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

[PTL]

No one is talking about giving the Eucharist to those who are in mortal sin. .

Really? Does that include homos? I have not heard or seen any clear saying that homos are welcome to the Church “but not allowed to receive the Eucharist”. I have to wait and see.

Do you categorize homos as in mortal sin?

 

[alwaysthinkin]

I don’t think that is what they mean.

Someone in a post just previous to this said that if two people with same-sex attraction come to church, they should not sit next to each other in a pew.

That’s sounds pretty unwelcoming to me.

.

Aside from what the other poster said about the pews,
I think that gays will never feel welcomed until the doctrine is changed or sufficiently muddled to the point where they feel they are accepted in their lifestyle, as is. That is what many community leaders have stated (more or less). To think otherwise is a bit silly.

I myself would never have this discussion with the few gay people I am friends with because if I said I like them but would never openly approve of their gay lifestyle, that would be the end of the friendship. They believe I accept them and their lifestyle completely.

 

[Eternal_One]

When a pope is speaking about or “defines” a doctrine concerning faith or morals, that means he is speaking “ex cathedra”, correct?

Pope Frances seems to speak “ex cathedra” quite frequently.

.

I used to think that is all it took, but apparently not. The pope must specify when he is about to make a declaration ex cathedra and then that declaration is considered infallible. He has never specified such, so as far as I can tell, this is all just part of his “style.”

 

[AOE4]

No one is talking about giving the Eucharist to those who are in mortal sin. Many homosexuals desire Christ but do not feel like they can approach a Catholic to discuss the Catholic faith because of the intensity and, frankly, the anger of the Church towards homosexual unions. The bishops are simply saying that the Lord’s teaching on homosexual unions can be communicated without the intensity and anger that make homosexual people feel so unwelcome in a Catholic church.

“anger” as that how you interpret the Catechism in regards to homosexuality? 2358 in the Catechism mentions “compassion and sensitivity” seems to me the Bishops are just reiterating what is in the Catechism and reminding us to be nice polite Christians

 

[AOE4]

Really? Does that include homos? I have not heard or seen any clear saying that homos are welcome to the Church “but not allowed to receive the Eucharist”. I have to wait and see.

Do you categorize homos as in mortal sin?

are you angry? hypothetical situation, a guy lets it be well known that he is cheating on his wife… he admits to being an adulterer.He clearly states that as he enters the church.Do you think he should be given communion? so your example of a homosexual being denied communion, are they out loud and proud? you being more specific would be good.I mean it is so difficult to deny communion to any practicing Catholic.How could the priest deny communion to someone that is gay? how would he know if they where celibate or not? in other words repentant? that certainly is not my call, who am I to judge?

 

[PTL]

are you angry? hypothetical situation, a guy lets it be well known that he is cheating on his wife… he admits to being an adulterer.He clearly states that as he enters the church.Do you think he should be given communion? so your example of a homosexual being denied communion, are they out loud and proud? you being more specific would be good.I mean it is so difficult to deny communion to any practicing Catholic.How could the priest deny communion to someone that is gay? how would he know if they where celibate or not? in other words repentant? that certainly is not my call, who am I to judge?

That is exactly why it is important when the synod welcomes homos to the church, they should be clear about the Church’s teaching at the same time. When you say things ambiguous, it is inviting people in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist. Inviting people in mortal sin to Eucharist not only insults Jesus but also denying the necessity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

If the synod clearly says the teaching of the Church, i.e. homo behavior is sinful but Church is compassionate to welcome any repentant sinners and embrace them with whole heart, then it is a different story.

Simply saying all homos are welcome without specifying the doctrine is not only misleading but also down grading the Eucharist. The Church has the responsibility to teach. To teach is to clearly tell people the doctrine, unless the synod is suggesting the Pope to change the doctrine

 

[Petaro]

I think it’s a very good idea to convey the sense that all three of these groups have a similar problem with sin, but don’t lose their innate dignity as persons as a result of their temptations. EVERYBODY can relate to the temptations of at least one of these categories. Equating them combats the genuine homophobia that occurs in some places in the church where both the sin and the sinner are despised as if members of a completely different (and more heinous) class of sin.

