For Pope Francis, legalism makes Christians stupid. [CNA]

[KSU]

“Homosexual acts” is the preferred manner of speaking. It avoids confusion, as the CCC defines homosexuality as the person and/or the act. Simply saying homosexual act instead of homosexuality can keep everyone on topic.

Aside from your advice being, in this particular case, a bit legalistic, I have no problem with your preferred term, “Homosexual acts”, rather than the term “Homosexuality”. Your advice is well taken when speaking with the objective of distinguishing between the attraction and the sin, or when it’s necessary to avoid conflating the attraction and the sin. The term, “homosexual practice”, in such a case, would be even more clear.

What I posted, however, was this old Catholic teaching: "Love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin to be hated ". Thus, the distinction between the attraction and the sin was already made–no need to be legalistic and say “Love the sinner who acts on his homosexual attraction.”

In that old teaching, a person with a mere attraction is not of course a sinner, but a person who acts on that attraction is a sinner. Accordingly, when I said “Love the sinner”, it could mean only a person who acts on his homosexual attraction.

Here is Father John A. Hardon, S.J., (my go-to guy for definitions) who, after explaining all the necessary legalisms, used the term “homosexuality” to mean the act:
Homosexuality… is the selfish indulgence in sexual pleasure of two persons of the same gender…
See his “Catholic Catechism on Homosexuality”; number 22
therealpresence.org/archives/Chastity/Chastity_014.htm

 

[KSU]

I’m sorry that I chose to use gay and straight. I surely had no intention of developing a straw man argument. I use the terminology used in 2016, not 1950. Maybe you can explain the difference between the term homosexuals v gay individuals? Yes, if you think of anyone as an individual instead of a nebulous group, it makes it much harder to discriminate without feeling some guilt or remorse.

I don’t understand what you are getting at, but It seems you are saying that the 2016 terminology you are using changes the meaning of the 1950 terminology; whatever that means.

In any case, my friend, we can’t have an intelligent debate if there is no agreement on the meaning of words.

As to your last sentence, I’ll simply let it go. Besides, it’s far off topic and has been beaten into a bloody pulp in a hundred other threads.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I’m sorry that I chose to use gay and straight. I surely had no intention of developing a straw man argument. I use the terminology used in 2016, not 1950. Maybe you can explain the difference between the term homosexuals v gay individuals? Yes, if you think of anyone as an individual instead of a nebulous group, it makes it much harder to discriminate without feeling some guilt or remorse.

Again, the difference KSU pointed out was between homosexuality and homosexuals, not between “homosexuals vs. gay individuals”. You keep wanting to change the subject.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

“Love and do what you will.” St, Augustine (354-430). Sermon on 1 John 4:4-12.

 

[JosieN]

From Galatians 5.

"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

This is what I referred to.

Thanks. I understand what you meant now. That is a great message. It says we were called to be free but we should not use our freedoms to indulge in the flesh but to serve one another. It is good advice, the world today is much too obsessed with indulging in the flesh.

 

[JosieN]

Homosexuality can also be properly defined as the state of being attracted to people of the same sex; attraction is not a sin.

If the attraction is done with lustful thoughts towards a person of the same sex, it would be a sin. The definition of lust is a strong sexual desire, lust can be a sin for heterosexuals also.

 

[pnewton]

“Love and do what you will.” St, Augustine (354-430). Sermon on 1 John 4:4-12.

I read this on another thread, posted by fhanson.

This is the best summary for it, as I understand the faith, by St Basil of Cesarea:

“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

On the other hand, St. Paul also called him self a bond slave(servant), with the idea of one who voluntarily places himself in servitude of another, in this case, out of love. In a Christian context, such a one can be treated as a member of the family.

Here is that thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14218719#post14218719

I find it interesting that two threads pop up on this in one week, when I do not recall seeing another on the subject. Something in Galatians hits home with Catholics in a way it didn’t when I was a Baptist. I never noticed the same issue with Romans though, which covers the same issue.

 

[Origen52]

“Love and do what you will.” St, Augustine (354-430). Sermon on 1 John 4:4-12.

The problem with this is that it leads to delusional, self justification. If I truly love a 15 year old and s/he freely engages in a relationship with me, am I sinning; no because I love. It is society’s.laws which are arong.wrong.

If an unborn child would cause extra expenses and lower the quality of life of the children I already have;my love for my children leads me to terminate the life of the unborn child. Is it a sin, no because it is motivated by my love for the children present and therefore more real to me,

People need to constantly be urged to obey devine laws, which are carefully revealed. Trite one line statements cannot be the basis for one’s ethical development. Even if they’re lifted from the writings of a saint.

 

[pnewton]

The problem with this is that it leads to delusional, self justification. If I truly love a 15 year old and s/he freely engages in a relationship with me, am I sinning; no because I love. It is society’s.laws which are arong.wrong.

If an unborn child would cause extra expenses and lower the quality of life of the children I already have;my love for my children leads me to terminate the life of the unborn child.

