Dolan: Catholic Church needs better outreach to gays

[Stylteralmaldo]

But it’s not. Heterosexual attraction is not disordered. Many men have (hopefully passing) feelings of attraction for women who are not their wives. It’s perfectly natural and correctly ordered. It’s what he does with those feelings that makes it sinful or not.

But homosexual attractions are disordered. That’s not the same as being sinful. It simply means that they are not reflections of a rightly ordered sexuality.

Thanks for the clarification and making the distinction. Agreed that there needs to be a distiction made between heterosexual attraction (which is rightly ordered) and homosexual attraction (which is disordered). Your point seems to be supported in OT Scripture where God allowed multiple wives (allowing a natural ordered sexuality), even though Christ later clarified God intended marital life to be between one man and one woman.

Corki:

I am saying the exact opposite of what you inferred that I said. Being blind is a disorder but we don’t call blind people disordered. We say thier lack of vision is a disorder. It’s the same with homosexuality. The **people **are not disordered, it is their sexuality that is disordered.

People are never disorded. They are imperfect and some of those imperfections are harder than others.

Okay…let’s use a common definition of what it means to be “disordered”. According to Webster:

merriam-webster.com/medical/disordered

1: not functioning in a normal orderly healthy way <disordered bodily functions>
2: mentally unbalanced <a disordered patient> <a disordered mind>

What we are dealing with is definition #1 here, and not definition #2. Got to love the English language.

Regarding what I mean “person disordered”: They are a person and they have a disorder. I do not mean to imply that the person is mentally unbalanced. But I do mean that their sexuality is unbalanced.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"Stylteralmaldo:

Isn’t it common sense and rational to state that someone who has homosexual feelings is in fact a disordered person due to their inclination?

No.

I think it’s a language barrier problem. One person may be using one common definition of disorder while someone else is using a different common definition of disorder.

Websters:

1: not functioning in a normal orderly healthy way <disordered bodily functions>
2: mentally unbalanced <a disordered patient> <a disordered mind>

merriam-webster.com/medical/disordered

 

[fix]

I think it’s a language barrier problem. One person may be using one common definition of disorder while someone else is using a different common definition of disorder.

Websters:

1: not functioning in a normal orderly healthy way <disordered bodily functions>
2: mentally unbalanced <a disordered patient> <a disordered mind>

merriam-webster.com/medical/disordered

I thought we were talking about the Church’s use of the term disordered inclination? She refers to a philosophical position. The inclination is not ordered toward the good. The person himself is not disordered.

 

[Edward_H]

Google Catholic Jason Evert, a speaker on chastity.

Catholic Answers happens to sell one of his products, a DVD entitled “Life Giving Love- Understanding Chastity In Marriage”. It is jam-packed with information.

Agree. My wife and I taught for 2 years a Theology of Body course for our parish teens. We used one of Jason’s products. Wonderful materials.

I think a 1.5 hour class on this topic in a parish…well taught…would do wonders for married and family life. So many misconceptions and half truths otherwise.

 

[tbcrawford]

Dolan was spot on, the Church really does. I mean, most gays I know dislike the Church. Not because they actually know it, but because they have listened to what others have said about it and assume it to be bigoted and what not. We need a better outreach to gays no doubt

 

[ringil]

I may be wrong… But I believe that God calls homosexuality an Abomination…

Again I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure about it

DLG

It is best to go to the CCC to gain an understanding of the Church’s approach and understanding of an issue.

Seeking to glean a comprehensive view by taking words or phrases out of the Bible and in this case the OT is not going to serve you sell.

But using the CCC we have the benefit of reading clearly explained issues which have been carefully formulated by the Church leadership.

 

[meltzerboy]

This is news?

As you have been told many times by the members of this forum, who merely echo the Church in this regard, we are not a religion of private interpretation of scripture. Second, we are not Sola Scriptura. Third, among academics in general, the most universally respected scripture scholars of all faiths share the view of the Catholic Church regarding the sexual mores continued in the NT from the OT, and the affirmation of the Mosaic Code by Jesus. (Additional, superfluous dietary and Sabbath laws were added by Jewish officials, and “enforced” especially by the Pharisees in a misguided effort to show an orthodoxy bordering on scrupulosity, due to their competition with the Levites for legitimacy. Those late additions to the Law are what Jesus opposed. However, it is not disputed that he reaffirmed the personal morality of the Mosaic Code, including the sexual dimensions.)