I’m not sure what people consider “new” about the idea that “parts” of same sex relationships are genuinely good, moral and virtuous. I was taught way back in grade school about how the English word “love” covers at least THREE words in ancient Greek: Filia, Eros and Agape. The fact that physically erotic forms of love have no moral or constructive place in a relationship between two people of the same sex doesn’t remotely negate the virtues of Agape or Filia in those relationships. This, in fact, is probably why actively gay people have such a hard time accepting Christian teaching on the matter. In too many places, they are told that their relationships have no redeeming value whatsoever, an assertion plainly untrue in their own experience. (I wonder if this is also why lesbian relationships, at least, tend to rather quickly phase out of the erotic phase of the relationship?). In any case, this seems less to me like something “new” and more like a re-emphasis on something very old.

I do, however, still have a very grave concern that in attempting to be pastoral, some church leaders are still naïve in terms of assuming that their actual ideas will be given fair hearing in the public and press rather than snippets being taken out of context by people wishing to rationalize their sins into virtues. Nuance is a good thing, but it cannot be grasped by people who have not yet begun to comprehend fundamentals. And it especially won’t be understood well by those unwilling to comprehend fundamentals.

A wise post. The Church is looking at pastoral movement rather than doctrinal change. I have homosexual friends who are very good and kind people. I don’t judge them as long as they don’t push me to agree with their values. I live under too fragile a glass. The Church is saying nothing more than what we already see in people who are “in sin”, brothers like us all struggling through a fallen world. If we can bring them closer to Christ by care rather than open condemnation then we are better Christians. Let us all not cross the street when we meet them or pick up a stone of the Law. Rather let Christ’s running towards the lost son be our emblem of faith. It will be hard for a lot of us but perhaps that is what the Synod will call us to. Let us wait and cut our lamp wicks awaiting the dawn.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is.

“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.”

It seems to me that there is a tension here. Either the “intrinsically disordered” has to go, or the accepting and valuing must go. I certainly hope they will chose the latter, but we shall see.

It uses the phrase “intrinsically disordered” to refer to gay sex, it uses “objectively disordered” to refer to an inclination to gay sex. The former phrase refers to it (gay sex) in itself being sinful whereas the latter says that the object of the inclination is disordered.

Mutatio gratia mutationis (change for the sake of change)

In organizational theory, such can make any organization unstable.

Just something I learned in graduate business school (attended with priests, btw).

Just sayin…

There is a difference between change for the sake of change and change because it is useful. Also, the Catholic Church has changed nothing in the midterm paper.

It’s not for the sake of change. It’s for the sake of matching the culture better. Maybe even getting some financial flow from those that have railed against the Church for centuries.

In a word, selling out.

There has not been a change from orthodox Catholic teaching.

Not merely invalid:

“In the Catholic Church and in some Protestant denominations (although most Protestants allow divorce in all circumstances), this is interpreted as allowing the dissolution of a marriage between two non-baptized persons in the case that one (but not both) of the partners seeks baptism and converts to Christianity and the other partner leaves the marriage. According to the Catholic Church’s canon law, the Pauline Privilege does not apply when either of the partners was a Christian at the time of marriage. It differs from annulment because it dissolves a valid natural (but not sacramental) marriage whereas an annulment declares that a marriage was invalid from the beginning.” - WIkipedia.

Man can not split apart what God has put together. A marriage between two unbaptized people wasn’t put together by God.

But I was. Here, the CC grants true divorce, in direct violation of Jesus words, who said nothing about “let not man separate” being exclusive to sacramental marriages. It was Paul who felt he had the authority to soften the words of Jesus, but he stated at the outset:* “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)”. *

So, Paul felt he could make an exception, but he was careful to note that it was his words, not those of the Lord. Paul was an apostle. The bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have no less authority than he did. Furthermore, if marriage was truly ontologically indissoluble, it would be impossible to break it.

Jesus refers to let no man separate what God has put together; God did not put together a marriage between two unbaptized people.

Uh, you may consider consulting reference material before posting? in this case that would be the Catechism of the Catholic church.

You might want to understand the reference material before posting.

“tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” a quote from the Catechism.I Your post states the opposite…really, do I need to quote you too go back and have a look at your post.Do you have access to the Catechism? I have one right in front of me. I am not disagreeing with the link you have posted however it does seem you are not familiar with the source the link is commenting on?.I do not understand how you can post something that is not correct.It seems you responded to a rather harsh criticism of homosexuality,hence the post about homosexuality NOT being intrinsically disordered?Maybe read the entire text 'offenses against chastity"(2351) it refers not only to homosexuality.

It appears you do not understand the source material.

Keep in mind the prodigal son confessed his sin and repented to his father,“I have sinned against you and against God.” He came home to live a new life, not continued his old sinful way.