He is referring to love in a Christian context, one of the three cardinal virtues. If you love the 15 year old with the love of God, you would not want to help her into Hell, or yourself into Hell. Love of God and neighbor are universal. You cannot say you love your older child and kill your younger to make life easier on the older, as if that would work. Love is a universal virtue. It is of this virtue, this type of love, that Augustine speaks.

Yes, we are weak and need help. However, note that the Catechsim of the Catholic Church is not called the rule book of the Catholic Church. It is first and foremost a teaching instrument. It helps form our conscience. As St. Paul put it, milk is okay up unto a point. Ideally, one should move beyond that an start eating meat. Likewise, as we mature spiritually, we should move beyond obedience to rules and acting out of an innate love of God and our fellow man.

What Pope Francis is alluding to (the stupid part) is when that person, the “foolish Galatians”, reject this natural maturation process and revert to a spiritual childhood of rules and regulations: legalism, at least that was my understanding of his sermon.

 

[zz912]

No. Your opinion is that it is. It is an opinion I totally reject, consider an insult, and am angered by.

I am done.

I have quoted the Catechism which EXPLICITLY states that the Ten Commandments are binding on all. I’m unsure why you are angered by, or reject. It’s in black and white.

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The problem with this is that it leads to delusional, self justification. If I truly love a 15 year old and s/he freely engages in a relationship with me, am I sinning; no because I love. It is society’s.laws which are arong.wrong.

If an unborn child would cause extra expenses and lower the quality of life of the children I already have;my love for my children leads me to terminate the life of the unborn child. Is it a sin, no because it is motivated by my love for the children present and therefore more real to me,

People need to constantly be urged to obey devine laws, which are carefully revealed. Trite one line statements cannot be the basis for one’s ethical development. Even if they’re lifted from the writings of a saint.

Of course “love” can be and often is misinterpreted. St. Augustine is referring to agape, charity, not sexual love or even natural parental love. I strongly disagree with calling it “trite”. It is profoundly true, although it can easily be misinterpreted.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

As St. Paul put it, milk is okay up unto a point. Ideally, one should move beyond that an start eating meat. Likewise, as we mature spiritually, we should move beyond obedience to rules and acting out of an innate love of God and our fellow man.

What Pope Francis is alluding to (the stupid part) is when that person, the “foolish Galatians”, reject this natural maturation process and revert to a spiritual childhood of rules and regulations: legalism, at least that was my understanding of his sermon.

Well said. That is how I understand it also.

 

[JosieN]

“Love and do what you will.” St, Augustine (354-430). Sermon on 1 John 4:4-12.

I think this may explain the kind of love St. Augustine was speaking of:

Love, especially when it is genuine, shows itself in commitment, in patience, in kindness, in compassion and in the sacrifices people make for others.

How else do we explain for instance, the death of a young man who during the Tsunami in Bali in 2004, tied a rope around his waist, attached the rope to a tree, then swam to save those who were being carried away by the waves? He saved many, but then the tree was uprooted and he himself drowned in the waters. Or how do we make sense of the death of a young husband who during a tornado in Joplin, MO, used his own body to shield his young wife from flying debris?

There are no scientific explanations for such acts of sacrifice and heroism; just love. “The heart has reasons, of which reason does not know”, says the philosopher Blaise Pascal. Love calculates neither risk nor cost; it simply gives, and when it has nothing more to give, it gives itself, wholly, completely, absolutely.

“For God so loved the world, he gave his only Son”. The gospel today tells us. Outside this explanation of love, the sacrifice of Jesus doesn’t make sense. One atheistic philosopher used to ridicule Catholics. “You worship a dead man. How stupid is that?” he said.

Without the idea of love, the very symbol which most prominently marks our churches and our homes—the crucifix—is utterly ridiculous. It’s the image of a dead man nailed to a piece of wood.

But from the perspective of love, the cross makes a lot of sense. It shows us the extent of what love is capable of doing. [In fact love makes us forget ourselves and care more for the persons we love. Why that happens, nobody knows.] It’s a mystery. There’s no scientific explanation for it. When you see it, you just know it.

Our belief in the Trinity is very much like the mystery of love. In fact, the Trinity is love. We can’t explain it. We can’t fully understand it. But we know what it means. It’s the Father, Son and Spirit—the greatest symbol of love in our faith.

St. Augustine once tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity but then he realized he couldn’t. The mystery of the Trinity’s too big; our brains are too small. So Augustine summed it up in one word: “Love”, he said. That’s what the Trinity means. It’s that simple.

You can read the rest here: catholicwebphilosopher.com/2015/05/love-and-do-what-you-will-from-st.html

 

[ProdigalSun]

You do realize that gay people are not evil, right?

Neither is a fornicator or a rapist or a person who commits beastiality! All of these people, just like all people with SSA, are loved by God! The Father calls them all to be with him in heaven. These people are not “Evil” but do commit sinful acts some of which are worse than others, but all of these acts seperates one from God.There really is no way around that fact. Our Father calls everyone to repentance because we all fall short!

