERVING OF ALL MY LOVE. … .”

We are to hate sin.

(The self-explanatory requires no additional definition.)

However, from dictionary.com, I’ll add this:

de·test –verb (used with object) to feel abhorrence of; hate; dislike intensely.

 

[estesbob]

Is there a problem asking you to live by your own teachings?

 

[LittleDeb]

Deb,
I know this has been such a struggle for you. God bless you for hanging in there!

Ninety Eight percent of my friends are/were homosexual when I re-entered the Church. As you know, my sister is also an active homosexual. It took some time before I could accept that my relationships with them would change and with some, even cease, once they understood my committment to my faith. But, I did not make unilateral proclamations or intrusive declarations about their lifestyles. Instead, I talked non-stop about God, the Church, the beauty of her teachings and I tried to live as an example, talking mostly about how I applied it to my own life. Everyone learned quickly that I had committed to chastity (because we all talked about very intimate things in the past!) and if they asked questions, I gave them honest answers. And I prayed for God to give me opportunities with them to speak about all the sexual sins. When they asked a question, I answered honestly. Some of them were aghast, some of them understood. Some ditched the friendship, some hung in. Some simply faded away with time. But the first step for me, was keeping the focus on how God had impacted MY life. I believed that if they saw my transformation, they would want to know more.

I did have a few friends who didn’t quite get it and tried to continue the friendship as before, complete with all the r-rated commentary about their personal lives. Over time, and my refusal to engage in such conversation, they did slip away. I pray for them all still and have turned them over to Our Lady for protection and guidance.

Hope that helps! PM me anytime!

Thank you so much. So beautifully put! That does help a lot. I forget that I can do it that way since it is such a hot button issue.

Interestingly, I do exactly that when it comes to the contraception topic, but this one it is tougher on me. I often say that my husband and I are, “very Catholic and all that entails in our marriage.” Some people in theatre raise an eyebrow at NFP, but they don’t condemn me for it.

I will remember your example the next time I am engaged in the conversations with my SSA friends. God bless you! I will PM you soon. Life is still busy here but I did want to keep up on this thread.

 

[JReducation]

Agreed. However, the confusion seems to be in the application of this principle.

Some folks, . . . can’t separate their own feelings about sin from those who commit the sin and drag their own confusion into situations. If our brothers and sisters who are active homosexuals know that we are clear on this, they will most likely feel the love and respect, even if they hate the message.

You are 100% right. I guess this is often part of the human condition. Often, we can’t separate sin from sinner, opinion from facts, emotions from issues, etc.

When Mother Teresa opened her house for people with AIDS in Washington DC, a reporter asked if she didn’t find this to be a conflict with the Church’s teaching homosexuality and sin. I believe that her answer was so perfect. “I only see Jesus. He is sick and unloved.”

 

[estesbob]

You are 100% right. I guess this is often part of the human condition. Often, we can’t separate sin from sinner, opinion from facts, emotions from issues, etc.

When Mother Teresa opened her house for people with AIDS in Washington DC, a reporter asked if she didn’t find this to be a conflict with the Church’s teaching homosexuality and sin. I believe that her answer was so perfect. "I only see Jesus. He is sick and unloved."

This ancedote also shows how clueless the MM is about the Catholic Church.

 

[Janet_S]

Did any of you ever hear of Scott A McDermott? He was a guest on The Journey Home. At one time he was active in the group Act Up; now he’s an orthodox Catholic. You can listen to his conversion story (originally aired 10/13/03) here :

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?pgnu=7&SeriesID=-6892289

To Blessed Too: from the few things you have posted here about your own life and about your journey back to the Catholic Church, I think you have a great story for The Journey Home. Maybe you should think about writing to Marcus Grodi. Testimonies like yours are very important to dispel the popular myths about homosexuality.

 

[blessedtoo]

Testimonies like yours are very important to dispel the popular myths about homosexuality.