No faithful Catholic contradicts that, including the part in blue, as long as you understand the meaning of the word “judge” as Jesus used it in context. He was not referring to evaluating the reality of sin/wrongdoing, and naming objective sins for what they were. He was referring to comparing one’s own state of spirituality with one’s neighbor’s state. However, if you think Pope Francis agrees with your interpretation of the NT and disagrees with what has been published by the Magisterium, you are, unfortunately, in error.

Yep. And mercy is available to the repentant and those seeking to convert and change, not to the unrepentant. For each individual, mercy is predicated upon an awareness of the need for mercy and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Otherwise, mercy has no context and no meaning. Non-Catholic Christian scripture scholars also agree with this.

Elizabeth, I found in my reading on the Nazarene Jews (who reject the Trinity as well as the divinity of Jesus, but believe he was the (first) Messiah ben Joseph rather than the ultimate Messiah ben David), that Jesus understood the Torah not only with respect to its essence, which He, who may have been an Essene, learned from the true Pharasaic tradition of Hillel the Elder: that is, Love of G-d, neighbor, and even enemy; BUT ALSO with respect to its details. The problem with SOME of the Pharisees (Jesus did not accuse them all) was their ignorance and therefore misinterpretation of BOTH the Written Law (Torah) and the Oral Law (later codified as the Talmud), more than their pride and adherence to the letter of the Law. IOW, Jesus believed these false Pharisees didn’t go far enough in their adherence to the Law. They didn’t realize, for example, that when Jesus refused to admonish people for carrying objects on the Sabbath, it was He who understood the Oral Torah teaching that one was permitted to carry objects within a circumscribed distance of one’s neighborhood, which is practiced to this day. The same idea applied to saving a life on the Sabbath, which necessitated work. Such an activity was not only permitted, according to the Oral Torah, but demanded by those Pharisees who understood their own Law.

 

[estesbob]

And what should our outreach be?

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins;
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is made to you and to your children
and to all those far off,
whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 2

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, I found in my reading on the Nazarene Jews (who reject the Trinity as well as the divinity of Jesus, but believe he was the (first) Messiah ben Joseph rather than the ultimate Messiah ben David), that Jesus understood the Torah not only with respect to its essence, which He, who may have been an Essene, learned from the true Pharasaic tradition of Hillel the Elder: that is, Love of G-d, neighbor, and even enemy; BUT ALSO with respect to its details. The problem with SOME of the Pharisees (Jesus did not accuse them all) was their ignorance and therefore misinterpretation of BOTH the Written Law (Torah) and the Oral Law (later codified as the Talmud), more than their pride and adherence to the letter of the Law. IOW, Jesus believed these false Pharisees didn’t go far enough in their adherence to the Law. They didn’t realize, for example, that when Jesus refused to admonish people for carrying objects on the Sabbath, it was He who understood the Oral Torah teaching that one was permitted to carry objects within a circumscribed distance of one’s neighborhood, which is practiced to this day. The same idea applied to saving a life on the Sabbath, which necessitated work. Such an activity was not only permitted, according to the Oral Torah, but demanded by those Pharisees who understood their own Law.

I love your illumination, yes. And I love being further instructed by you. (Not a sarcastic comment! ) I was telegraphing this all, and I’m aware that there is more to the story than I presented, but I love your additions, and I thank you. And I also know that Jesus did not accuse all of the Pharisees. There were Pharisees and there were Pharisees, if others get my drift The point that often is lost by Christians is that supposedly all Pharisees were evil, when most were sincere and could be accused of being overly zealous but misguided, and misinterpreting (yes) the Law.

Similarly, “the Jews” in the Gospels did not refer to all Jews, but to those who opposed Jesus specifically.

 

[estesbob]

It is best to go to the CCC to gain an understanding of the Church’s approach and understanding of an issue.

Seeking to glean a comprehensive view by taking words or phrases out of the Bible and in this case the OT is not going to serve you sell.

But using the CCC we have the benefit of reading clearly explained issues which have been carefully formulated by the Church leadership.

We should use the Catechism. Here is was its says about those who engage in homosexual behavior:

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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

When reaching out to Homosexuals the Church can not affirm in any way their behavior. They, like all sinners, are called to repent and sin no more.

 

[Elizabeth502]

estesbob,

I don’t think it is being suggested that the truth be watered down, but that the focus not be on the sin, just as none of us would want our sins focused on if we wanted or needed to be led to the Church.

Very often, the welcome comes first and the knowledge/realization of our sinfulness comes second. I agree that it should not be implied that doctrine is not doctrine, but rather the sequence or methodology is what is being discussed.

