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

[Yeoman]

Do you get the impression that this working document was not supposed to be released yet, or that this was a trial balloon being walked back?

My impression is that it is a case of the former and not the latter.

That’s what the news today seems to slightly be suggesting. It’s being termed a “working document”. If it is, releasing it unwise, as now they’ll have to deal with the fallout should the final document not reflect the same content.

One thing I’d note about our current Pope is that he seems to be remarkably unsavy about the media. I’m not attributing the release to him, but the media in Argentina must work considerably different than it does in the US and Europe.

 

[Yeoman]

Then why bring up genetic ‘causes’? We all get tempted in numerous ways every day and most of them are natural, though some are not. In any sense there is no excuse for sin; we repent as best we can but we must repent.

Yes, we can.

On genetics, we should be careful in general about assuming too much. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t learn something about genetics that surprises us, and the common assumption that there’s a gene at work here might be wholly in error, or poorly understood.

 

[Yeoman]

Especially, when certain Christian denominations also recognise SSM, through church blessings.

I am not referring to fully catechised Catholics.

That’s very true.

Of course, God works in the long term, and to no small extent the Protestant denominations that have condoned such unions are rocketing towards oblivion. In part, that’s why what the synod is doing is so worrisome. If we take our Protestant fellows as a cautionary tale, we see that the weakest part of the churches like the Anglican Communion are the ones that are eager to socially please, while the vibrant parts are those that refuse to depart from the Gospels. People often rail against the thing that anchors them, as they’re wounded. We need to be careful to not wound them further, but in being a kind, gentle, anchor, we still need to be an anchor.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Some tweets regarding today’s press briefing:

.@ArchbishopKurtz says his small group unanimous in suggested amendments to #Synod14 midterm report

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522344218359238656

.@sistachcardenal says his group has proposed amendments to all sections of #Synod14 midterm report

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522347814475825152

.@sistachcardenal says #Synod14 final report should not overemphasize family problems at the expense of celebrating happy families

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522348398528434176

+Fisichella says #Synod14 should celebrate happiness of marriage to discourage growing practice of cohabitation

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522349077254909952

.@sistachcardenal says his #Synod14 small group seeks to harmonize fidelity to Gospel with mercy regarding “irregular” unions

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522355166298009600

.@ArchbishopKurtz says question of Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics requires further study

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522357556979986432

.@ArchbishopKurtz says his #Synod14 small group shares attitude of "welcome” toward divorced and remarried Catholics

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522357349307387905

+Fisichella says “non-negotiable values” a term aimed specifically at Catholic politicians

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522356849035968512

.@ArchbishopKurtz says final #Synod14 report “is the document that will have the support of the delegates"

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522358094240952320

+Fisichella says #Synod14’s interest in homosexuality focuses on families, e.g., situations of gay children or children of same-sex couples

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522359589636169728

 

[Yeoman]

[During an interview today, he said that Courage members are worried and confused about the message from Synod"](During an interview today, he said that Courage members are worried and confused about the message from Synod")

I’ll bet.

Truth be known, there’s hardly a person alive who isn’t subjected to temptations in this arena. Some people have severe same gender attraction, some men are tempted mentally by every attractive female they meet. Some women hunger for the touch of ever man they know. And while many do not suffer so severely, to some degree everyone is tempted somewhere in this area, with a tiny minority being afflicted by same gender attractions, which nobody would really want to be afflicted by.

While the released statement doesn’t change Catholic doctrine in any fashion, its sloppy language can be read to easily suggest “everything is okay” and “don’t worry about it.” Prior statements by the Pope on at least one other topic sort of read that way as well. It is very easy for those struggling with these problems to yield to them, if the message is “we’re all okay”. I already know a Catholic who claims that her Priest has said living together without marriage is okay (I know the Priest and I don’t believe it). If people can rationalize their sin away and take the easy approach, they will, even if deep down it means suffering in real terms. And if those who take the courageous step and say “I will not yield” get a confused message, it undercuts them.

Shoot, in some ways it undercuts us all, if we’ve been arguing for understood Catholic morality. I already know Catholics who grew up in very liberal parishes that feel a lot of Catholicism is optional. Now that will grow worse if not corrected.

 

[Yeoman]

Megan’s comment about the role of television in this is interesting.

We can’t attribute this entire event to tv, but there’s now doubt that entertainment in the Western World has become more debased with each generation. Right now, if you care to watch, you can find everything from this lifestyle being portrayed as smart, to one that assumes that teenage mothers are the simple victims of mysterious uncontrollable nature. If we propose that even the most basic elements of self control that were the norm just a generation ago should apply, we’re looked at as freaks.