Thank you but there are many others who would make much better spokespersons in the larger public arena. I have some issues with self-aggrandizement! Best for me to stay in my small circle of friends and family!

 

[fix]

When Mother Teresa opened her house for people with AIDS in Washington DC, a reporter asked if she didn’t find this to be a conflict with the Church’s teaching homosexuality and sin. I believe that her answer was so perfect. “I only see Jesus. He is sick and unloved.”

Great and and true. Now, what about a local school board that insists books need to be introduced to grade schoolers that teach same sex acts are normal and rejection of them are intolerant? Should folks not express outrage? Would stating we love the sinner, but hate those acts be wrong and inconsistent with the Gospel message?

The last Pope wrote about the new ideology of evil when referring to “gay” marriage. Would that sentiment be immoral?

The points you raise really seem misplaced to me. The scale is tipped in the wrong direction right now. It is not too much hatred for the sin we see, but to much love of the sin.

 

[JReducation]

Great and and true. Now, what about a local school board that insists books need to be introduced to grade schoolers that teach same sex acts are normal and rejection of them are intolerant? Should folks not express outrage? Would stating we love the sinner, but hate those acts be wrong and inconsistent with the Gospel message?

The last Pope wrote about the new ideology of evil when referring to “gay” marriage. Would that sentiment be immoral?

The points you raise really seem misplaced to me. The scale is tipped in the wrong direction right now. It is not too much hatred for the sin we see, but to much love of the sin.

The Church must always keep a balance between fidelity to its moral teachings and good pastoral practice. Sometimes, it is difficult for the average lay person to understand why the Church does not take a more aggressive stance on certain moral issues. I imagine that the Church has to weigh the options and make the best possible choice.

However, the points I raised come from the tradition of the Church. They may appear to be misplaced, because they have a gentle tone. But there is nothing different or inconsistent with the the Church’s tradition in moral matters, espcially on this topic. After the Middle Ages, the Church has chosen to challenge through intellectual discourse rather than an authoritative stance. I believe the goal is to bring people about through persuasion, rathern than confrontation.

I would refer you to this site where the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston had to make a very difficult pastoral decision based on this moral issue that we’re discussing in this thread.

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06031003.html

Cardinal O’Malley, whom I happen to know personally, is a Capucin Franciscan Brother. If we observe his statements, they are firm about the Church’s teaching on this moral issue, but at the same time, his action was very polite, without any anger, yet decisive. It was very consistent with the spirit that St. Francis and Mother Teresa infused into the Church.

The idea is to denounce sin in a manner that is very clear, without deliberately offending. In fact the spirit is to always show love and communicate the Church’s position using the most gentle and loving manner, without deviating from the truth. This is a style of tellling the truth, not a denial of the truth.

The Church does not want us to deliberately offend or hurt saint or sinner. Obviously, sometimes people will feel offended, even when the intention was not to do so. That can’t be helped.

When I posted, what I said, I used this very particular methodology that has existed in the Church for 800 years and has been very effective. It just works slowly. We have to hold on to the truth, as did Francis and Mother Teresa, but at the same time, deal respectfully with others.

I disagree that the scales are tipped on the side of the sin. I believe the Church is striving for a balance between sound moral theology and sound pastoral practice. While moral theology denounces the sin, pastoral practice draws in the sinner.

It is necessary to condemn sin in all of its forms, but it’s ok to show boundless love for the sinner. It’s a very delicate balance and not an easy one.

As to the books in school. There was a similar issue in our county. It didn’t have to do with books, it had to do with sex and family life education courses in public schools. The Catholic diocese took a very simple position. They said they had no jurisdiction over the School Board, but that they defended the parents’ right to decide whether or not their children should attend those classes.

It was the belief of the Catholic Church that the school did not have the authority to tell students that something was morally right, simply because it is a phenomena of our time. Other religious groups held the same position. Eventually, the School Board made the course an elective. Parents hae to give written consent.

