Dramatic move as Synod Fathers set out new pastoral care for gays, cohabiting couples and divorcees

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know we are both Catholics but I think we must attend different churches. Divorced people have a very difficult time in the Church as has gay people. They were made to feel dirty, unwanted and broken by members of their parishes and by their priests. I’m glad the Vatican has listened to testimonies from people who have been hurt by members of the church. I think our Pope is trying to find a way to eradicate these awful actions by making sure that every Catholic knows it’s not right to judge others. We are not the gatekeepers of Heaven. That’s God’s job. Every time we sinners chastise others for their sins, we are hypocrites.
I live in New York City. I have lived all over the US to include the Deep South. I have NEVER witnessed anything that you describe. Many parishes have had special ministries for the groups mentioned above.

What we are talking about is people that don’t like being told they have sinned, F’d up, made a mistake, or whatever. No one STOPPED ministering to them or welcoming them. What we are now discussing is essentially a pardon or some sort of apostasy to appease these groups and their sympathizers. When I sin , I expect no such quarter. Nor should anyone else. Repent, get back on track.

Hypocrites? Are we not to admonish our brothers when he sins?? Not cast STONES mind you, but admonish? OF COURSE we are! Whoever told you otherwise is dead wrong.
 
Depends on what you mean by being allowed to participate.
So soon gays will be able to participate fully without repentance or acknowledgement of guilt and wrongdoing because …why?
Please indicate where I have suggested such a thing.
 
Without naming screennames, I have gathered from many posters that today’s press releases merely indicated the Church’s somehow newfangled willingness to welcome those living sinful lifestyles for the purposes of helping to gradually and eventually save them.

This is is hogwash, people. The Church has ALWAYS welcomed the sinner. ANY kind of sinner. Why this change in tone and language now?? It is much more than welcoming. I believe it is about to be condoned in some Protestant-esque hair splitting babble and that is very unfortunate.

The Church has been reaching out to the gay community, **treating them the same as the rest of us sinners, **for years. Somehow now saying that there is value to their “orientation” (huh?!?) is nearly unbearable and I can only hope they fix this quickly.

This entire days’ events has baffled me utterly.
[bold added]

That’s not how some people see it.

Church: Homosexuals do not choose their attraction but nevertheless they have an intrinsic disorder…

Some lesbians/gays: The Church says we’re disordered and abnormal! Well, this is who I am, and if the Church thinks I’m a mistake in God’s creation, then fine, I don’t care — I will live my life how I want. Who cares what those straight people think?!

Church: It’s a descriptive term to differentiate between…

SLG: The Church hates us and discriminates us by even coming up with a different category of sin for us! We cannot control our feelings, and we are judged as more evil.

Church: OK, let’s try this again. Each person has intrinsic value but due to fallen human nature, some people have different struggles. But absolute morality established by God cannot be breached, but all, homosexuals, heterosexuals, inbetween, are welcome to participate in the Church. We will teach you the fullness of life that’s beyond this physical world and give you hope for something eternal.

SLG: Fine, whatever. I’ll give it a thought…

The above is my interpretation. The goal is bringing people to Jesus. He extends more of His Mercy to sinners because sinners need His Mercy more. Wouldn’t He want His Church to show compassion to save more sinners?

The only difference I see now is change in tone and wording, not change in moral teaching.

Isn’t every temptation an opportunity of merit to reject sin and choose good? Maybe the orientation has value insofar as people can choose good in spite of greater difficulties and rejection from people.
 
The link below is to the full text of the “Relatio post disceptationem” delivered in the synod hall this morning by the General Rapporteur, Cardinal Péter Erdő. This is being considered the Synod’s mid way report:

zenit.org/en/articles/synod14-full-text-of-relatio-post-disceptationem
Synod14:
Welcoming homosexual persons
Code:
 50.        Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
50: I see nothing out of line here. Does anyone else see a problem?
Synod14:
Code:
 51.        The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
51: Sounds like a sound approach to me.
Synod14:
Code:
 52.        Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
52: “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions”, who takes issue with what is stated here?
 
Depends on what you mean by being allowed to participate.
So soon gays will be able to participate fully without repentance or acknowledgement of guilt and wrongdoing because …why? Because they’re special? Too powerful? Organized?

