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

[livingwordunity]

A doctor who tells the overweight alcoholic patient that he cannot treat him until he stops drinking and loses weight, will likely face a hefty malpractice suit if something happens to the patient afterwards.

They were already welcome to attend Mass. No one was stopping them from that. But they were also welcome to partake of the sacrament of reconciliation.
If they refused then that was their own choice.

 

[ProVobis]

If the choice given to me is to lead someone to God or slam the door in their face. I think I would choose to lead them to God (at least I hope I would make that choice.)

The Catholic Church may have burned a lot of heretics at the stake but they have never sent anyone to Hell. That’s one’s own doing.

 

[gilliam]

They were already welcome to attend Mass. No one was stopping them from that. But they were also welcome to partake of the sacrament of reconciliation. If they refused then that was their own choice.

Many homosexual and divorced people tell me that if they walk into a Catholic church lightning would strike them. They simply don’t think they are welcome.

 

[OraLabora]

Many homosexual and divorced people tell me that if they walk into a Catholic church lightning would strike them. They simply don’t think they are welcome.

Not only do they not think it but in some places they will be actively shunned.

 

[ProVobis]

Many homosexual and divorced people tell me that if they walk into a Catholic church lightning would strike them. They simply don’t think they are welcome.

They probably said the same thing when they were automatically excommunicated before 1970. Did the lifting of the excommunications, a very pastoral move at the time, prevent divorces or just encourage more?

 

[livingwordunity]

Many homosexual and divorced people tell me that if they walk into a Catholic church lightning would strike them. They simply don’t think they are welcome.

I used to be living in sin in an invalid marriage. During that time in my life, I didn’t always attend Mass, but when I did I abstained from going up for Holy Communion. I never blamed my choice to live in sin on the Church. That relationship ended in divorce, and I went through the Church annulment process and got married validly through the Church. I never could understand why people get angry at the Church for being faithful in her teachings and for giving us a high moral standard to strive for. It’s consistent with how Jesus tells us in the gospels to be perfect even as our Heavenly Father is perfect. God knows that we aren’t perfect, but He tells us this so that we will at least strive for it.

 

[Alraune]

Not only do they not think it but in some places they will be actively shunned.

For the gays yes, they’re worse than murderers and satanists in most of the “conservative” parishes I’ve been to. The “liberal” ones genuinely don’t seem to care.

Interestingly however never with the divorcees who remarried, it’s the great big unspoken secret the entire community knows about but never brings up, and this is true for both camps.

I have no idea why, but it’s been that way for as long as I can ever remember.

P.S: I’m mostly just watching, I would love it if anyone could explain what the intent behind this document is because at the moment the synod seems to be blowing an awful great deal of hot and cold.

 

[gilliam]

Another view:

The Church, at the Synod, is doing its job, its one and only job of inviting and instructing. Tell me again how this is a problem — how it ought, instead, to be skipping straight to the “waling and gnashing of teeth” part that so many Catholics seem to favor.

If a cohabitating couple shows up for a baptism, what do we do? Or if a couple with an un-annulled second marriage, or if a gay couple turns up wanting to lead some ministry, what do we do? Do you slam the door? No, we say, “Come in, and let’s talk about what you have right so far. Then we can figure out what’s next.”

In other words, practice basic human psychology, never mind basic human decency.

I am well aware that people can twist the document to mean whatever they want to mean. If they think the Church should just be nice and friendly and not be so picky about all those stupid rules, then that is what they will see in the Synod. If they think the Church should be stern and exacting and spend most of its time driving people away because they’re not holy enough, then that is what they will see in the Synod.

This twisting of words, too, is constant and consistent. People have twisted the words of Jesus Christ from the moment the sound waves were still dissipating into the atmosphere of Jerusalem. But if you read the entire document, if you pay close attention and don’t get all your information from one ideological side or the other, it will be clear that all the Synod is saying is what the Church has always said: invite whomever you find, so you can teach them how to be good guests, so we can all enjoy the feast together.

Tell me again how this is a problem. And while you’re at it, tell the king.

Read more: patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2014/10/13/no-earthquake-here-at-the-synod-the-church-teaches-us-how-to-dress-for-the-feast/#ixzz3G2eHpN9J

 

[Kurisu35712]

Then why doesn’t the Pope just grant a mass forgiveness to everyone, no matter what they’ve done? Win-win, no?