Part of what we need to do is boldly proclaim the opposite.

Indeed, if we want to look to a very successful group that does that, look at the Mormons. Their theology is wildly different from our own, but they have a basic set of moral values here that are nearly as straightforward as ours (although not really quite to the degree they portray). They’re portrayed as “squares” in popular culture, but they’re growing. Probably for that very reason. Their kids, by the way, are aggressive in their squareness. We should take a page from that book. “We’re Catholic, and yes we’re different.”

Anyhow, there’s something about the entertainment industry that’s always really attracted people attracted to vice, or perhaps there’s something about it that fosters vice. That’s not new. Complete suspension of self control in this arena seems to be very widespread, and always has been. That’s spilled on to film whenever it was allows, as the visual temptation is very strong. That would explain why film standards have descended into the gutter, but it wouldn’t explain portraying same gender attraction as something practiced by the beautiful and smart.

That’s probably explained, at least in part, by the same phenomenon that’s caused this to occur in psychology. It’s much easier to excuse your own conduct than reform it, and if you have the ability to control the public image, that’s a big part of that.

One thing, however, is that even if you portray hurtful conduct as beautiful, it still hurts. More people seem to be hurting out there than ever.

 

[Yeoman]

Megan’s comment about the role of television in this is interesting.

We can’t attribute this entire event to tv, but there’s now doubt that entertainment in the Western World has become more debased with each generation. Right now, if you care to watch, you can find everything from this lifestyle being portrayed as smart, to one that assumes that teenage mothers are the simple victims of mysterious uncontrollable nature. If we propose that even the most basic elements of self control that were the norm just a generation ago should apply, we’re looked at as freaks.

Part of what we need to do is boldly proclaim the opposite.

Indeed, if we want to look to a very successful group that does that, look at the Mormons. Their theology is wildly different from our own, but they have a basic set of moral values here that are nearly as straightforward as ours (although not really quite to the degree they portray). They’re portrayed as “squares” in popular culture, but they’re growing. Probably for that very reason. Their kids, by the way, are aggressive in their squareness. We should take a page from that book. “We’re Catholic, and yes we’re different.”

Anyhow, there’s something about the entertainment industry that’s always really attracted people attracted to vice, or perhaps there’s something about it that fosters vice. That’s not new. Complete suspension of self control in this arena seems to be very widespread, and always has been. That’s spilled on to film whenever it was allows, as the visual temptation is very strong. That would explain why film standards have descended into the gutter, but it wouldn’t explain portraying same gender attraction as something practiced by the beautiful and smart.

That’s probably explained, at least in part, by the same phenomenon that’s caused this to occur in psychology. It’s much easier to excuse your own conduct than reform it, and if you have the ability to control the public image, that’s a big part of that.

One thing, however, is that even if you portray hurtful conduct as beautiful, it still hurts. More people seem to be hurting out there than ever.

And adding, re the entertainment industry, it’s not just a show like “Will & Grace”. Even a huge hit like “Friends” shows a set of young, cool, beautiful people whose lives were completely morally debased.

About the only thing a person can do about that is to point it out. If you don’t should it come up, the young will assume that it depicts a morally acceptable slice of reality, rather than a totally unrealistic immoral sewer.

But, keeping in mind that we basically let this stuff creep up on us, getting out now that we’re awake is going to be a long process and very slow. One thing I would note, however, is that when some societies that we’re in conflict with one way or another find us to be repugnant, and we can’t understand why, our public image in this area doesn’t help us (Western World society) one darned bit.

 

[Yeoman]

I saw where at least the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox have sent delegates to this synod, presumably in a speaking observational role. Any idea how they are reacting to this? At least the Russian Orthodox have been even more “conservative” in this area than we have been.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

How can there be some good in an immoral relationship? That’s like saying a hostage and hostage taker have some good in their relationship.

Of course, I suppose a man and a woman fornicating is equivalent to a man kidnapping a girl then keeping her in a rape dungeon.

Nothing in Catholicism says it is impossible for there to be some good in an imperfect situation. A couple can genuinely love each other even if they express it in imperfect ways and said love can serve as a catalyst for them to grow in understanding and learn not to express it in their ways.

Truth never has any deception and truth always has compassion.

“Does this dress make me look fat?”
“That doesn’t make you look fat because you already look like a cow.”
Feel the compassion in that honesty.

When I say deception I’m referring to people quote debunked statistics attempting make gay sex look far more dangerous than it is.

