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

[pepipop]

Check out this excerpt frim Andrew Sullivan:

dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/10/14/yes-this-is-a-pastoral-revolution/

Am I incorrect in thinking Andrew Sullivan thinks the document shows a more sympathetic view towards homosexual relationships? Perhaps those who decided the comment about mutual aid didn’t think that comment would be taken as it is being taken by some people if their impression is wrong, but even if it is revised or further text added to, this document is out there now and I am very concerned with people getting the impression that homosexual relationships and/or cohabitation between heterosexual or homosexuals is viewed more sympathetically now because of this document.

Yes, it definitely looks like it. But people will only see what they want to see.

I would guess it was trying to see some kind of positive aspects within homosexual relationships, to grow from, as they are God’s children - similar to Pope Benedict’s example about the male prostitute, using a condom. Most of the discussions were no doubt highly academic in nature and not for ‘public’ consumption.

Possibly, the comment on mutual aid, was made by one of those present, e.g. “both partners do show a form of love and caring, whether in sickness/health, to each other”, to try to relate some good coming from such a relationship, i.e. care of a fellow human being.

So IMO this could easily have been one or several person’(s) point(s) which were discussed at the meeting, and then placed into the ‘PR disaster’ press release.

 

[OraLabora]

If it means anything, I suppose most of us would have no problem with people going to confession before receiving communion. I wouldn’t. But in my observation, it’s the people who openly flaunt their scandalous states, be it pro-abortion, cohabitation, bigamy, porn-dealing, or whatnot, and proceed to communion that seem to be the center of what’s being discussed. Many have admitted receiving communion in mortal sin so it’s not like there’s no basis for feeling some of the doctrine may be apt to change.

The dilemma is that the prohibition against the Eucharist while in mortal sin will never be taken seriously by a certain group of Catholics, in particular those with a political agenda to promote, and those who don’t just care.

I don’t think though, that the discussion points of the Synod document are aimed at them. I think they are aimed at those genuinely searching and hungering for the Gospel. Perhaps the document doesn’t make that clear enough. Those are the folks we need to minster to. As far as I know, few people are ever turned away from communion for fear of, well, creating public scandal. So some folks will continue to go up regardless; they already do. A few may have genuinely examined their conscience and feel that they may.

So does the Church turn away those on a genuine path to try to reach holiness because of some that abuse their conscience to do as they please?

 

[PTL]

Romans 1:18-32
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Some Bible passages use analogy and figurative approach. The above paragraph is very clear cut, nothing to do with figurative at all. It is literally black and white. Make no mistake.

 

[ProVobis]

So does the Church turn away those on a genuine path to try to reach holiness because of some that abuse their conscience to do as they please?

In the end, it won’t be up to the Church to determine whether one is saved or not. If anything we should be teaching to take responsibility for one’s actions and not look to blame others so much. That’s what confession is about. The Pope and bishops themselves go to confession. Maybe there are mitigating circumstances to the culpability of our acts, but I don’t think any of us have the divine skills to determine to what extent. And I agree it all boils down to ourselves, our confessor, and to God.

 

[TMC]

Check out this excerpt frim Andrew Sullivan:

dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/10/14/yes-this-is-a-pastoral-revolution/

Am I incorrect in thinking Andrew Sullivan thinks the document shows a more sympathetic view towards homosexual relationships? Perhaps those who decided the comment about mutual aid didn’t think that comment would be taken as it is being taken by some people if their impression is wrong, but even if it is revised or further text added to, this document is out there now and I am very concerned with people getting the impression that homosexual relationships and/or cohabitation between heterosexual or homosexuals is viewed more sympathetically now because of this document.

I think that is exactly how it is being read. I also think that is exactly how it was intended. And I think that both of those are good things.

 

[ynotzap]

The difference is the same as “temptation” and “sin” as “objectively disordered” is a synonym for temptation and intrinsically disordered is a synonym for sin. There is a difference, but the nuances aren’t big enough for most people to care.

The way I see it: There is a differenc between objectively disordered, and intrinsically disordered.
objective disorder in the moral sense is to go against reason, or against God’s laws, such as fornication. Fornication is not intrinsically disordered It is the natural union between sexes, but it is morally disordered. Morally means they should not commit the act.

intrinsically disordered mean that it goes against the natural law of nature as well as the moral law so the disorder is the fact that it unnatural Morally homo-sexuals should not commit the act, and that the act is unnatural.

 

[OraLabora]

In the end, it won’t be up to the Church to determine whether one is saved or not. If anything we should be teaching to take responsibility for one’s actions and not look to blame others so much. That’s what confession is about. The Pope and bishops themselves go to confession. Maybe there are mitigating circumstances to the culpability of our acts, but I don’t think any of us have the divine skills to determine to what extent. And I agree it all boils down to ourselves, our confessor, and to God.