I get that this wasn’t a serious suggestion, but to people who will inevitable take it at face value, forgiveness requires remorse and at least some level of knowledge of wrongdoing. The Pope can’t grant forgiveness to people who don’t want it or feel they need it.

 

[ProVobis]

Not only do they not think it but in some places they will be actively shunned.

If you’re actively promoting your scandalous position among the churchgoers, you will be actively shunned by them. What else do you expect?

 

[gilliam]

P.S: I’m mostly just watching, I would love it if anyone could explain what the intent behind this document is because at the moment the synod seems to be blowing an awful great deal of hot and cold.

My understanding is that it is simply a summary of what has been discussed so far.

 

[ProVobis]

I get that this wasn’t a serious suggestion, but to people who will inevitable take it at face value, forgiveness requires remorse and at least some level of knowledge of wrongdoing. The Pope can’t grant forgiveness to people who don’t want it or feel they need it.

I agree 100%.

And I know a few divorced and remarried people; they didn’t one day find out they were in this state either. Maybe they did it for financial reasons, but whatever, they accepted the consequences, even if it meant being shunned by their kids, neighbors, friends, etc.

 

[phil19034]

A doctor who tells the overweight alcoholic patient that he cannot treat him until he stops drinking and loses weight, will likely face a hefty malpractice suit if something happens to the patient afterwards.

On the other hand a doctor who meets him where he is, is likely to help. First step would be to take a good medical history/tests to figure out how treat the immediate and possibly urgent health issues that might include, for sake of argument, Type II diabetes (sacrament of reconciliation), and offer him medicine like metformin or insulin to deal with the immediate problems (Eucharist), then working with him and the nursing/social care team, encourage lifestyle changes that will improve his outlook, like weight loss and AA (spiritual direction, catechesis, all supported by continued graces from the sacraments).

A hospital, or doctor, above all is required to “do no harm”. A soul that the clergy turns away or discourages by raising the bar for admission too high, is like the doctor who refuses to treat a patient as in the example above. He may just kill the patient, and the clergy may just irretrievably lose that soul.

I’ve read it many times on this forum that the person who fails to “charitably” correct the sinful is guilty of sin himself, but I rarely read that the person who fails to act with love and charity, and thus turns away a soul in need of healing, is also guilty of sin. I think St. Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 13:

Yes, love rejoices in the Truth, especially when someone else discovers that Truth as well. But to bring that person to Truth requires much more than a clanging cymbal… it requires love and patience.

The problem with what you highlight is that receiving the Eucharist when unwilling stop committing fornication or adultery (or any other mortal sin) can kill your soul.

Receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is more a kin to taking metformin or insulin even though your body is rejecting it. It can do more damage than good.

The person can do other things than receive the Eucharist, like attend confession regularly, meet regularly with a spiritual director, attend daily mass, pray the rosary daily, pray the LOTH, attend Catholic Bible Study, attend Adoration weekly, participate in a Devotion weekly (Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, etc.). Concentrate oneself to The Blessed Mother, etc.

There are lot of other spiritual medicine, which should be used first. In states of mortal sin, the issue is that MOST (not all, but most) are unwilling do to some or all of the above I list. They just want the Eucharist, and they won’t accept that it may cause them more harm.

 

[robertmidwest]

First, nowhere does Humanae Vitae or this document condemn people who use birth control. Condemning the sin is not the same as condemning the sinner.

Doesn’t the church teach that use of ABC is grave sin? Grave sin=going to hell? Yes?

Second, as to enforcing Humanae Vitae, the document does stress enforcement of Humanae Vitae’s principles:

“[W]hat is required is a realistic language that is able to start from listening to people and acknowledging the beauty and truth of an unconditional opening to life as that which human life requires to be lived to its fullest. It is on this base that we can rest an appropriate teaching regarding natural methods, which allow the living in a harmonious and aware way of the communication between spouses, in all its dimensions, along with generative responsibility. In this light, we should go back to the message of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI.” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 54)

This calls for pastors to talk to people about the “require[ment]” of “an unconditional opening to life” and catechetical programs to teach the “natural methods” discussed in Humanae Vitae. Then it tells us to go back to Humanae Vitae for more information. I don’t see any stronger way of enforcing Humanae Vitae’s teaching than these proposals. Especially when it calls for pastors to talk to couples about this issue – that’s not even being done right now, most of the time, at least not in my experience. It seems to me that this document calls for a stronger response on this issue, not a “wink wink, nudge nudge”.