I think in this case the Church recognizes that for the prodigal son to confess his sin and repent to his father he’d first have to willingly come within a hundred yards of his father.

Well, a bit different, but Cardinal Burke upheld the decision to not offer communion to politicians who defended and supported abortion. That’s kind of a very public rebuke for a sinner I suppose.

There is a bit of a difference between two men being seen in public holding hands and a people using mass media to publicly proclaim that they stand for the right to slaughter the unborn.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

I’m not trying to hold the line, I came to these conclusions before the Synod was called. I’m the kind of person who’d call William Buckley a dirty liberal to his face and sincerely mean it.

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??

Gay couples engage in sex about as much as heterosexual couples, given that that only works out to an hour a week presumably it is referring to the things that make up the other 167 hours in it.

lol.
gay relationship - sex = friendship

Is a marriage that no longer has sex just a friendship?

According to the blog Rorate Caeli, Archbishop Stanislaw Gądecki has called the document unacceptable

Turns out His Excellency did not say that.

That’s true. What ever happened to the concept of a platonic friendship between two people of the same sex?

Medieval conceptions of platonic friendship would probably be branded gay relationships today.

See the bolded. Is he talking about their non sexual affections for each other?

Yes.

I guess for me the question is this: Is the Church looking to change the doctrine that homosexuality is wrong and a grave sin for those that are active homosexuals or are they looking for ways to try to reach out to those and show them that this is a serious sin that puts their eternal soul in danger of damnation or some other kind of outreach. If it is an actual change in the teaching that homosexuality should not be looked at as a sin, but in the light that it involves love just as in the marriage between a man and a women, then there is going to be a huge problem with this. At this point, until there is some real clarification on this, I can only rely on what Christ said “that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church”.

The Church has come to terms that ranting about what they do with less than 1% of their time is not going to help souls come to Christ.

Gays can have some sort of dignity? Of course they can because be Church teaches they’re not “gays” but people with intrinsic value and human dignity (the whole “a person is not his/her sexual orientation” thesis).

Why then, are the bishops, et. Al. saying things like “their [those folks that self identify as gay] love is precious?” And “can we value their orientation?”

It doesn’t make SENSE in the Church’s current teaching. It suggests a change, at the least a loophole. This isn’t a matter of “conservatives going berserk” (I thought there wasn’t such a Thing, only truth…whatever). I am NOT an intellectual heavy hitter, but my my, this casual dismissal by so many of the faithful of what amounts to a SERIOUS INCONSISTENCY IN CHURCH TEACHING(caps bc woe is me lest I am accused of saying anything other than that by anyone with a ban hammer) is frightening.

I’m a busy guy and I hate my job like everyone else. I’m not on this forum for my health or boredom, as I imagine none of you are. I’m here because I am very concerned and I haven’t been assuaged by anything my fellow laymen have said tonight.

God bless us all and have mercy

This does not conflict with what the Church actually teaches, it only conflicts with what Pharisees teach that the Church teaches, that is why many casually dismiss your concerns.

But of course, He didn’t say anything about homosexuality.

I’ve always disliked the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in discussions of the Church. All of the bishops are guided by the same Holy Spirit.

He didn’t have to, we have Tradition and logic telling us not to have gay marriage.

 

[TarkanAttila]

My point exactly.
The line above is talking about homosexual “acts” being “intrinsically disordered”, not homosexuality itself.

.

Interesting.

What would you propose the purpose of homosexuality is?

Who knows? Maybe this is a question the synod will look into in the coming year. Sounds a bit like uranium. Wasn’t considered too useful when it was first discovered. Now…

I don’t think anything the Synod has said so far is off-balance. Some of it makes me uncomfortable - such as relaxing annulment laws - but a lot of it has been very Catholic all around - merciful, while not abandoning the truth of the Faith. I have a great deal of hope that our bishops and cardinals will find a way to address the issues of the day - even if it does take them a few centuries.

 

[_Abyssinia]

We’ve found homosexuality in every two sex species where we’ve looked. So homosexuality is a part of the natural world. God may not have directly chosen which people are to be homosexual and which are to be heterosexual, but he did create the natural world. Ultimately, all that homosexual activity in all of those species, including humans, are of God. Now, one can argue that people need to fight nature by fighting their homosexual inclinations and that behavior will bring them closer to God. We see that in many cultures. The Shipibo think that men are closer to God because they have short hair, prefer cooked food and have penises. Women are closer to nature (further from God) because they have long hair, prefer sweet foods and have vaginas. We have a similar thought process in our church. Heterosexual sex is closer to God.