True but I’m talking about the call to holiness. As in, we’re all called to be saints. Few of us are, but the rest of us should, at least, die trying.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think that is exactly how it is being read. I also think that is exactly how it was intended. And I think that both of those are good things.

But homosexual relationships and cohabitation for either heterosexual or homosexual couples remain sinful and nothing in this document changes that.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt:

How an incorrect translation of the synod report created chaos

An incorrect translation into English of the original midterm report of the Synod on the Family may have spurred controversial interpretations of the document itself.

The document’s original version was written in Italian, which Pope Francis directed to be used as the official language of the synod. In prior synods the official language had been Latin, esteemed for its precision and lack of ambiguity.

The point of controversy occurs at paragraph 50 of the relatio. The Italian original version, after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community, asked: “le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e valutando il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?”

In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”

Italian’s “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”

The English translation, in contrast, suggests a valuing of the homosexual orientation, which could at least create confusion to those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church.

It must be said that the translation was not an “official” translation – the Vatican website notes at the top it is an “unofficial translation” – but it was the working translation delivered by the Holy See press office in order to help journalists who are not confident in Italian with their work.

However, until now only this “working translation” has been provided.

The document was first delivered in Italian, shortly before Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, general rapporteur of the synod, was going to read it in front of the assembly. After about half an hour, the document was available in English, French, Spanish, and German translations, and delivered via a bulletin of the Holy See press office.

This timing suggested that the translation had been done in the very last moments. According to a Vatican source, Cardinal Erdo had to give the document to the General Secretariat for the Synod on Saturday, and the document had been polished until the very last moment, and was given back to Cardinal Erdo only late on Sunday.

 

[ProVobis]

The document’s original version was written in Italian, which Pope Francis directed to be used as the official language of the synod. In prior synods the official language had been Latin, esteemed for its precision and lack of ambiguity.

Indeed, there is not much to compare against if it’s Italian to English. The translations with the tweets were bad enough. Italian, like English, is a mutable language and translations will be confusing to future generations, if they aren’t already.

 

[Tomdstone]

The dilemma is that the prohibition against the Eucharist while in mortal sin will never be taken seriously by a certain group of Catholics,…

What I have read here at CAF in other threads indicates at least implicitly that some Catholics believe that it is difficult to commit a mortal sin. Although the matter may be grave, people are arguing that full knowledge or full consent of the will is oftentimes lacking. When it is mentioned that a large number of married Catholics practice ABC, it is said that this is due to poor catechesis and the implication is that they have not committed a mortal sin because the poor catechesis (leading to lack of full knowledge) is to blame.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

If gay Catholics’ “orientation” should be valued, should we value the orientation of those sexually attracted to children?

I’m not saying the two are equivalent but, if we are going to start valuing “orientations”, shouldn’t we value all orientations? Should we value the orientations of those attracted to other forms of sexual violence (I consider homosexual acts to be a form of sexual violence - albeit a consensual form)? Why value this unnatural “orientation” but not others. Is it possibly because, dare I say, that’s exactly what the world does? Isn’t this crude conformism?

"We should start treating tomatoes as a fruit. "
"But what about potatoes and dahlias? "

Anthonymarie’s observation is the elephant in the room.

Once we begin to move away from the naturally obvious, i.e., there are male and female, and that’s the state of nature, to say that things are “okay” even if people use their regenerative features in an unnatural way, and that’s okay, what we’re really saying is that we’ll accept that unnatural acts are okay because we don’t want to seem to be mean, or unfair. But where do you stop it. If you say that some people are naturally attracted to members of their own gender in this fashion, you pretty much have to accept that some people have other unnatural attractions.

If we say some are acceptable and some are not, what you get to then is that the ones that are harmful to the innocent are not acceptable. That’s clearly unacceptable, but the problem you then get into is that recruitment in this lifestyle often actually starts off in the teen years. Clearly that’s not okay, but now if you say that teenagers with this proclivity should be protected from advancements into it, then you are on politically unacceptable ground right off the bat. And we also don’t really know that these lifestyles aren’t inherently damaging to the people participating in them. As they’ve been disfavored in nearly all societies, there’s been a general societal brake on them that’s now off. We’re about to find out if they’re harmful as a rule, in which case we will have gone down the same path that’s demonstrated that children without marriage is harmful, and conduct outside of marriage is harmful, all of which is now pretty well demonstrated, but none of which has lead to a desire to put the genie back in the bottle.

So at the end of the day accepting same gender attraction as normal, rather than an affliction opens the door up to a lot of other things that will flow right after it. If this is okay, surely polygamy is okay. If those are both okay, maybe the age of consent is too high. Pandora’s box no longer has any kind of lid.

There is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle”.

