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

[JimG]

No, simply that this is a problem of the human institution. In Matthew’s gospel Jesus himself says Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

No one doubts that Jesus came to call sinners. Yet one also has to consider St. Paul’s warnings to those who eat and drink of the Eucharist unworthily “eating and drinking judgment on themselves.”

 

[kelvinf]

That’s an interesting observation, considering that previous Popes have removed excommunications of divorce among other things and even lessened the gravity of certain sins like eating meat on Friday.

Has eating meat on Friday ever been Church teaching? As far as I know, this practice seems to be a US thing.

 

[Tomdstone]

Are you saying that the printed guidelines for reception of Holy Communion found in most misallettes are void and should be entirely disregarded?

They should not be. But does the reality correspond to the rule? At a Mass I personally attended, the priest announced that he saw no reason why anyone here should not receive Holy Communion.

 

[PaulinVA]

No, simply that this is a problem of the human institution. In Matthew’s gospel Jesus himself says Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

The “problem of the human institution” is that it has rules?

This is precisely what the Synod is about, though. Are there rules for a reason or not?

 

[JimG]

Has eating meat on Friday ever been Church teaching? As far as I know, this practice seems to be a US thing.

Within my lifetime, it was a universal precept of the Church to not eat meat on Fridays of the year, as a form of penance. That precept was lifted, giving national bishop’s conferences the duty to set the standards for their jurisdictions. In the U.S., the bishops conference formally canceled the obligation to refrain from meat on Friday. It recommended that people continue some form of Friday penance (even the option of the prior practice), but as far as I can tell, did not restate it as a binding obligation.

 

[JimG]

They should not be. But does the reality correspond to the rule? At a Mass I personally attended, the priest announced that he saw no reason why anyone here should not receive Holy Communion.

Unless he had the gift of reading consciences, the priest was saying more than he had a right to say.

 

[kelvinf]

Within my lifetime, it was a universal precept of the Church to not eat meat on Fridays of the year, as a form of penance. That precept was lifted, giving national bishop’s conferences the duty to set the standards for their jurisdictions. In the U.S., the bishops conference formally canceled the obligation to refrain from meat on Friday. It recommended that people continue some form of Friday penance (even the option of the prior practice), but as far as I can tell, did not restate it as a binding obligation.

I see.

 

[McCall1981]

breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/14/Confusion-Reigns-Opposition-Grows-to-New-Vatican-Document

No less than 41 bishops rose in protest of the document after it was read to them and while the document was being presented to the Vatican press corps. Noted Vatican journalist Sandro Magister reported:

“Under the gunfire of aroung 41 interventions, Cardinals Pell [Secretary for the Economy], Ouellet [Prefect for Bishops], Filoni [Prefect for Propaganda Fide], Dolan [of New York], Vingt-Trois [of Paris], Burke [Prefect of Apostolic Signatura], Rylko [President of Laity], Müller [Prefect of Doctrine of the Faith], Scola [of Milan], Caffarra [of Bologna] among others spoke up, all against an opening to second marriages as proposed by Cardinal Kasper, who also intervened.”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

I think we should publicly whip men who impregnate women they aren’t married to in public then lock them in a stockade and throw rotten fruit and vegetables at them to help show that fornication is intrinsically disordered just like homosexual acts.

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.

The Catechism calls homosexuals acts intrinsically disorder (just like fornication, basically it means sins) and it calls the homosexual inclination objectively disordered which means the object towards which it is inclined is intrinsically disordered.

The difference between “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered” is roughly the difference between temptations and sin.

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.

If a group made someone uncomfortable and then later the people leading said group says that they should work to be more welcoming to people like that person they’d generally be happy.

I agree…it seems that NOWHERE in this is there any mention of sin or disorder. I agree of course to welcome and love these people but at the same time we cannot condone sin. NOWHERE in this do I see ‘admonish the sinner’…even the concept of ‘sin’ seems to be OUT. I am beyond disturbed by this.:bighanky:

Here is the problem, to practice fraternal correction on nonChristians is like admonishing a Russian that he isn’t being a good American.