Many of us wish that homosexual behavior was addressed in the Commandments or directly by Christ. Wouldn’t that make this easy! But what we are left with are the words of fallible, sinful humans in writings that mix beautiful, meaningful expressions of faith and love, with calls for bigotry, hatred and violence. We, human sinners, are left to decide what to ignore and what to embrace. Do we give up our daughters to be raped by strangers? Do we kill our children when they disobey? Do we condemn homosexual behavior? Or do we love one another as God loves us? Jesus gave us beautifully simple rules to follow as did God. Everything else in between has been and will continue to be up to us to figure out. Our Church must be able to grow in faith. To stunt its growth toward God by hanging so desperately to man made rules of old will cause our faith to wither among the people

What do you mean two sex species?

You are claiming, correct me if I am wrong, that God instilled homosexuality into animals.

Based on what I have read, you can see behaviours between animals of the same gender that can be explained by issues such as domination, fertility related etc. For humans isn’t it quite different? A lesbian or homosexual male feels they are homosexual because they feel a same gender attraction. What does dominance or fertility rates issues etc. that can be explained for why same gendered animals engage in behaviour, explain why homosexual humans feel attraction towards people of the same gender?

 

[Tigg]

I think it got a little easier today to feel that we’re in the End Times.

Yesterday, October 13th, was the miracle of the sun at Fatima. As the Church gives much weight to anniversaries and feast days, I do not find it insignificant that this report came out on that date.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Vatican’s unofficial summary of Oct. 13 morning #Synod14: calls for more talk of families who are faithful to the Gospel

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/521930854290194432

Vatican’s unofficial summary of Oct. 13 AM #Synod14: warnings that facilitating Communion for divorced, remarried cd become “common rule"

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/521931395040837633

Vatican’s unofficial summary of Oct. 13 morning #Synod14: call for more on “sin,” Jesus’ “prophetic tone,” risk of conforming to the world

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/521931900748066816

Vatican’s unofficial summary of Oct. 13 morning #Synod14: avoid "impression of a positive evaluation” of homosexuality, cohabitation

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/521932188393410560

Vatican’s unofficial summary of Oct. 13 morning #Synod14: calls for more on Communion for polygamists, abortion and surrogate mothers

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/521932557592846336

Vatican’s unofficial summary of Oct. 13 morning #Synod14: call for more on pornography’s threat to family

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/521932814858846208

 

[pepipop]

It has also to be recognised that the Church is living through a time when SSM is now legal in numerous countries and this is growing, worldwide, as well as the acceptance for homosexuality.

In the 1950’s and earlier, for example, homosexuality was illegal in most countries subject to jail sentences, hence atheists/Christians whatever anyone’s religious upbringing was, were very aware through society’s laws that homosexuality was very wrong. This societal non-acceptance of homosexuality would no doubt have stopped numerous men from carrying out homosexual acts. Whilst the decision of homosexuals in these times not to act out on their homosexual urges, was because of societal reasons and NOT because they would be offending God, it still did allow numerous homosexuals to recognise much more easily it was wrong and to hopefully come back to God and repent.

With widespread government legalisation of SSM, more and more people who are lukewarm Catholics and/or born into certain Christian denominations that recognise SSM, are being hoodwinked into thinking that homosexuality is normal. Young catholic children born into today’s world will no doubt meet children at school with SS parents etc… so there will be a lot of confusion, as to why homosexuality is a ‘sin’ as it is legal and viewed by many as a ‘loving’ relationship that may be used to bring up children in a loving, ‘family’ environment.

I believe the synod is reacting to the worldwide situation in that it has to direct pastoral care to be more inclusive of SSM relationships, whilst obviously still attempting to make such couples aware that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and against God - particularly as it now fully accepted in numerous societies.

This has now become a much, much, more difficult task for the Church to do than, for example, when homosexual acts were illegal (I’m not condoning this - but just to make the point). It will need love and guidance to help such couples to realise their unions are totally against God and nature and by being present at Church it can only be hoped the Holy Spirit will enlighten their hearts/minds.

Needless to say, the pastoral care will not effect the Church’s teachings on homosexual acts.

 

[Tigg]

We’re talking about being allowed to participate in the sacramental life of the Church. This is not currently the case, nor is it the case at the parish level that gays, divorced+remarried, etc, are always made to feel welcome.