Check out this excerpt frim Andrew Sullivan:

dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/10/14/yes-this-is-a-pastoral-revolution/

Am I incorrect in thinking Andrew Sullivan thinks the document shows a more sympathetic view towards homosexual relationships? Perhaps those who decided the comment about mutual aid didn’t think that comment would be taken as it is being taken by some people if their impression is wrong, but even if it is revised or further text added to, this document is out there now and I am very concerned with people getting the impression that homosexual relationships and/or cohabitation between heterosexual or homosexuals is viewed more sympathetically now because of this document.

Well, this document is most sympathetic in that it notes that there are good aspects of their relationship as well as bad. By admitting there are in fact good things in the relationship in makes it much easier to draw them in.

The way I see it: There is a differenc between objectively disordered, and intrinsically disordered.
objective disorder in the moral sense is to go against reason, or against God’s laws, such as fornication. Fornication is not intrinsically disordered It is the natural union between sexes, but it is morally disordered. Morally means they should not commit the act.

intrinsically disordered mean that it goes against the natural law of nature as well as the moral law so the disorder is the fact that it unnatural Morally homo-sexuals should not commit the act, and that the act is unnatural.

Those might work for a “catholic”, but they don’t work for “Catholicism”.

1. Natural law and the moral law are not separate things.
2. Fornication has been identified by both Aquinas and the Catholic Church as intrinsically disordered
3. Intrinsically disordered quite simply means it is “always wrong to choose”, for example gay sex and fornication are always wrong to choose.

But homosexual relationships and cohabitation for either heterosexual or homosexual couples remain sinful and nothing in this document changes that.

That is correct.

Indeed, there is not much to compare against if it’s Italian to English. The translations with the tweets were bad enough. Italian, like English, is a mutable language and translations will be confusing to future generations, if they aren’t already.

I think Italian is being used as the working language and the final documents will be written in Latin for the sake of posterity.

 

[J_Peterson]

Check out this excerpt frim Andrew Sullivan:

dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/10/14/yes-this-is-a-pastoral-revolution/

Am I incorrect in thinking Andrew Sullivan thinks the document shows a more sympathetic view towards homosexual relationships? Perhaps those who decided the comment about mutual aid didn’t think that comment would be taken as it is being taken by some people if their impression is wrong, but even if it is revised or further text added to, this document is out there now and I am very concerned with people getting the impression that homosexual relationships and/or cohabitation between heterosexual or homosexuals is viewed more sympathetically now because of this document.

Father James Martin thinks it shows a more sympathetic view of gay people and relationships.

Do you think this is a first step toward an eventual shift in church doctrine on gay sexual identity, divorce, and unmarried couples?

I think that the Church teaching will always remain the same on the sacramentality of the marriage between a man and a woman. But, I do think it’s an opening up of the way that the Church ministers to gays and lesbians, the way that the Church can help them feel welcomed, and the way that the Church is deepening its understanding, and, yes, appreciation of gays and lesbians.

You notice that the language “intrinsically disordered” or “objectively disordered” is not being used in this particular document. That doesn’t mean that the teaching has changed, but it’s a reminder, from the synod, that the Church needs to reach out to gays and lesbians as fully human, as fully loved children of God. In fact, one of the sections is labelled explicitly: “Welcoming Homosexual Persons.”

faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/10/15/jim-martin-bishops-family-pope-francis-synod-vatican-gay-lesbian/34580

 

[anthonymarie]

"We should start treating tomatoes as a fruit. "
"But what about potatoes and dahlias? "

What aspect of a homosexual orientation renders it “fruit” and what is it about all other unnatural orientations that renders them “vegetable” . . . ?

There is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle”.

Most Western cities now have a “gay quarter” to rival most Chinese quarters. When you wander into the gay quarter, you know you are in the gay part of town just as when you wander into the Chinese quarter you know you are in the Chinese part of town. The most certainly is a “gay lifestyle”, if not a “gay culture”.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

The so backwards that they’re focusing on the care of same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, etc. These couples are actually doing quite well…same-sex couples are celebrated in society, cohabiting is considered normal. How about support for couples who are open to life and are mocked for having 5 children? What about support for couples who wait to have sex until they are married and are ridiculed by society? Cohabiting couples and same-sex couples seem to be doing just fine honestly.

 

[anthonymarie]

The so backwards that they’re focusing on the care of same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, etc. These couples are actually doing quite well…same-sex couples are celebrated in society, cohabiting is considered normal. How about support for couples who are open to life and are mocked for having 5 children? What about support for couples who wait to have sex until they are married and are ridiculed by society? Cohabiting couples and same-sex couples seem to be doing just fine honestly.

That’s a very, very good point!

 

[Megan7]

The so backwards that they’re focusing on the care of same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, etc. These couples are actually doing quite well…same-sex couples are celebrated in society, cohabiting is considered normal. How about support for couples who are open to life and are mocked for having 5 children? What about support for couples who wait to have sex until they are married and are ridiculed by society? Cohabiting couples and same-sex couples seem to be doing just fine honestly.