Take a look at the bigger picture. They are condemning the mindset that children are economic liabilities.

53.        It is not difficult to notice the spread of a mentality that reduces the generation of life to a variable of an individual’s or a couple’s plans. Economic factors sometimes have enough weight to contribute to the sharp drop in the birthrate which weakens the social fabric, compromising the relationship between generations and rendering the view of the future less certain. Being open to life is an intrinsic requirement of married love.

 54.        Probably here as well what is required is a realistic language that is able to start from listening to people and acknowledging the beauty and truth of an unconditional opening to life as that which human life requires to be lived to its fullest. It is on this base that we can rest an appropriate teaching regarding natural methods, which allow the living in a harmonious and aware way of the communication between spouses, in all its dimensions, along with generative responsibility. In this light, we should go back to the message of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, which underlines the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control.

It looks a lot more to me that they are suggesting that the church has missed the mark in their teachings. There is more focus on latex, hormones and mechanics of sex than teaching the value of a human life.

 

[dmar198]

This is exactly how I feel. I think it is caving under the pressures of secular ideas.

On which issue is it caving? Not on the disordered nature of homosexual relationships, and not on birth control.

Let’s go through the controversial homosexuality paragraphs sentence by sentence: “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?” I can think of several examples of people with same-sex attraction who have offered gifts and special qualities to the Church. The people involved with the Catholic outreach group Courage come to mind, for example, or those who were interviewed for the documentary films “The Third Way” and “Desire of the Everlasting Hills,” where Catholics with same-sex attraction defend the Church’s position on marriage and sexuality. It is important that we work together with people who have this attraction to show the world that our Church’s stance is both merciful and holistic. Their special gifts and qualities come to bear in other areas as well. "Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. " That is a reasonable wish, and one that needs to be encouraged. People with same-sex attraction cannot find a home in the secular hedonistic culture that is reaching out to them. This is why many of them are asking for the Church to reach out to them. “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” I think the middle part of this statement can be interpreted in two ways, depending on what “their sexual orientation” translates in the original Italian. It may be a loose translation of “their sexual attraction.” If so, then this is similar to what I said about the special gifts and qualities of people with same-sex attraction: they have this cross for a reason, and we need to be able to “kiss the cross” like Jesus is portrayed doing in the Passion. The text does not say that we have to change from thinking same-sex attraction is disordered to thinking it is good. In fact, the very same sentence says we cannot compromise on our doctrine about the family. But it does say that we can value something even in our crosses. “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.” This sentence uses some big words. An educative challenge is a challenge of education. Affective growth is emotional growth. So, how can we educate people so that they can grow emotionally, humanly, and according to the Gospel, when they are confronted by homosexuality? The Church needs to develop programs for this, and efforts are underway. An example in the U.S. is in groups like Courage. Therefore, I think this sentence should be noncontroversial. If people are being challenged about our teachings, we need to educate them, and develop programs for it. Simple stuff. “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.” Obviously. We cannot change our teachings. Yet somehow that’s what people seem to think this document is doing. “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.” If the Synod Fathers were caving to secular pressure, they would not stand so firmly against it. The secularists in the United Nations are denying international aid to countries that don’t adopt a secularist attitude toward same-sex relationships. The Synod Fathers condemn this. It is quite a strong statement for a document discussing the pastoral care of the family. “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.” This seems obvious to me, and to my knowledge is not denied by prior documents on the subject. There is a germ of truth in every lie, and this Synod is trying to find that germ of truth in order to reach out on that basis. But look what it says about this subject in an earlier paragraph: “In the diverse cultural realities the possibilities should first be grasped and in the light of them the limits and radicalizations should be rejected.” (Paragraph 30)

In the controversial homosexuality paragraph, these two things are exactly what happens: first, the possibilities are grasped, i.e. that mutual aid and sacrificing for the sake of another is a good thing, and second, the limits and radicalizations are rejected, i.e. we affirm the moral problems connected to homosexual unions.

That’s all the document says regarding homosexuality, and none of it should be controversial.

I analyzed the paragraph about birth control here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12407524 and found that it was actually quite a strong statement in favor of the Church’s unchanging teaching.

Because this document affirms the Church’s teachings regarding homosexuality and birth control, I don’t think this should cause an earthquake at all. Let me know if this analysis helps.

 

[OraLabora]

If you’re actively promoting your scandalous position among the churchgoers, you will be actively shunned by them. What else do you expect?