The point of this Synod is not reifying Church teaching the homosexual sex is sinful, it is to figure out how to best evangelize people. That it doesn’t mention that gay sex is sinful, a trivial portion of the lives of gay people and gay couples, doesn’t mean that it stops being sinful.

Most divorced and remarried Catholics that I know still go to church and take communion even though their marriages have not been annulled. Maybe we don’t see the discrimination because people aren’t open about who they are and what they are doing. If I was gay, married and having all kinds of gay sex, but I wasn’t open about it, would anyone stop me from going to communion? Would there be open confrontation or discrimination if I never revealed myself as gay or divorced to my parish? Don’t ask, don’t tell saves a lot of people from “difficult times.”

It depends on the Church in many divorced people are made to feel definitely unwelcome.

People gossip, people get nosy, questions start getting raised, people start asking you stuff…

When I was a very active, and married, parishioner, I would have said that those who were divorced in our parish did not experience any difficulties. However, when I got divorced, I experienced ostracism, comments that I should no longer be a catechist, reader or EMHC, and a knee-jerk response from my pastor – who did not even bother to ask why I’d had to leave my ex.

It was very disheartening and disappointing. I’ve survived it, and am still active in my (new) parish, but I wouldn’t assume that the divorce in our midst are not experiencing any difficulty.

This is why it is important to actually talk to people about their experiences than assume.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So why would some say “that gay Catholics’ orientation should be valued and that some elements of same-sex partnerships can be praised”? Isn’t that ushering in gay marriage? And also, what about the teachings of the Church. Are they going to look over the teachings of the Church about homosexuality and gay marriage? Not read certain passages from the Bible now at Mass? I mean, where does this lead? I wish lay people had more leverage in this.

Also, to the post above me, we shouldn’t be changing our stances because secularism has changed it stance(s). Y’know?

1.    Realizing the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries. **Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man (cf. Jn 1,9; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings**.

While not exactly the same thing, the point still stands that even in a relationship with immoral elements there can still be good in it.

‘Genetic causes’ do not merely undermine Saint Paul, who our faith says was inspired by the Holy Ghost, but it also undermines moral responsibility, the concept of free will and of free moral agency.

Sounds like a huge theological price to pay to be with the cool kids.

Actually, the etiology is wholly irrelevant to the morality of it. To be more tempted towards one type of sin does undermine moral agency as the person still has free will to resist them.

I am more tempted towards certain sins than you are and you are more tempted towards certain sins than I am, this does not undermine moral responsibility. Some people are more inclined towards alcoholism than others, this doesn’t mean that they can get smashed without sin.

And what does the difference in the two phrases mean to you?

Not sure I would pin my eternal fate to such slim threads.

The difference between “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically disordered” is roughly the difference between temptations and sin. Can we agree that temptation and sin are different things?

 

[tskrobacz]

The “problem of the human institution” is that it has rules?

This is precisely what the Synod is about, though. Are there rules for a reason or not?

Don’t understand problem in a strictly negative way. As a human institution the Church must have rules however those rules can also result in undue hardship or even unintended alienation if not properly administered or understood. The Synod is seeking to broaden the language of Love to avoid it’s “rules” becoming THE source of alienation from the Church instead of THE source of healing, hope and faith.

 

[PaulinVA]

Don’t understand problem in a strictly negative way. As a human institution the Church must have rules however those rules can also result in undue hardship or even unintended alienation if not properly administered or understood. The Synod is seeking to broaden the language of Love to avoid it’s “rules” becoming THE source of alienation from the Church instead of THE source of healing, hope and faith.

Is there sin that we need to be redeemed from, or are we Pelagians?

The rules are simple, in many ways. The hard part is when you break them and then want to find a way back to the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

Through confession, I believe.

 

[clem456]

Don’t understand problem in a strictly negative way. As a human institution the Church must have rules however those rules can also result in undue hardship or even unintended alienation if not properly administered or understood. The Synod is seeking to broaden the language of Love to avoid it’s “rules” becoming THE source of alienation from the Church instead of THE source of healing, hope and faith.