:clapping::tiphat: I agree completely! And I have seen people being mocked for 4 children. And someone asked a cousin of mine with 8 children, “Are they all yours?” :banghead:

+Pax.

 

[lausuelau]

I cannot ever remember a time the Church rejected anyone–ever. Even in cases of excommunication, individuals are joyfully welcomed back to Mother Church if their errors are admitted, amended, and repentance is sought.

Christ stated and taught that the heart of the Law is mercy. How many of the parables drive home this message in unequivocal language and example? How vehemently did He rebuke the Jewish hierarchy for placing burdens upon men, precluding them from obtaining salvation, but then not lifting a finger to help men overcome them? He fixed this. The Church and the Sacraments exist for everyone. They are there, available and accessible to all. Praised be Jesus Christ!!!

So, I don 't think the problem lies with Mother Church. The problem is, rather that unrepentant sinners deliberately separate themselves from God and from His Mercy and then choose to remain separated because the laws of the Church are “archaic” or because, according to the civil laws under which they live, they have a “right” to behave in ways contrary to Church teaching.

Therefore, any restoration must begin in the heart of the sinner–with recognition of wrongdoing, repentance, a firm purpose of amendment, and then with joyful reunion. And this may well be a process, so I can comprehend why there has been talk at the Synod of a certain kind of “gradualism.” We don’t always succeed in overcoming sin the first time, every time. Thanks be to God, though, the Church is always faithful, and stands always at the ready to embrace the repentant sinner. This has been my understanding from the very first years of my childhood–probably even before I learned my ABC’s!

But, I am very concerned about how this concept of “gradualism” will be defined, because in my mind’s eye I have envisioned the enormous potential such flexibility has for misinterpretation, twisting, stretching, and even metamorphosis into something quite deadly for the emotional and spiritual health of all people–especially for families seeking counsel at the pastoral level. I remember very well what happened in the US Church in 1968, in the wake of Humanae Vitae. May God in His great love spare us such tumult as we experienced
in those years. So much chaos…

Another member in this thread has suggested that we “trust the Church.” And I do. But I trust Her only because I know that Christ is at the helm. For my part, I will keep my heart and mind immersed in Scripture and pray mightily for the Pope and for all of the bishops as they continue their work in Rome.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What aspect of a homosexual orientation renders it “fruit” and what is it about all other unnatural orientations that renders them “vegetable” . . . ?

Sexual orientation is about how one is oriented with regards to sex/gender of other people. An attraction to violence on the other hand is a fetish.

Most Western cities now have a “gay quarter” to rival most Chinese quarters. When you wander into the gay quarter, you know you are in the gay part of town just as when you wander into the Chinese quarter you know you are in the Chinese part of town. The most certainly is a “gay lifestyle”, if not a “gay culture”.

Even in Chinatowns there are many ways of life. To say there is a gay lifestyle is like saying there is a French lifestyle, both of those have too few characteristics to be lifestyles. Also lesbians and gay men inhabit fairly different spheres.

The so backwards that they’re focusing on the care of same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, etc. These couples are actually doing quite well…same-sex couples are celebrated in society, cohabiting is considered normal. How about support for couples who are open to life and are mocked for having 5 children? What about support for couples who wait to have sex until they are married and are ridiculed by society? Cohabiting couples and same-sex couples seem to be doing just fine honestly.

The issue is not how they are perceived in general society, but rather how they connect or lack thereof with the Church.

 

[anthonymarie]

Sexual orientation is about how one is oriented with regards to sex/gender of other people. An attraction to violence on the other hand is a fetish.

Your own personal definition, which you are entitled to but which many will not agree with.

Even in Chinatowns there are many ways of life. To say there is a gay lifestyle is like saying there is a French lifestyle, both of those have too few characteristics to be lifestyles. Also lesbians and gay men inhabit fairly different spheres.

You can apply that argument to any kind of lifestyle - who gets to decide the number or degree of defining characteristics? . . . and people regularly talk about the lifestyles of certain peoples, including the French. It may well include generalizations but almost all meaningful sentences include generalizations of a type.

The issue is not how they are perceived in general society, but rather how they connect or lack thereof with the Church.

If someone wants to “connect” with the Church in such a way that they don’t abide by or accept its teachings, but rather, through the example of their lives, supplant it, their connection must necessarily be considered of a different “type” than the “believing” Catholic.

Catholics in recent months have been very fond of quoting St Francis as saying"preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words". The point being that your actions speak louder than your words. People who live openly in a relationship explicitly forbidden by God are constantly making a statement to the people around them, including young people. This document blurs that issue.

The same principle applies to those that enter into a second marriage, i.e. a public, legally recognized union. Their “lifestyles”, or if you prefer, “actions”, speak against God.