O
OraLabora
Guest
Try this:
No change to Church teaching, and no stamping of « disordered » labels on foreheads.
P
Polak
Guest
But you are, cleverly I must admit, trying to change the Church teaching OraLabora. You see you have not only taken out the ‘disordered’ parts but also the sentence that states this cannot be approved in any situation. You’ve tweaked that to ‘cannot be seen as fully equivalent to the chaste sexually between spouses’ and that could easily be interpreted as ‘it’s different, but not necessarily sinful’.
How about we leave the Church to do Church teachings, rather than trying to dictate to them what words they should use so they do not offend anyone?
How about we leave the Church to do Church teachings, rather than trying to dictate to them what words they should use so they do not offend anyone?
S
sealabeag
Guest
To be fair, nobody is “stamping labels” on anyone. The tendency is referred to as disordered, not the person. And the tendency is disordered. And that is ok - we’re all disordered by virtue of being human. We all have different disordered desires. It is just for the Church to refer to the homosexual desire as such.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Perception and first impressions count for a lot. And that’s not what the LGBQT are reading. If it turns them away, that disrupts the Church’s mission of saving souls, the first step of which is attracting them to Christ.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Totally disagree. Facts are facts. If a person is faced with a neutrally worded objective fact and they read things into it or are offended, that is not the fault of the fact or the one presenting it. If it were presented uncharitably or hatefully, ok, but this is not the case here. The truth will set us free.
PS - If, when I was living in mortal sin, before my conversion, I had been presented with a lukewarm Gospel, I would never have converted. Being told that sin is sin is a breath of fresh air to one living in the sin of the world. So long as the fact that Jesus loves me accompanies it.
PS - If, when I was living in mortal sin, before my conversion, I had been presented with a lukewarm Gospel, I would never have converted. Being told that sin is sin is a breath of fresh air to one living in the sin of the world. So long as the fact that Jesus loves me accompanies it.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
I can understand what you’re trying to say here. However, once we get them in the door, the hard truths and difficult teachings still remain.
Men like James Martin are working to get those teachings changed, so that we no longer view them as sinful.
This is the mindset of many people in the Church today. Not just with regards to LGBTQ issues but with regards to other faiths as well. They talk about the narrow privileged way of salvation and the much broader, non privileged way.
They talk about belief and faith in God, but not Christ. It’s like a comprising middle ground, where we can all come together and fellowship.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
.
The same way a divorced and remarried catholic can be chaste. Chastity has to do with sexual intimacy. If a divorced and remarried couple abstain they are free to receive the sacraments.
Two gays can maintain a chaste relationship in a similar way.
My uncle is a gay Catholic. He’s been in a relationship for fifty years. He hasn’t always practiced the faith. His partner is cancer stricken.
Should he leave the partner now? They’ve got a house, and a business together. And the partner is cancer stricken and has no other family to care for him.
Apparently it’s impossible for them to be chaste and attend mass?
I often have attended mass with my sister and my kids. We don’t look at all alike. Should I avoid kissing her to not look like a scandal? “Look at those two lesbians there”.
Mark121359
Well-known member
In John chapter 6, that’s exactly what happened! Some of His disciples couldn’t except what Christ was teaching, and we read that many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. And you know what? He let them walk!
I was reading an article by Msgr. Charles Pope recently, and he said that “we’re living in extremely thin-skinned times.” Where people have very “fragile egos.” And how they’re “easily offended.” Where the “merest slight is often met with the threat of a lawsuit.”
Oh boy did he nail it! You can’t even express the simple truth nowadays without offending someone’s sensibilities! And now, even Church teaching is facing the same fate. I believe that we had better wake up. I don’t recall Christ in the gospels sugar coating His teachings, to suit the fragile egos of His time. And neither should the Church today. The Church must stand firmly with traditional teachings. And if she doesn’t…that, my friend is how she risks losing many, many souls!
Last edited:
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
Would you use his condemnation of the Covington kids as an example of his loving, Christ-like attitude?
2
27lw
Guest
Hmmm. What other categories of sin should the Church soft-pedal, so as not to offend people?
The issue with the lgbtq lobby is that they are presenting their behavior as not sinful, and that the church should change her teaching. Just like the divorced / remarried folks. The church is supposed to change her teaching? What were Jesus’ first words of public ministry? It wasn’t “hey, let’s not be so judgmental, or we’ll scare away the people I’m trying to attract”.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Nobody’s talking about denying sin. I’m talking of using language that is seen as less offensive, to make the Church more attractive to people so they can have access to the sacraments to help them overcome their sin.
Pope Francis is correct, instead of using sacraments as medicine to help overcome sin, we’re using them as a reward for the righteous. And dare I say also, the self-righteous.
Jesus, our Lord did not condemn the adulteress. Instead He saved her from a very dangerous situation, and forgave her. Then He added “go and sin no more”.
He did not say, “stop sinning, then you can enter the Church”. A lot of Catholics seem to be pre-condemning the LGBQT. If they have blinders on about their sin (and who doesn’t… we all do), it is not outside the Church that they’ll be able to remove them, nor will they be removed by pre-condemning them.
Being LGBQT is deeply ingrained, even if we don’t know the exact aetiology. Imagine telling a married couple that they can no longer (for moral, not physical reasons) have sex once they’ve procreated. That’s more or less what the Church is asking of gays, never have sex, ever, not even masturbation. It’s a tough row to hoe. Compassion will work much better than vinegar.