The diocese had no problems with the students knowing that such relationships exist and that these are issues of our time. They had a problem with telling the students that this position is right and the others are wrong.

My son attended a Catholic high school where they discussed these issues. They gave the kids the facts as sociological realities of our time. They didn’t tell the kids to go out and marry a person of their gender. There again, is that attempt to strike that delicate balance between morality and good pastoral practice. You condemn the sin, but you teach the kids the facts that these are real issues and real opinions in America and many other places.

This is really a sticky issue, isn’t it!

 

[fix]

The Church must always keep a balance between fidelity to its moral teachings and good pastoral practice. Sometimes, it is difficult for the average lay person to understand why the Church does not take a more aggressive stance on certain moral issues. I imagine that the Church has to weigh the options and make the best possible choice.

I was thinking of the laity as I wrote that post. Certainly they have an obligation in these matters especially politicans.

However, the points I raised come from the tradition of the Church. They may appear to be misplaced, because they have a gentle tone. But there is nothing different or inconsistent with the the Church’s tradition in moral matters, espcially on this topic. After the Middle Ages, the Church has chosen to challenge through intellectual discourse rather than an authoritative stance. I believe the goal is to bring people about through persuasion, rathern than confrontation.

Again, I am thinking of the role of the laity. Each situation is different, but it is easy to grasp this culture is saturated with gay propaganda.

I would refer you to this site where the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston had to make a very difficult pastoral decision based on this moral issue that we’re discussing in this thread.

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06031003.html

Cardinal O’Malley, whom I happen to know personally, is a Capucin Franciscan Brother. If we observe his statements, they are firm about the Church’s teaching on this moral issue, but at the same time, his action was very polite, without any anger, yet decisive. It was very consistent with the spirit that St. Francis and Mother Teresa infused into the Church.

I would think even that action would be characterized as hateful by some. The “tone” while important is subjective.

The idea is to denounce sin in a manner that is very clear, without deliberately offending. In fact the spirit is to always show love and communicate the Church’s position using the most gentle and loving manner, without deviating from the truth. This is a style of tellling the truth, not a denial of the truth.

Case by case. I do not think folks here want to offend. Part of the problem is plain speaking is too often seen as hateful. Many are offended illegitimately meaning they really have no authentic reason to take offense.

The Church does not want us to deliberately offend or hurt saint or sinner. Obviously, sometimes people will feel offended, even when the intention was not to do so. That can’t be helped.

I agree, see above.

I disagree that the scales are tipped on the side of the sin. I believe the Church is striving for a balance between sound moral theology and sound pastoral practice. While moral theology denounces the sin, pastoral practice draws in the sinner.

I am speaking of secular society.

This is really a sticky issue, isn’t it!

Yep, it is sticky because for too long one side has managed to own the argument. Please see any number of threads right here where simply stating what is in the CCC is termed hate.

 

[JReducation]

I was thinking of the laity as I wrote that post. Certainly they have an obligation in these matters especially politicans.

Again, I am thinking of the role of the laity. Each situation is different, but it is easy to grasp this culture is saturated with gay propaganda.

I would think even that action would be characterized as hateful by some. The “tone” while important is subjective.

Case by case. I do not think folks here want to offend. Part of the problem is plain speaking is too often seen as hateful. Many are offended illegitimately meaning they really have no authentic reason to take offense.

I agree, see above.

I am speaking of secular society.

Yep, it is sticky because for too long one side has managed to own the argument. Please see any number of threads right here where simply stating what is in the CCC is termed hate.

I agree with all the responses posted here. I believe they’re on target.

As a layman, who is involved in ministry, I would caution the laity to be careful not to fall into the same trap that many fundamentalists have fallen into, including Catholic fundamentatlists. There is a right and wrong way to bring about change. As the old saying goes, the end never justifies the means.

The laity has a moral obligation to make the voice of truth heard at every level of society, especially at the political level, since this is our rightful domain. However, in making our voices heard, we must always make sure that we do so with in a tone that is consistent with our vocation to be bearers of good news.

