P
Polak
Guest
Yes I mentioned her in an earlier post. Sister Jeannine Gramick. Look her up. You might be disturbed by what you read.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Whoops - should read “unapologetically”.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I keep hearing “justice” mentioned. A couple of thoughts. Psychologically, did biblical writers recognize homosexuality as a deep-seated tendency, or did they just see it as bad behaviour? I don’t think we can isolate the Bible from the context of its times, in which it was written. Jesus, interestingly, never mentions it in the Gospels. It’s in the OT of course, and in the Pauline epistles. If Jesus himself ever spoke about it, it wasn’t caught by the Gospel authors.
Secondly, justice demands that we not discriminate against homosexuals just because of their sins. Especially since none of us are free of sin either. Continence is hard enough for us heterosexuals, I can’t imagine it’s any easier for homosexuals especially since according to the Church they have zero outlet for their sexuality, one of life’s most powerful appetites.
Thirdly, there are gentle ways of teaching morality, especially to people who are suffering to begin with, that don’t pile on the suffering, but instead try to reveal the beauty of the Gospels and a thirst to gradually conform to them; monastics know that conversion is a life-long project, not an overnight sensation. I think the LGBQT are already very familiar with Church teaching on their situation. They don’t need to be beaten over the head with it even more. What they need is to be made to feel loved by God, so that they may of their own free will be empowered to grow closer to Him.
P
Polak
Guest
Where’s the discrimination?
They also don’t need to falsely be told that being in a gay relationship is okay.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Careful, this sounds very much like the arguments pro-homosexuality “Catholics” make. The Bible and Catholic tradition is clear on the question of homosexual activity.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I feel no need to be careful. I’m a 62-y.o. cradle Catholic with an LGBQT child. I’m quite capable of thinking on my own two feet.
Moreover my approach to the issue is strongly inspired by the Benedictine approach of seeing, above all Christ in everybody before the sin. And we all have sin; it behooves is to work on our own before singling out others’ sins.
Ask my daughter why she will never set foot in any Catholic or most other Christian churches. You’ll probably get a much better answer than I can give. But perhaps being told she is disordered from the get-go turns her off. Perhaps simply saying the LGBQT are just sinners like the rest of us would have sufficed. Instead the Catechism sets them apart as a special class of sinner. The Church for instance doesn’t call the divorced and remarried “disordered”.
You will or course pull out the argument that the Church means “not ordered towards a natural end”. I understand that this is what the Church means. However that is not the popular meaning of the word. Being more sensitive to the LGBQT would go a long way.
I’m sure if I told someone « my you’re in a gay mood today » I’d risk a punch on the nose or a slap. Meanings evolve over time. Failure to adapt has caused the LGBQT to give the Church a collective and figurative slap.
Fr. Martin recognizes that the Church’s approach drives the LGBQT away. And whomever chases away a lost soul puts his or her own salvation at risk.
Bravo to Fr. Martin.
T
Toledo
Guest
Either God is either perfectly just and perfectly merciful or he is not.
Either the Bible is the inspired word of God or it is not.
As to Jesus not speaking of homosexuality, remember to whom he was speaking. He spoke often in metaphors. There are dozens of rural, farming type metaphors because he was dealing with a bunch of…rural farmer types. He might have needed to speak to those people of homosexuality because it might not have been a big issue for those people at that time. The Gospel writers might not have written it down because it might not have seemed like a critical issue which they remembered. They might assumed it was included in the OT material which Jesus adhered to and it was assumed to be known and followed by all.
What discrimination are we talking about? Repent and confess your sins? Which teaching of the Church tells us we shouldn’t repent?
“Continence is hard enough for us heterosexuals, I can’t imagine it’s any easier for homosexuals especially since according to the Church they have zero outlet for their sexuality, one of life’s most powerful appetites.” I’ve got zero chance of every getting married to a woman because I’m an unattractive male. I’ve made my peace with that. I know that any sexual sins are on me. I have zero outlets for sexuality. I’ve made my peace with that. Why shouldn’t homosexuals be held to the same standard? If I had a tendency to like to hurt others, wouldn’t I have to make peace with not hurting others? If I had a susceptibility to desiring drugs, wouldn’t I have to make peace with not using drugs? Why should we kowtow to people with one specific type of strong sin? Should we kowtow to people who like pornography?