Many gay couples I know aren’t actively promoting anything, just trying to lead a quiet life as best then can, and are perhaps searching for God. None of the few that I know personally, I would qualify as “gay activists”.

What you see on the media, aka gay pride parades, I don’t think represents a majority. I suspect that more than a few are in fact horrified by all the shenanigans.

I do know some that parishes made to feel like lepers just for being who they were, never mind what they were doing. Regardless of whether active gays are admitted to the sacraments or not, this shunning requires a major attitude shift. The message in the CCC that gays need to be treated with love and compassion does not seem to always be getting out…

 

[manualman]

A doctor who tells the overweight alcoholic patient that he cannot treat him until he stops drinking and loses weight, will likely face a hefty malpractice suit if something happens to the patient afterwards.

On the other hand a doctor who meets him where he is, is likely to help. First step would be to take a good medical history/tests to figure out how treat the immediate and possibly urgent health issues that might include, for sake of argument, Type II diabetes (sacrament of reconciliation), and offer him medicine like metformin or insulin to deal with the immediate problems (Eucharist), then working with him and the nursing/social care team, encourage lifestyle changes that will improve his outlook, like weight loss and AA (spiritual direction, catechesis, all supported by continued graces from the sacraments).

Nobody here is suggesting that those in sin be told to ‘go away’ until they repent. There’s a long distance between that and acknowledgement that serious sin is an impediment to receiving communion.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that people today take umbrage at the suggestion that they are sinners in need of a Savior at all. If folks aren’t at least at that point, then letting them receive communion while unrepentant about their sins is analogous to the above patient handing out cigarettes at the doctor’s office and inviting his AA patients to go out drinking. That, in fact, is doing significant harm. It’s important to remember in this analogy that WE aren’t the doctor. We’re the other patients. Scripture instructs us very clearly that the Eucharist is not a magic talisman that brings benefits to whoever receives it. The bible says it causes greater HARM to those who receive it unworthily. We’d best listen to the doctor and do as He says.

 

[polki]

Many homosexual and divorced people tell me that if they walk into a Catholic church lightning would strike them. They simply don’t think they are welcome.

The people I know that say this either don’t agree with the moral teachings of the Church or say that the “rules” of the Catholic Church are too difficult to live out.

 

[anon99031074]

Since nobody else seems to be asking the question, allow me. The document reads:

“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?”

How DO you accept and value something that is intrinsically disordered? This is one difficult tension in the document. On the on hand, it states that there are “moral problems” with same sex relationships. On the other hand, it suggests that we ought to “accept and VALUE” the sexual orientation while remaining faithful to the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family.

Applying Lumen Gentium to cohabitation seems to be quite brilliant. Prior to Vatican II, other religions were described as being in error, leading to hell, etc. Vatican II pointed to their containing elements of truth. The document applies this same logic to cohabitation, basically saying that stable irregular unions contain elements of marriage such as love, commitments, etc, which can be viewed as a seed that can grow into a full blown marriage. Not really a big doctrinal difference, only a difference in pastoral emphasis. EDIT: John Allen calls it “lifestyle ecumenism”. That sums it up nicely.

 

[phil19034]

For the gays yes, they’re worse than murderers and satanists in most of the “conservative” parishes I’ve been to. The “liberal” ones genuinely don’t seem to care.

Interestingly however never with the divorcees who remarried, it’s the great big unspoken secret the entire community knows about but never brings up, and this is true for both camps.

I have no idea why, but it’s been that way for as long as I can ever remember.

P.S: I’m mostly just watching, I would love it if anyone could explain what the intent behind this document is because at the moment the synod seems to be blowing an awful great deal of hot and cold.

I think the superficial difference between the gay couples and divorcee and remarried is that the scandal from divorce and remarried can be hidden (if it’s not talked about). It’s harder to hide the gay couples. Also, I personally put the sexually active gay couples (and same sex marriage) on the same level as trial marriage (which I used to do).

Trial marriage is very scandalous and causes lost of long term harm in an extended family. I know, because I caused harm.

With divorce and remarriage, people (especially children) don’t always know who has received and not received annulments. You can teach a child to always assume that a couple has an annulment, unless they personally know for a fact one does not.

Finally, public divorce & remarriage scandalizes family and friends (and indirectly society); public trial marriage scandalizes family, friends, acquaintances (and indirectly society); while public homosexual relationships scandalizes family, friends, and strangers (and indirectly society). There is simply no hiding public homosexual relationships, while the other can be hidden to some degrees.