Are our sins so much worse that we are told to seek confession, etc first?

They are tiptoeing around the gay community so as not to offend them. They will have to carve out some kind of Canonical legal loophole that allows them to participate fully, as you suggested, without being told they’re wrong.

Am I missing something? This is beyond disappointing, to put it mildly.
Yes, you are missing something, you are missing a lot of things. I am sure this strongly conflicts with what you have been told the Church teaches, this does not however conflict in the slightest with what the Church says.

The Church has always said that gay sex is immoral, this document reaffirms it. The Church has never claimed that being attracted to the same sex is immoral, this document reaffirms that. The Church has never said that gay relationships are immoral through and through with absolutely no good qualities, this document reaffirms it.

The Catechism is pretty clear that a homosexual inclination is objectively disordered insofar as the object of said inclination is an objective evil, in layman terminology the Church has never taught that a man loving a man is wrong, it has however taught that expressing that love in a sexual manner is wrong. The issue is that a lot of people have misinterpreted the Catechism and believe that it says that everything that stems from homosexuality is evil.
 
[bold added]

That’s not how some people see it.

Church: Homosexuals do not choose their attraction but nevertheless they have an intrinsic disorder…

Some lesbians/gays: The Church says we’re disordered and abnormal! Well, this is who I am, and if the Church thinks I’m a mistake in God’s creation, then fine, I don’t care — I will live my life how I want. Who cares what those straight people think?!

Church: It’s a descriptive term to differentiate between…

SLG: The Church hates us and discriminates us by even coming up with a different category of sin for us! We cannot control our feelings, and we are judged as more evil.

Church: OK, let’s try this again. Each person has intrinsic value but due to fallen human nature, some people have different struggles. But absolute morality established by God cannot be breached, but all, homosexuals, heterosexuals, inbetween, are welcome to participate in the Church. We will teach you the fullness of life that’s beyond this physical world and give you hope for something eternal.

SLG: Fine, whatever. I’ll give it a thought…

The above is my interpretation. The goal is bringing people to Jesus. He extends more of His Mercy to sinners because sinners need His Mercy more. Wouldn’t He want His Church to show compassion to save more sinners?

The only difference I see now is change in tone and wording, not change in moral teaching.

Isn’t every temptation an opportunity of merit to reject sin and choose good? Maybe the orientation has value insofar as people can choose good in spite of greater difficulties and rejection from people.
If only that’s how this was discussed! Haha
Agree to disagree then.🙂
Shall there be such quarter given to other people with sinful inclinations?
I thought we were all in agreement that the inclination was not given by God but was caused by the Fall of man? What happened to that idea?

I’m not comfortable with the idea of blaming God for my, or anyone else’s sinful inclinations whatever they may be. And I’m not a scholar on the topic, but I dare say that idea is wrong.
 
50: I see nothing out of line here. Does anyone else see a problem?

51: Sounds like a sound approach to me.

52: “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions”, who takes issue with what is stated here?
We see what we want to see. There must be a term for believing in the worst possible scenario for the sake of being angry and indignant about something.

I only see a change in approach, not change in message of chastity. Maybe the Church hopes that anyone in a gay relationship would voluntarily choose to leave that lifestyle?
 
If only that’s how this was discussed! Haha
Agree to disagree then.🙂
Shall there be such quarter given to other people with sinful inclinations?
I thought we were all in agreement that the inclination was not given by God but was caused by the Fall of man? What happened to that idea?

I’m not comfortable with the idea of blaming God for my, or anyone else’s sinful inclinations whatever they may be. And I’m not a scholar on the topic, but I dare say that idea is wrong.
Is there another sinful inclination that affects a large number of people that have been marginalized in society?

Who said the inclination was given by God? I just said “due to fallen human nature” in the previous post.

Who’s blaming God?

I thought it was commonly accepted belief that God allows some things to happen so that good may result from it?
 
Yes, you are missing something, you are missing a lot of things. I am sure this strongly conflicts with what you have been told the Church teaches, this does not however conflict in the slightest with what the Church says.

The Church has always said that gay sex is immoral, this document reaffirms it. The Church has never claimed that being attracted to the same sex is immoral, this document reaffirms that. The Church has never said that gay relationships are immoral through and through with absolutely no good qualities, this document reaffirms it.