Cheers!

 

[ProdigalSun]

No. Your opinion is that it is. It is an opinion I totally reject, consider an insult, and am angered by.

I am done.

Really? You totally reject what is spelled out in the Catechism? I guess you are done!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Aside from your advice being, in this particular case, a bit legalistic, I have no problem with your preferred term, “Homosexual acts”, rather than the term “Homosexuality”. Your advice is well taken when speaking with the objective of distinguishing between the attraction and the sin, or when it’s necessary to avoid conflating the attraction and the sin. The term, “homosexual practice”, in such a case, would be even more clear.

What I posted, however, was this old Catholic teaching:** "Love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin to be hated ".** Thus, the distinction between the attraction and the sin was already made–no need to be legalistic and say “Love the sinner who acts on his homosexual attraction.”

In that old teaching, a person with a mere attraction is not of course a sinner, but a person who acts on that attraction is a sinner. Accordingly, when I said “Love the sinner”, it could mean only a person who acts on his homosexual attraction.

Here is Father John A. Hardon, S.J., (my go-to guy for definitions) who, after explaining all the necessary legalisms, used the term “homosexuality” to mean the act:
Homosexuality… is the selfish indulgence in sexual pleasure of two persons of the same gender…
See his “Catholic Catechism on Homosexuality”; number 22
therealpresence.org/archives/Chastity/Chastity_014.htm

"Love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin to be hated " is not a Catholic teaching. It’s something a Catholic somewhere may have said. And it belongs in the trash heap of bad ideas Catholics have had.

I know of several gay people who have the impression that they are hated by the Church. Not the act, them personally. The reason is clear. It’s because of rhetoric that rises to the level of misinterpretaion. You know what the terminology is, but most do not. How does a young person with SSA feel when they hear someone say homosexuality is a sin?

The priest who is your got to guy is, IMO, irresponsible with that terminology. The CCC states that homosexuality can be defined as an act or as the individual. So this priest is going to hang his hat on a word that is misinterpreted through out the country, and for what? so he doesn’t have to say the word “act”. Just because a priest says it does not mean it’s right.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I have quoted the Catechism which EXPLICITLY states that the Ten Commandments are binding on all. I’m unsure why you are angered by, or reject. It’s in black and white.

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

I think you need to read this more carefully and in context of paragraph 2072 and the CCC as a whole. It’s referring to the fact that the Decalogue is written on our hearts and therefore we cannot dispense ourselves from it.

The Church, however, allows for killing in just war and self-defense. It also allows for our holy day to be on Sunday instead of Friday night through Saturday. It also allows for other dispensations regarding the Decalogue because Jesus came to show that the law does not lord over charity.

 

[JosieN]

"Love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin to be hated " is not a Catholic teaching. It’s something a Catholic somewhere may have said. And it belongs in the trash heap of bad ideas Catholics have had.

I know of several gay people who have the impression that they are hated by the Church. Not the act, them personally. The reason is clear. It’s because of rhetoric that rises to the level of misinterpretaion. You know what the terminology is, but most do not. **How does a young person with SSA feel when they hear someone say homosexuality is a sin?
**
The priest who is your got to guy is, IMO, irresponsible with that terminology. The CCC states that homosexuality can be defined as an act or as the individual. So this priest is going to hang his hat on a word that is misinterpreted through out the country, and for what? so he doesn’t have to say the word “act”. Just because a priest says it does not mean it’s right.

You can hate the sin, while loving the sinner, just as you would love your child when you know they are living in an unmarried relationship and committing a mortal sin. The sin is hated, but child is not. The two are not the same. So if a homosexual thinks they are hated by the Church they are wrong. It is only the sin that is hated.

A couple living together, but not married, may not want to hear the truth about their sin, but would a priest not guide them on the right path just because their feelings may be hurt? Hurt feelings are to be considered, but shouldn’t the salvation of the soul be the goal?

All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are always objective mortal sins. I think a young person with Same Sex Attraction needs to learn the truth, even if it is difficult for them to accept, then they can get the help they need and be led on the right path again.

 

[goout]

…
So who are the Pharisees - the legalists - of today? Who are the people the Pope are speaking against?

They have a saying in poker, “if you’re looking around the table trying to figure out who the fish is, you are.”

 

[KSU]

"Love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin to be hated " is not a Catholic teaching. It’s something a Catholic somewhere may have said. And it belongs in the trash heap of bad ideas Catholics have had.

I know of several gay people who have the impression that they are hated by the Church. Not the act, them personally. The reason is clear. It’s because of rhetoric that rises to the level of misinterpretaion. You know what the terminology is, but most do not. How does a young person with SSA feel when they hear someone say homosexuality is a sin?

The priest who is your got to guy is, IMO, irresponsible with that terminology. The CCC states that homosexuality can be defined as an act or as the individual. So this priest is going to hang his hat on a word that is misinterpreted through out the country, and for what? so he doesn’t have to say the word “act”. Just because a priest says it does not mean it’s right.