I need some clarification. 1.) Since you have been quite vocal on this matter, do you believe one actually needs to be in a state of grace before receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord, because I don’t think this document has gone quite so far as to state sacrilege is no longer a mortal sin.

2.) Just what is meant by “welcoming?” Anyone who wishes to sacramentally abide in the life of Christ is more than welcome and always has been provided they do so with the proper spiritual disposition, and it is madness and disingenuous to say that is not the truth. If we begin to see SS couples receiving Communion, holding hands and wearing wedding bands, are we just to turn our heads away and give them a pat on the back despite the obvious scandal? And those divorced/remarried who have told everyone their situation and who receive Communion in defiance of the Church anyway…no big deal?

 

[AOE4]

It uses the phrase “intrinsically disordered” to refer to gay sex, it uses “objectively disordered” to refer to an inclination to gay sex. The former phrase refers to it (gay sex) in itself being sinful whereas the latter says that the object of the inclination is disordered.

There is a difference between change for the sake of change and change because it is useful. Also, the Catholic Church has changed nothing in the midterm paper.

There has not been a change from orthodox Catholic teaching.

Man can not split apart what God has put together. A marriage between two unbaptized people wasn’t put together by God.

Jesus refers to let no man separate what God has put together; God did not put together a marriage between two unbaptized people.

You might want to understand the reference material before posting.

It appears you do not understand the source material.

I think in this case the Church recognizes that for the prodigal son to confess his sin and repent to his father he’d first have to willingly come within a hundred yards of his father.

There is a bit of a difference between two men being seen in public holding hands and a people using mass media to publicly proclaim that they stand for the right to slaughter the unborn.

I understand the Catechism as well as you do.Unfortunately you seem to not be reading all of my post in their entirety. It is a waste of time trying to be rationale with you.Have a nice day.

 

[Tigg]

I don’t think they feel that the rules are “too difficult”.
I think they feel that they are wrong.
.

At least you’re honest and this is what we’ve been saying all along. The cancer of moral relativism is eating away the hearts and souls of Catholics.

 

[clement1]

I see this as a betrayal to the family. If so many here think this is not a big deal, why are the gays so happy about it? I see it as a surrender to secularism. Go ahead, crack the door open and see what happens.

 

[Tigg]

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. 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.

This judgment thing is getting very tiresome. From the very beginning the bishops issued a letter of exhortation to respect their dignity and human person. And even before the letter, authentic Christians understood the meaning of charity and how serious a sin it would be to breach it.

They were made to feel dirty, unwanted and broken by members of their parishes and by their priests.

I challenge this accusation because I have been in prayer ministry to support gays in my own parish. Through personal sharing a few have actually admitted much of the pain comes from their own cognitive dissonance. The conflict and suffering encountered when finally looking deep within the soul and coming to acknowledge sin is a very difficult and long process. God’s voice within is relentless and He never stops trying to draw them to His own heart.

 

[Yeoman]

In looking at what was actually said, I don’t know that anything that groundbreaking really occurred. The document seems mostly to have been written in the knowledge that there are a lot of divorced Catholics in the Western world and that same gender couples, etc., are now common, and we have to deal with that. Indeed, we’ve been dealing with it for a long time, as the statements that are coming out of the synod are only different in degrees, with the perhaps radical ones being the ones that seem to come close to saying that the individuals orientation has value. I’m not sure that is what it was meant to say, but even at that, it’s always been the churches opinion that any sort of unfortunate orientation for the individual has value in a way.

The problem, however, that I think I see in this approach is that it fails to keep in mind that it’s likely to be hugely offensive to the rapidly growing African church. Trends of this type (much larger, however) have been very disruptive in the Anglican Communion for example. No doctrine has been threatened in any fashion, but it looks like the African church isn’t having its say, and loyal Catholics in North America have been cut adrift accidentally.

Which sums up my entire feeling that Pope Francis is not the Pope we need in these times. I wish Pope Benedict had not stepped down. Pope Francis is a very nice and holy man, and I get that he’s trying to be gently inclusive, but in an era when the church in Europe started declining in an atmosphere of laxity, and we’ve barely recovered from the confusion Vatican II created here, we’re ramping it up again. If things don’t change by the end of this, we’ll be sorting this out for the next 30 years, and we’ll be seeing all sorts of abuse come in here and there under the assumption that the church said it was okay. Or at least that’s my fear.