Rules are not the end of faith in themselves. The Church’s faith (of which rules are a part) leads us to the true, the beautiful, and the good. If the guidance of the Church alienates a person, we need to examine ourselves, not cast responsibility on the Church’s rules.

Why would a Catholic want anything other than what the Church proposes, which is a relationship with Christ himself?

 

[pepipop]

I think we should publicly whip men who impregnate women they aren’t married to in public then lock them in a stockade and throw rotten fruit and vegetables at them to help show that fornication is intrinsically disordered just like homosexual acts.

Fornication is not intrinsically disordered - immoral and a grave sin, yes.

The point being made was that homosexuality in the present day, is viewed as normal by various governments worldwide. This is as opposed to years ago, when it was seen as a mental illness and/or against the law of the land, which without doubt lowered the incidence of homosexual acts.

Up and coming populations, from birth, will now see homosexuality as ‘perfectly normal’, as they will see that they are allowed to marry, as heterosexuals do, to raise families, etc… This will, of course, make it a lot more difficult to portray that homosexuality is ‘intrinsically disordered’ to the up and coming generation.*

 

[tskrobacz]

Is there sin that we need to be redeemed from, or are we Pelagians?

The rules are simple, in many ways. The hard part is when you break them and then want to find a way back to the Church.

Just as Jesus came for sinners, so too must the church be a “field hospital” to use Pope Francis’ language for sinners and those who are stray sheep.

 

[SMGS127]

Up and coming populations, from birth, will now see homosexuality as ‘perfectly normal’, as they will see that they are allowed to marry, as heterosexuals do, to raise families, etc… This will, of course, make it a lot more difficult to portray that homosexuality is ‘intrinsically disordered’ to the up and coming generation.

But homosexuality isn’t intrinsically disordered. It’s only objectively disordered – e.g., disordered in its object. Only homosexual sexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Joie de Vivre;12411225:

I think we should publicly whip men who impregnate women they aren’t married to in public then lock them in a stockade and throw rotten fruit and vegetables at them to help show that fornication is intrinsically disordered just like homosexual acts.

Fornication is not intrinsically disordered - immoral and a grave sin, yes.

The point being made was that homosexuality in the present day, is viewed as normal by various governments worldwide. This is as opposed to years ago, when it was seen as a mental illness and/or against the law of the land, which without doubt lowered the incidence of homosexual acts.

Up and coming populations, from birth, will now see homosexuality as ‘perfectly normal’, as they will see that they are allowed to marry, as heterosexuals do, to raise families, etc… This will, of course, make it a lot more difficult to portray that homosexuality is ‘intrinsically disordered’ to the up and coming generation.

CCC:

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. **There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. **

The Catechism disagrees with you.

 

[Yeoman]

Note: the Catholic Faith does not believe that The Holy Spirit selects the Pope. The Church teaches that Christ and the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from officially teaching errors regarding Faith and Morals.

That’s quite correct, and that’s why when we look back on some Popes centuries past who were not admirable men, it’s not a condemnation of the Church. They notably never made any Ex Cathedra pronouncements that were in any way unorthodox. We need not fear that occurring here in that fashion, although we can be concerned that a pronouncement of lesser status, or even this process, could be harmful. And e might note that at least the recent history of big Church conferences of one kind or another has tended to lead to confusion, even if the results were not in any way unorthodox, and that confusion has tended to take a long time to clear up.

 

[gracepoole]

“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.

Take it easy. On occasion, DaddyGirl and I actually know what we’re talking about. My post actually didn’t “state” anything; it merely provided a link. It didn’t, therefore, “state the opposite.” Additionally, the link I posted does not contradict the CCC (as you’ve noted while also claiming that it somehow confuses the issue ). If it did, Catholic Answers would be violating the Church’s teachings. Not likely. So my post isn’t in violation of the CCC and CA isn’t “stating the opposite” of the CCC’s teachings…but you’re still upset with my post. ?