No, we shouldn’t. What Fr. Martin is doing and what many are doing, is to justify a particular type of sin and to explain it away. No, it is clear. We must stop sinning, whatever that particular sin is. Do people who are overly attached to material possessions not have an equal responsibility to stop that sin? Of course they do.
Lastly, soft pedaling sins is the worst thing we can do. I want my priests to tell me to change my ways. Yes, showing compassion at the same time, but the job of the clergy is to both keep reiterating our needs to stop sinning while showing compassion. Justice with mercy. Mercy without justice leads us to the path of damnation.
Mark121359
Well-known member
How is the Church doing this? Please show/give us some examples.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
I just did. My daughter.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It calls lust disordered.
Mark121359
Well-known member
Are you telling us that what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in the bolded above is somehow incorrect? Please explain.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
No, I’m saying it’s worded insensitively. Like a clanging cymbal in fact.
Last edited:
T
Toledo
Guest
Should we not tell mass murders who enjoy killing they have something intrinsically wrong with them, and they need to stop sinning? Of course this is the extreme case, but the logic is the same. If we have some sin we are partial to, we need to stop. And our priests need to tell us we are sinners and that God’s mercy is open to us.
Remember God tells us that his burden is light. We just have to accept that. It makes it the same for me or anyone else.
Remember God tells us that his burden is light. We just have to accept that. It makes it the same for me or anyone else.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Indeed. But again, we seem to be spending a lot of energy singling out one specific kind of sin. We have raised it into a class of its own.
That is hypocritical. Especially in light of the sexual scandals all the way up to cardinals! That’s cost the Church her credibility in lecturing to the LGBQT when some, like the late Cardinal O’Brien were railing against homosexuality while actively engaging in it with his own seminarians.
That is hypocritical. Especially in light of the sexual scandals all the way up to cardinals! That’s cost the Church her credibility in lecturing to the LGBQT when some, like the late Cardinal O’Brien were railing against homosexuality while actively engaging in it with his own seminarians.
Mark121359
Well-known member
You see, this is the same thing that Fr. Martin is saying. And he insists that they change the wording in the catechism to “differently ordered.” And if that happens, it would signal a change in Church teaching. Fr. Gerald Murray explains this perfectly in the article that follows. From that article;
https://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-james-martin-proposes-an-alternate-catechism
Last edited:
S
sealabeag
Guest
“Differently ordered” implies equal but different. Subtle but language reveals so much about one’s beliefs.
S
sealabeag
Guest
How would you prefer it to be worded? The wording in the Catechism is a neutral phrase, of objective fact. The Church never words it’s moral judgements to cause pain. If pain is caused that is unfortunate and the one who feels it must be accompanied with love. But not to speak the truth clearly is not love. Jesus spoke boldly and clearly, condemning sin, often very strongly, but always out of love for the sinner. Eternal life is a serious business.
P
Polak
Guest
No Catholic church is going to tell her she is disordered for being gay. If she believes this, she is wrong and you should try to explain that to her. If she is in a homosexual relationship or married however, they will tell her that is disordered, because it is. Does she want the truth or does she just want to be told what she wants to hear?
Mark121359
Well-known member
But the Church does in fact teach that the homosexual inclination in itself is “objectively disordered.”
Last edited:
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Right, inclinations or desires may be disordered, but not persons, which is the point Polak is making. One may at different times have a disordered desire for food, leisure, or whatever, but one need not have that disordered desire define oneself.
To me, the real crux of the issue w/r/t SSA is that one can see, by virtue of a couple being the same gender, the couple’s status in a proper case without the couple actually doing anything, with the ancillary issue then that marriage is a public act as well. One cannot generally tell that a couple is married outside the Church, re-married without annulment, using contraception, etc., without some disclosure on the part of the couple. That is not the case with same-gender couples.
To me, the real crux of the issue w/r/t SSA is that one can see, by virtue of a couple being the same gender, the couple’s status in a proper case without the couple actually doing anything, with the ancillary issue then that marriage is a public act as well. One cannot generally tell that a couple is married outside the Church, re-married without annulment, using contraception, etc., without some disclosure on the part of the couple. That is not the case with same-gender couples.