The Catechism is pretty clear that a homosexual inclination is objectively disordered insofar as the object of said inclination is an objective evil, in layman terminology the Church has never taught that a man loving a man is wrong, it has however taught that expressing that love in a sexual manner is wrong. The issue is that a lot of people have misinterpreted the Catechism and believe that it says that everything that stems from homosexuality is evil.
How do we value their sexual orientation? I admire your trying to hold the line here, Lord knows I try to do the same, but to me, you (and perhaps the bishops now)are splitting the finest of hairs. It’s simply not good enough of an argument to put this issue to bed, or people like me wouldn’t be here flipping out about it.

As we know, there is no progressive, conservative, left wing right wing in the Church. There’s truth and that’s all. I feel there are more fissures developing which will necessarily amount to a change in the truth. Obviously that is paradox. This is a problem.
 
If you believe the rumors, the Cardinal who was to become Pope Francis was the runner up to Benedict, and was then chosen when Benedict stepped down.

This means that the other Cardinals, and the Holy Spirit, must think he knows what he is doing.

I have faith that Benedict, Francis, and the College of Cardinals did what the Holy Spirit inspired them to do, and that means that Francis is in charge. He won’t drive the Church off a cliff.
 
This would apply equally to polygamists. I’m assuming you were joking but it sounds like you and the above poster were comparing homosexuals to polygamists. That would be quite an insult to them; one which they definitely don’t deserve.

homosexual=/=polygamist
homosexual=/=pedophile
homosexual=/=horrible human being
By what moral standard is that? I’m against polygamy, but it doesn’t make sense to say that it is morally worse than a homosexual relationship. God at least tolerated polygamy for a while in the Old Testament. But homosexual behavior is condemned all through Scripture. And homosexual behavior was never called marriage by any societal norm until recently. The ancient Spartans, who practiced homosexuality as a norm, didn’t even call a homosexual relationship a marriage.
 
Is there another sinful inclination that affects a large number of people that have been marginalized in society?

Who said the inclination was given by God? I just said “due to fallen human nature” in the previous post.

Who’s blaming God?

I thought it was commonly accepted belief that God allows some things to happen so that good may result from it?
That was in response to the theoretical SLG comment in your post that “if the Church thinks I’m a mistake by God…”

God allows plenty of course. He’s allowed me to make myriad mistakes and has delivered me so far, that’s not the point. I wanted to be cleAr that we cannot assume (in case anyone is) that God gave these people this particular cross to carry.

Angry and indignant? Was that for me?
 
Not sure Paul is pulling them in the way he used to. 😉 He’s obsolete.
Paul quotes that warn of us our desires to judge the behaviors of others:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

“Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. … Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ welcomed you, for the glory of God.”

But then it was Paul who said…

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent.”

Paul was kind of all over the place. He contradicted himself often which is why he’s frequently targeted by atheists. Let’s just say Paul is not the shining star of our faith, but we love him anyway. And just like we love our broken sinful Paul, we should love all of our gay brothers and sisters just the same.
 
Yes, you are missing something, you are missing a lot of things. I am sure this strongly conflicts with what you have been told the Church teaches, this does not however conflict in the slightest with what the Church says.

The Church has always said that gay sex is immoral, this document reaffirms it. The Church has never claimed that being attracted to the same sex is immoral, this document reaffirms that. The Church has never said that gay relationships are immoral through and through with absolutely no good qualities, this document reaffirms it.

The Catechism is pretty clear that a homosexual inclination is objectively disordered insofar as the object of said inclination is an objective evil, in layman terminology the Church has never taught that a man loving a man is wrong, it has however taught that expressing that love in a sexual manner is wrong. The issue is that a lot of people have misinterpreted the Catechism and believe that it says that everything that stems from homosexuality is evil.
What? What kind of double talk is this, the church has never said that gay relationships are immoral while at the same time saying that the sex is immoral. What do you think relationship means? That they blow bubbles together and go on walks??? So tell me what exactly does homo sexuality entail that isn’t evil if it defining feature is the sexuality??
 
Paul quotes that warn of us our desires to judge the behaviors of others:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

“Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. … Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ welcomed you, for the glory of God.”

But then it was Paul who said…

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent.”

