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

[boar2roar]

Sex is only a small part of same-sex relationships, and it is indeed non-existent in many. The main “defining feature” of a same-sex relationship is their commitment and love to one another through sickness and other hard times. One does not need to have sex to achieve this, and indeed, these goods are being recognized by the Church. The Church is not supporting non-marital sexual acts but merely pointing out that for every evil conservatives feel the need to point out, there are hundreds of goods that are neglected in the rush to remove the speck from others’ eyes.

What your describing is some rare form of extreme plutonic friendship if sex isn’t existent at all. Thats not what a same sex relationship is and your purposely equating the two to muddy the issue. I don’t see the relevance of your super hypothetical and confusing non sexual same sex relationship situation. Why would you even mention same sex if it’s non sexual. I don’t say that two little kids playing in the park are in a same sex relationship with non existent sex, they are just normal friends.

 

[alwaysthinkin]

What your describing is some rare form of extreme plutonic friendship if sex isn’t existent at all. Thats not what a same sex relationship is and your purposely equating the two to muddy the issue. I don’t see the relevance of your super hypothetical and confusing non sexual same sex relationship situation. Why would you even mention same sex if it’s non sexual. I don’t say that two little kids playing in the park are in a same sex relationship with non existent sex, they are just normal friends.

 

[Stephen_says]

It kind of sounds like Jesus speaking of heterosexual marriage.

Yep. You’re right. Jesus acknowledged man and woman were made for marriage to each other.

 

[gracepoole]

Do you really mean to say what’s in bold here? Is that hyperbole?

Okay Grace. Agree to disagree. I maintain that a flimsy argument like that is insulting.

God bless

I’m simply noting that it doesn’t seem to violate Church teaching. I wouldn’t characterize it as insulting, then.

 

[AOE4]

To the best of my knowledge The Catholic church has no intention of changing the Catechism in regards to offenses against chastity…right I have pored over the Catechism these past years and am baffled as to how people interpret “offenses against chastity” I mean there it is, right there in black and white about what is and is not acceptable.Catholic dogma= “A truth revealed by God, which the Magisterium of the church declared as binding”.Why is everyone getting so hot about this? The church is just playing nice, never going to accept any type of grave sin.correct me if I am wrong, I certainly am not an expert on the subject,enlighten me:shrug:

 

[alwaysthinkin]

It kind of sounds like Jesus speaking of heterosexual marriage.

Or He didn’t feel the need to address it, because it wasn’t on his radar, because it was already settled law from the Old (and to this day still valid) Covenant (as taught by Mother Church)?

We moderns, especially in the west, have grown in our compassion in some ways, but are darn near enablers in other ways because of our reluctance and sometimes stubborn refusal (and sometimes fear) of saying no to that which we ought to say no to.

 

[JimG]

It kind of sounds like Jesus speaking of heterosexual marriage.

Because speaking of homosexual marriage would have been nonsensical to him and his listeners.

 

[RGCheek]

I’d like to add that none of us are in perfect communion with Christ. That includes the pope, gay people, divorced people and all the people in this forum. We are the same. We are sinners. For sinners to label other people sinners is counter productive to our mission. We need to stop pointing fingers and show compassion and love to all humans. How can we fulfill the word of Christ otherwise?

But is there not a difference between the repentant and unrepentant sinners?

Do we not have to walk in the light as Jesus is in the light and Jesus is the light?

 

[gracepoole]

Mark 10:5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH

That kind of sounds like Jesus rejecting homosexuality.

It kind of sounds like Jesus speaking of heterosexual marriage.

Yep. You’re right. Jesus acknowledged man and woman were made for marriage to each other.

He acknowledged man and woman were made for marriage to each other. He didn’t use the word “solely.” I realize the Church has other arguments against homosexual acts – I’m only noting that relying on Christ’s words is problematic.

 

[gracepoole]

Sorry. Hyperbole = exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

[anon99031074]

Yep. You’re right. Jesus acknowledged man and woman were made for marriage to each other.

Apparently, not all men, and not all women. Some men fall in love with other men. Some women fall in love with other women. They are objectively not made that way.

 

[gracepoole]

Because speaking of homosexual marriage would have been nonsensical to him and his listeners.

We might consider what would have been nonsensical to his listeners – I think we naturally have a far more difficult time discerning what would have been or is nonsensical to Him.

 

[RGCheek]

I am not a Sola Scriptura person, but this seems like a passage with a certain relevance:

Romans chapter 1
The Power of the Gospel

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”[e]

The Guilt of Humankind

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

 

[RGCheek]

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

.

BOTH are said; that the dogmas of the church are too hard and also wrong in many cases.

 

[anon99031074]

Their sexual orientation is not considered “intrinsically disordered” in the Catholic church. .

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.

 

[JimG]

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

.

I would ask which rules they might think are wrong, but that would hopelessly derail the thread. I’ll just say that there are some “rules” that the synod will not determine to be wrong, such as:

• marital relations–i.e., sex–belongs only within marriage.
• marriage is between a man and a woman
• extramarital sex is wrong
• premarital sex is wrong
• homosexual sex is wrong

Some may hope that they will overturn Jesus’ prohibition of divorce, but I don’t think that will happen either.

 

[RGCheek]

Their sexual orientation is not considered “intrinsically disordered” in the Catholic church.

.

From the catechism:

2357… Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

[anon99031074]

I am not a Sola Scriptura person, but this seems like a passage with a certain relevance:

Romans chapter 1

Well, here Paul says homosexuality is the result of divine punishment for idolatry. Is he right? Or could it be that he had no idea about biology or genes, and shared the prejudices of his own culture and religion? In fact, the the CCC directly contradicts him, because it says that the genesis of homosexuality is largely unexplained. Not so according to the “Infallible” Paul

 

[ProVobis]

Change is not a bad thing.

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…

 

[gracepoole]

I think it’s important that we not think of the Church like a presidential election. The Holy Spirit works through all pontiffs – we need to trust in that in order to be Catholic. If you believe that the Church is inherently the truth, there is nowhere else to go. We are called to trust.

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.

There is a tension inherent in the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. And the bishops seem to be considering how the Church and the faithful should respond to that tension. I could be wrong but I don’t think either “intrinsically disordered” or “valuing” will go.