At times, we say the right thing, but we say it in a way that sounds like fire and brimstone. That’s not very good news. No one wants to listen to discourse that threaten with impending doom, fire and damnation.

Personally, this is why I believe that the laity must not only embrace the Church’s moral teachings, but every lay man and woman should find a spiritual school to guide them. The spiritual masters are not called masters for nothing. They have developed a style, if you will, of getting closer to God while at the same time not doing violence to themselves or others. In other words, their witness does not frighten society.

This is why I admire people like Cardinal O’Malley and Mother Teresa. These people are gifts that the Holy Spirit has given to the Church, not just for their own sanctification, but for us all. As Perfectae Caritatis says, they are models of the perfection of charity which is there for all of us to learn from.

In this issue, which is obviously a very difficult one, as with many others, good spirituality is a good framework from which to start.

Personally, I am biased toward Franciscan spirituality. It is focused on conversion with a healthy dose of love and courage.

 

[Janet_S]

I agree with all the responses posted here. I believe they’re on target.

As a layman, who is involved in ministry, I would caution the laity to be careful not to fall into the same trap that many fundamentalists have fallen into, including Catholic fundamentatlists. There is a right and wrong way to bring about change. As the old saying goes, the end never justifies the means.

The laity has a moral obligation to make the voice of truth heard at every level of society, especially at the political level, since this is our rightful domain. However, in making our voices heard, we must always make sure that we do so with in a tone that is consistent with our vocation to be bearers of good news.

At times, we say the right thing, but we say it in a way that sounds like fire and brimstone. That’s not very good news. No one wants to listen to discourse that threaten with impending doom, fire and damnation.

Personally, this is why I believe that the laity must not only embrace the Church’s moral teachings, but every lay man and woman should find a spiritual school to guide them. The spiritual masters are not called masters for nothing. They have developed a style, if you will, of getting closer to God while at the same time not doing violence to themselves or others. In other words, their witness does not frighten society.

This is why I admire people like Cardinal O’Malley and Mother Teresa. These people are gifts that the Holy Spirit has given to the Church, not just for their own sanctification, but for us all. As Perfectae Caritatis says, they are models of the perfection of charity which is there for all of us to learn from.

In this issue, which is obviously a very difficult one, as with many others, good spirituality is a good framework from which to start.

Personally, I am biased toward Franciscan spirituality. It is focused on conversion with a healthy dose of love and courage.

I’m not sure the message will be accepted no matter how you put it. Once they figure out what you’re saying, you’ll be labeled a bigot and charged with a hate crime.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure the message will be accepted no matter how you put it. Once they figure out what you’re saying, you’ll be labeled a bigot and charged with a hate crime.

I recently watched a video of Mother Teresa. It was an interview, not a Hollywood film. She spoke of the brotherhood of men (and women). She did so in such a non threatening manner. I couldn’t imagine only the very mean or the very foolish calling her a bigot.

I also know Cardinal O’Malley, how is not relevant here, but I have seen him in action. I have heard him say things that people disagree with. However, he does so in the most Franciscan manner, that no one has ever charged him with being a bigot or with a hate crime.

When he approached the state of MA and asked for an accommodation in the adoption policies so that Catholic Charities would continue to work with the State, he never said, that the State was wrong and the Church was right.

He used a different approach. He said that the Sate’s legislation was in conflict with the faith of the Church and that the Church could not continue to cooperate in adoptions as long as Catholic Charities was subject to place children in gay homes.

He knew that the State legislature and social service were aware of the Church’s position on homosexual couples. There was no need to restate that fact. He simply stated that there was a conflict and asked for a dispensation from the state’s law.

When the State said that they could not give Catholic Charities what they wanted, he said that he regretted that Catholic Charities would no longer be able to help the State with adoptions. The State’s and the public response was very dignified. They said that they regretted having to part company on THIS joint effort which they had shared for more than 100 years. They expressed gratitude to the Church for their previous support and that was it.