 

[meltzerboy]

estesbob,

I don’t think it is being suggested that the truth be watered down, but that the focus not be on the sin, just as none of us would want our sins focused on if we wanted or needed to be led to the Church.

Very often, the welcome comes first and the knowledge/realization of our sinfulness comes second. I agree that it should not be implied that doctrine is not doctrine, but rather the sequence or methodology is what is being discussed.

Which is exactly the way Cardinal Dolan prefers to preach in this and other matters: his is a preaching of inclusion, not exclusion, which first includes all sinners and then, gently, instructs them to depart from their sins. This is the method and teaching of Jesus: “I do not condemn thee; go, and sin no more.”

 

[estesbob]

estesbob,

I don’t think it is being suggested that the truth be watered down, but that the focus not be on the sin, just as none of us would want our sins focused on if we wanted or needed to be led to the Church.

Very often, the welcome comes first and the knowledge/realization of our sinfulness comes second. I agree that it should not be implied that doctrine is not doctrine, but rather the sequence or methodology is what is being discussed.

Not only are many suggesting that the truth the watered-down, they are suggesting that the truth be changed.I am at loss as how we could welcome those who engage in homosexual behavior while not at the same time telling them that our welcome does not include allowing them to receive the sacraments Outreach must include an acknowledgment that they cannot enter into the fullness of the church unless they discontinued the behavior they are engaging in. Of course this applies to everyone who is living a sinful lifestyle . So are our outreach has to be based on love and the truth

 

[Elizabeth502]

Which is exactly the way Cardinal Dolan prefers to preach in this and other matters: his is a preaching of inclusion, not exclusion, which first includes all sinners and then, gently, instructs them to depart from their sins. This is the method and teaching of Jesus: “I do not condemn thee; go, and sin no more.”

I agree. (And I hope you understood that was my meaning.)

 

[meltzerboy]

Not only are many suggesting that the truth the watered-down, they are suggesting that the truth be changed.I am at loss as how we could welcome those who engage in homosexual behavior while not at the same time telling them that our welcome does not include allowing them to receive the sacraments Outreach must include an acknowledgment that they cannot enter into the fullness of the church unless they discontinued the behavior they are engaging in. Of course this applies to everyone who is living a sinful lifestyle . So are our outreach has to be based on love and the truth

Your welcome does allow them to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, as it does to all sinners, although not the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as it does not allow this to be received by anyone who is in mortal sin. What distinction are you trying to make? Aren’t all permitted to pray in the communion of the Church, even non-Catholics? Shouldn’t all be given charity, which is the practice of love based on the truth of faith?

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree. (And I hope you understood that was my meaning.)

I did understand but was just pointing out that Cardinal Dolan is not suggesting anything that Jesus would not have done.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I did understand but was just pointing out that Cardinal Dolan is not suggesting anything that Jesus would not have done.

Also agree. (That was understood as well.)

 

[markeverett49]

Dolan was spot on, the Church really does. I mean, most gays I know dislike the Church. Not because they actually know it, but because they have listened to what others have said about it and assume it to be bigoted and what not. We need a better outreach to gays no doubt

Perhaps the Church should up its outreach to journalists and pundits who willfully distort the Church’s teachings on this subject…

The idea of “outreach” many have is precisely this: the Catholic Church embraces same-sex marriage, affirms homosexual acts as of equal dignity with the marital act, and throws in an ‘o, yeah, we were wrong about contraception and abortion too!’

That is not outreach; that would be surrender.

 

[estesbob]

I did understand but was just pointing out that Cardinal Dolan is not suggesting anything that Jesus would not have done.

I don’t see where the Church outreach to homosexuals would be any different that their outreach to anyone else who was living in sin.

 

[markeverett49]

In any case the NT also says not to judge and to be concerned with our own eye planks and not to cast the first stones. Pope Francis actually spoke eloquently the other week about not casting the first stone and about how Jesus did not condemn the adulteress. And that even though Jesus told her to sin no more, Pope Francis said in about a month people do sin again. And even so ,still, Francis said, it is mercy that Jesus is all about.

This breaks down when people deny that their sins are sins. The women taken in adultery did not claim what she did was a good thing or “no one else’s business.” Those who deny homosexual acts are insulted by the suggestion they require forgiveness for them.

There is a vast difference in judging the state of another person’s soul and knowing, and saying, that certain acts are wrong for human beings to commit. It is people who call other people bigots for acknowledging that homosexual acts are wrong who are doing the judging!