Homo behavior is a grave sin, it says clearly in both Old Testament and New Testament. Genesis 19 clearly states the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah due to their homo actions.

Gay sex is certainly a sin, a grave one. Genesis 19 is often claimed to clearly state them being destroyed for that, but it doesn’t actually. Whether they were or were not destroyed for gay sex is actually irrelevant to the immorality of it.

Deception is when you see a person in grave sin but pretend he is OK and don’t tell the person he needs to stop. Compassion is when you see a person in grave sin, tell the person with love and encourage his conversion.

.

When I am referring to compassion I am referring to things like telling people that God loves them unconditionally and that they are welcome to our Church. By now pretty much everyone has heard that the Catholic Church regards gay sex as sins. Instead of launching into a tirade on how gay sex is immoral it is better instead on explaining why it is immoral and show how it neatly fits with the rest of the Catholic ethic.

Presuming that’s true, Michael Voris in his wildest conspiratorial nightmares could not have dreamed up this.

Part of conspiracy theories is thinking things they are much worse than they are.

Which is why I am scared. The Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, is very clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality - just as it’s clear on other sins. If the Church condones the practice of homosexuality as well as same-sex marriage, then what can be said other than the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church?

Pope Francis really needs to address this.

The Bible says that homosexual sex is sinful, not homosexuality per se which is actually a major difference.

Raymond Arroyo:

facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=879775055373664&id=110119339005910

Facebook is a wonderfully trustworthy source.

On genetics, we should be careful in general about assuming too much. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t learn something about genetics that surprises us, and the common assumption that there’s a gene at work here might be wholly in error, or poorly understood.

We’ve also learned somewhat recently that there are factors that have permanent effects by the time of birth and are not genetic.

 

[anthonymarie]

A document released at the halfway point of the gathering said that gay Catholics’ orientation should be valued and that they have “gifts and qualities” to offer parishes. The document also praised elements of same-sex partnerships.

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?

 

[Yeoman]

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.

 

[McCall1981]

Some tweets regarding today’s press briefing:

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522344218359238656

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522347814475825152

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522348398528434176

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522349077254909952

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522355166298009600

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522357556979986432

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522357349307387905

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522356849035968512

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522358094240952320

twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/522359589636169728

Thank you for this.

 

[OraLabora]

The way I read things, God gives us permission to be who we are (straight, gay, alcoholic, addict, whatever).

God does not give us permission to do what we want.

My former (and still occasional) very good confessor said that God rewards effort, recognizing that our flaws will often result in a less than perfect result. But the effort is expected.

We are reading too much into the fact that the statement is saying “having gay sex is A-OK!”

I read it as saying that the Gospel can propose to you a better way. Welcome inside our Church, and let’s show you how the Gospel can set you free.

IMHO, a gay (or someone in an irregular marriage for instance) who works with a confessor to make steps towards holiness… even baby steps if that’s all (s)he can manage, isn’t approaching the Eucharist “unworthily”. While St. Paul admonishes against approaching the Eucharist unworthily, and he’s 100% correct, he doesn’t really give us a definition of “worthy”.

I think part of the problem people are having here is that we keep saying that active homosexuals are in a state of “mortal sin”. Same with a divorcee of many years, previously abandoned, having remarried, is in a state of “mortal sin” (i.e. adultery) when she has sex with her second husband.

None of us here are qualified to make a determination on the level of addiction or freedom of the will that folks committing grave sins, have. Therefore none of us are qualified to make a determination on whether their culpability is, in fact, mortal. That’s something between penitent and confessor.

We also have to consider that while determining whether a specific sin is “grave” or not is objective, the level of culpability is usually very subjective.

If a confessor determines that say an active homosexual is doing his or her best to work towards chastity by, for example, as a first step not being promiscuous, and gives absolution, then to paraphrase the Holy Father “who am I to say” that the person is unworthy to receive the Eucharist? ISTM that this is what we’re working towards here, a notion that perfection isn’t attained in a single “aha!” moment, that it takes work, and that this work must be fed by grace to succeed.

I repeat that I do not read that the Synod is saying that it’s OK to just keep going on doing what you’re doing as if it didn’t matter. It does matter. But I think it is being very realistic about human frailty and the fact that we are all differently abled. For me to avoid the sin of homosexuality is extremely easy, I’m not tempted by it. But I know myself well enough to avoid “occasions of sin” of a heterosexual nature.

I think everyone worried about what’s going on should take a deep breath and place their faith in Christ’s promise to the Church. Doctrine won’t be changing. Discipline though, might, with respect to what consists of “worthiness” to receive, something that perhaps should be better defined, as nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

Romans 1:18-32 condemn homosexuality, specifically verse 26- 27 that address to both female and male homosexuals:

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.