Paul was kind of all over the place. He contradicted himself often which is why he’s frequently targeted by atheists. Let’s just say Paul is not the shining star of our faith, but we love him anyway. And just like we love our broken sinful Paul, we should love all of our gay brothers and sisters just the same.
I agree. No one here is advocating not loving everyone, regardless of their sins.

However, there is a difference between admonishing your brother when he is wrong, or simply stating what is wrong (there are rules and we all know that) and judging or condemning people. All too often in these forums, especially on this topic, people to from 0-60 claiming that saying homosexuality is wrong is akin to judging people, etc. I don’t know why that is.
 
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...dit_David_Uebbing_CNA_CNA_10_13_14.jpgVatican City, Oct 13, 2014 / 04:59 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Vatican City, Oct 13, 2014 / 04:59 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Catholic blogosphere exploded Monday after the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops released a document summarizing last week’s discussion.

But while the relatio post disceptationem, which means “Report After Debate,” has been fodder for sensational headlines claiming a major shift in doctrine, the report is only a beginning, working document of the Church.

The relatio, as it’s called, simply takes the topics and comments made during the last week of the synod and attempts to summarize and organize them into categories. The official teaching document of the synod will not be released until well after the Ordinary Synod of Bishops, which is scheduled to take place next fall. Typically after an ordinary synod, the Pope will release an Apostolic Exhortation regarding his conclusions after the meeting of bishops.

Still, although the relatio has “working document” status, it has received mixed reactions from several bishops present at the synod.

Some were quick to calm the storm of speculations that the Church is changing its teachings regarding homosexual marriage. Bishop Eugène Cyrille Houndekon of Abomey, Africa, said the language in the relatio simply refers to the Church’s openness to everyone, no matter where they are in their journey of faith.

“The Church open its doors to all people – their weaknesses, their defects – and try to help them, everybody, those who have stronger virtues to deepen that, and those who have weaknesses to try…to overcome that,” he told CNA.

The bishop was referring to the document’s position on persons with same-sex attraction and their role in the church, which Cardinal Peter Erdo quoted in his opening speech to the Synod Fathers Monday morning, saying:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

Other bishops and cardinals are concerned with a lack of clarity in the document. In an interview with CNA, Cardinal Burke said the relatio as it stands uses “confused” and “even erroneous” language, and he hopes the final document from this synod is much clearer.

“There’s a confusion with the regard to the question of people who are living in de-facto unions, or people who are attracted to the same sex are living together, and an inadequate explanation of the relationship of the church to the person,” he said.

“I certainly hope that this document will be set aside completely, and there will be an effort made to present the church’s true teaching and pastoral practice, the two of which always go together in a new document.”

President of the Polish bishops’ conference Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki also voiced concerns, and said he hopes the final synod will discuss support of families as a whole rather than only studying special cases or exceptions to the traditional family.

“Speak about the practical exceptions, but we also need to present the truth,” Archbishop Gadecki said in an interview with Vatican Radio.

The relatio was divided into three categories that addressed the context and challenges to the family, the Gospel of the Family and how it fits into salvation, and pastoral perspectives regarding irregular unions. Left open for more discussion was also whether divorced and remarried Catholics could receive Communion.

The document will serve as a starting point for further discussion and reflection this next week.

“The reflections put forward, the fruit of the Synodal dialog that took place in great freedom and a spirit of reciprocal listening, are intended to raise questions and indicate perspectives that will have to be matured and made clearer by the reflection of the local Churches in the year that separates us from the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of bishops planned for October 2015,” the document reads.

“These are not decisions that have been made nor simply points of view. All the same the collegial path of the bishops and the involvement of all God’s people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead us to find roads of truth and mercy for all. This is the wish that from the beginning of our work Pope Francis has extended to us, inviting us to the courage of the faith and the humble and honest welcome of the truth in charity.”

The full text of the document can be found at: press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/zxXTIJYnrIY

Full article…
 
What? What kind of double talk is this, the church has never said that gay relationships are immoral while at the same time saying that the sex is immoral. What do you think relationship means? That they blow bubbles together and go on walks??? So tell me what exactly does homo sexuality entail that isn’t evil if it defining feature is the sexuality??
lol.
gay relationship - sex = friendship
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top