There were some people, Catholic and non Catholic, who made negative comments. But that’s always going to happen, even if your talking about subway tokens. Someoen is going to find fault with it.

I believe the manner in which Sean presented it was so humble and yet very clear that he was first a Catholic, then a Franciscan Brother, then a bishop and then a citizen of the Commonwealth of MA, that only the very ignorant could show any disrespect toward him.

I mentioned Mother Teresa above, because the same thing happened with her and her home for AIDS victims in Washington. She said, “I only see Christ and he is sick and unloved.” In her case, there were some Catholics and fundamentatlist Protestants who were shocked that she looked past the fact that these people had been infected either through sex or drugs.

But most intelligent people, admired her and many learned something from her. They saw someone committed to bringing the Good News into today’s society.

Like O’Malley, Mother Teresa always looked at how St. Francis lived the Gospel and tried to follow this example. This is just an aside, but her sisters never leave their houses without reciting the Peace Prayer of St. Francis.

This is what I mean when I say that we lay people, would do well to embrace a spiritual tradition as part of our daily life. It really helps when you have to face tough moral issues, because spirituality is like the frame around the picture. It helps you contain everything in perspective.

Personally, I have learned to say what needs to be said, but before I say it, I always ask myself, how, when and where would St. Francis say this?

As I said, I’m partial to Franciscan spirituality. But I realize that it’s one of many schools of spirituality that the Holy Spirit has given to the Church for our edificatioin and as tools to live in this world.

It’s incredible how spirituality, morality and faith work so well together. I guess, I have been fortunate. I have yet to be called a bigot or a criminal. I have had people disagree, but always in the kindest and most polite manner.

As far as I’m concerned, disagreemnt is fine, as long as someone is really followoing their conscience and not just making excuses. Even a poorly formed conscience is still a conscience. If someone is making excuses and covering it up with a non-existent conscience, there is nothing to discuss. When someone is bent on making excuses, the sky is the limit. You just have to sit and wait for them to run out of excuses.

 

[fix]

I’m not sure the message will be accepted no matter how you put it. Once they figure out what you’re saying, you’ll be labeled a bigot and charged with a hate crime.

On a related note did you see the reaction when the Vatican released the document regarding the Catholic Church as the one true Church? Something taught from the very start and the language used was not harsh in any way, yet the response from many including right here was that the Vatican was mean and belligerent.

 

[JReducation]

On a related note did you see the reaction when the Vatican released the document regarding the Catholic Church as the one true Church? Something taught from the very start and the language used was not harsh in any way, yet the response from many including right here was that the Vatican was mean and belligerent.

As someone who deals in ministry on a daily basis, I have a funny feeling, that some of the reaction to this document and many that come from the Vatican these days, may be due to personality, rather than content.

It is no mystery to anyone, within the Church, John Paul II is a tough act to follow and Benedict does not have the charisma that he John Paul had. Unfortunately, Benedict’s former job made him unpopular with many people.

I am not saying that he is wrong. I’m saying that we are human and so is Pope Benedict. He is having a hard time.

However, that being said, I believe that once he begins to travel around and people start to deal with him directly, their reaction to his decrees may soften. He also may soften in his delivery. Let’s not forget the issue with the Muslims and Benedict.

I don’t want him stop teaching truth, this is not it at all. There has to be a softening on both sides. People have to warm up to him and let go of John Paul. He has to get out there. He has been a fixture in the Vatican for many years. Whereas John Paul and John XIII had a great deal of pastoral experience and exposure.

I believe that it will happen. It takes time. Paul VI had the same problem. He followed John XXIII, another tough act to follow. Those who met Paul, found him to be the most sensitive person in the world. I believe (I have never met Benedict, but I did meet JP II.) that Benedict is probably a sensitive person too. It’s just my gut feeling.