Also refer to:
Matthew 19:1-8
1Cor 6:9-11
Galatians 5:19
Ephesians 5:3-7
Colossians 3:5-7
1 Tim 1:10

Any Christian wants to argue with the Bible?

Most Catholics realize that there are things in the bible that we can’t take seriously, that we can’t take literally and that we can not follow under our current systems of laws. For example, Paul tells women to be silent and under the rule of men. Yet we have sisters in our faith who direct large operations for the Church. These women manage men, including priests. We’ve had and continue to have female world leaders. The bible tells us to keep blemished people away from the altar, yet our Church proudly reaches out to include people with disabilities in all aspects of our faith, including celebrants. And chopping off hands is just not legal in most places anymore. Sorry, that piece of biblical advice is no longer allowed in today’s society.

I’m not saying that the bible is too old to be useful. I’m saying that when we read the bible, we need to keep in mind when and where the various books were written. When we read them in that context, they make much more sense. The bible is the most beautiful and worthwhile book I have ever read and it is the one book that has had biggest impact on my life. I love opening up my app when it’s quiet and drinking in favorite psalms. I find myself always going back to the Sermon on the Mount and the Garden of Gethsemane whenever I feel anxious. It is my center. And even with that, I still understand that not every word of the bible is healthy. Not every word of the bible is true. Not every word in the bible is applicable. An adherence to the literal word can be, in my humble opinion, dangerous depending on which words you choose.

 

[One_point]

Most Catholics realize that there are things in the bible that we can’t take seriously, that we can’t take literally and that we can not follow under our current systems of laws. For example, Paul tells women to be silent and under the rule of men. Yet we have sisters in our faith who direct large operations for the Church. These women manage men, including priests. We’ve had and continue to have female world leaders. Paul’s statement is just not relavant anymore. The bible tells us to keep blemished people away from the altar, yet our Church proudly reaches out to include people with disabilities in all aspects of our faith, including celebrants. And chopping off hands is just not legal in most places anymore. Sorry, that piece of biblical advice is no longer allowed in today’s society.

I’m not saying that the bible is too old to be useful. I’m saying that when we read the bible, we need to keep in mind when and where the various books were written. When we read them in that context, they make much more sense. The bible is the most beautiful and worthwhile book I have ever read and it is the one book that has had biggest impact on my life. I love opening up my app when it’s quiet and drinking in favorite psalms. I find myself always going back to the Sermon on the Mount and the Garden of Gethsemane whenever I feel anxious. It is my center. And even with that, I still understand that not every word of the bible is healthy. Not every word of the bible is true. Not every word in the bible is applicable. An adherence to the literal word can be, in my humble opinion, dangerous depending on which words you choose.

What is missing in all this is that the bible has both disciplines and timeless doctrine. the church has differentiated which is which for 2 millennia. Marriage and divorce and remarriage is not discipline like how women should behave in church. I also don’t know when Christians used to chop off hands. or eyes. those passages have always been understood to be conveying a truth hyperbolically not literally.

 

[ProVobis]

Raymond Arroyo:

facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=879775055373664&id=110119339005910

How do we know a certain amount wasn’t intended to be released, to “test the water,” so to speak?

All I heard on radio and cable this morning is that the Church is now, in effect, more “gay and divorce friendly.” I suppose this implies up to this point the Church had been some type of evil organization or something?

 

[_Abyssinia]

How do we know a certain amount wasn’t intended to be released, to “test the water,” so to speak?

All I heard on radio and cable this morning is that the Church is now, in effect, more “gay friendly.”

Seems like someone let quite a few horses out of the barn.

Check out this excerpt frim Andrew Sullivan:

And look too at the positive aspects of a gay relationship: “mutual aid to the point of sacrifice.” Instead of defining us as living in sexual sin, the church is suddenly seeing all aspects of our relationships – the care for one another, the sacrifices of daily life, the mutual responsibilities for children, the love of our families, the dignity of our work, and all that makes up a commitment to one another.

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.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Dolan: Draft Vatican Family Values Document Needs Revision

newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/10/15/dolan-draft-vatican-family-values-document-needs-revision/

 

[ProVobis]

That’s something between penitent and confessor.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

Dolan: Draft Vatican Family Values Document Needs Revision

newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/10/15/dolan-draft-vatican-family-values-document-needs-revision/

I wonder how many languages the draft has already been translated into though. It’s going to be tough to reverse some of the damage that’s been done, assuming the document does get revised eventually.