I am beginning to question though, the Church’s overall teaching on sexuality. In light of the sex scandals, in light of the mass rejection on teachings such as contraception, I think there is a very deep problem somewhere. It isn’t just “bad men” making it into the priesthood nor disobedient laity choosing to use contraception; it goes much deeper than that. I won’t presume to say what the issue is as I have nowhere near the expertise. However I would think that the Church hierarchy should keep a very low profile on these issues until it really figures out what is wrong. It won’t be solved by putting stronger filters in seminaries, nor with “zero tolerance” policies nor with fire-and-brimstone homilies against artificial birth control. The root cause needs to be found, but I suspect that the “all or nothing” approach to sexuality needs to be revisited.
Pope Francis is correct, instead of using sacraments as medicine to help overcome sin, we’re using them as a reward for the righteous. And dare I say also, the self-righteous.
Jesus, our Lord did not condemn the adulteress. Instead He saved her from a very dangerous situation, and forgave her. Then He added “go and sin no more”.
He did not say, “stop sinning, then you can enter the Church”. A lot of Catholics seem to be pre-condemning the LGBQT. If they have blinders on about their sin (and who doesn’t… we all do), it is not outside the Church that they’ll be able to remove them, nor will they be removed by pre-condemning them.
Being LGBQT is deeply ingrained, even if we don’t know the exact aetiology. Imagine telling a married couple that they can no longer (for moral, not physical reasons) have sex once they’ve procreated. That’s more or less what the Church is asking of gays, never have sex, ever, not even masturbation. It’s a tough row to hoe. Compassion will work much better than vinegar.
I am beginning to question though, the Church’s overall teaching on sexuality. In light of the sex scandals, in light of the mass rejection on teachings such as contraception, I think there is a very deep problem somewhere. It isn’t just “bad men” making it into the priesthood nor disobedient laity choosing to use contraception; it goes much deeper than that. I won’t presume to say what the issue is as I have nowhere near the expertise. However I would think that the Church hierarchy should keep a very low profile on these issues until it really figures out what is wrong. It won’t be solved by putting stronger filters in seminaries, nor with “zero tolerance” policies nor with fire-and-brimstone homilies against artificial birth control. The root cause needs to be found, but I suspect that the “all or nothing” approach to sexuality needs to be revisited.
S
sealabeag
Guest
It is called original sin. We’re all sinners struggling with different manifestations of concupiscence, and the only cure is holiness.
Should we water down Church teaching and Christ’s words? Sexual morality is clear. Nobody wants a watered down Gospel.
2
27lw
Guest
Hmm, sacraments as a reward for the righteous. Sounds like you object to the concept of asking people to be in a state of grace to receive the sacraments. Hasn’t that always been a teaching of the Church? All of a sudden that’s too much to expect of Catholics?.
OraLabora:
Does Pope Francis preach that?
Also, when Jesus said to the woman “go and sin no more”, did she accept that, or did she say “wait, I can’t have sex, ever? You’re too judgmental, I’m leaving. You can’t tell me who to love”.
What the church asks of gays is what it asks of all single people, including its own clergy. Gays are not singled out for celibacy.
You say there’s “a very deep problem”. Yes, it’s called sin, original sin, and concupiscence.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Which of Christ’s words? He didn’t say a thing about homosexuality or masturbation, for instance, but was clear on adultery and marriage.
As for Church teaching, yes, I am increasingly of the belief that it is part of the problem, not the solution. Not just the way it is presented, but at the root.
S
sealabeag
Guest
This gives me the impression that you do not accept the Church’s teaching on homosexual activity or masturbation, or 2000 years of clear Christian tradition. Is that the case?
Christ did not address many specific moral issues. But the suggestion that just because he did not address something specifically that it is therefore okay is illogical. And the Old Testament and the New Testament are clear on Homosexuality, as is the Church.
In that case I’m afraid there’s nothing I can say that would change your mind, probably. If you believe this, and therefore that Christ’s Church can err, then there’s a bigger issue here. Perhaps speaking to a good priest would be helpful.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
No need to. I’m a Benedictine oblate, I have a spiritual director, and another monk/priest who is a very good friend, and friendships with several other monks. They are both holy men and priests in good standing. And they also respect conscience. Which is what I am expressing. Yes, it is IMHO a well-formed one, but also one that considers scientific, medical and other expert sources outside the Church as well as those of the Church.
I also know of a couple of Benedictine priests, who privately feel the same way as I do. And more than a few oblates as well. That does not make us all right of course, but we are all following our consciences which is not only a right but a duty in the Church.
Absolutely wrong. I said “access to the sacraments” in the plural, and that includes the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If you keep the LGBQT out of the Church, they will never be able to be in a state of grace, as they won’t even have access to the sacrament that can lead to a state of grace. Which is why I object to strong language to describe them.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Leaving aside the majority of this post, what would you think of more use of “disordered” w/r/t other misplaced appetites/desires? For instance, if the Church used disordered to describe greed (disrordered desire for wealth, perhaps), or disordered desire for adulation w/r/t to vanity, popularity, etc.? I think I am correct that those types of desires, which happen to everyone, I submit, in one area or another, could be described as disordered. If the Church emphasized that it is the desire, not the person, that is disordered by describing other disordered desires, would that help?
S
sealabeag
Guest
This might be my last post however I feel compelled to say that if the priests and monks you are in communication with are either affirming you in your disagreements with Church teaching, or they themselves disagree with Church teaching, I would strongly advise you to speak to orthodox priests who adhere to Church teaching. We should be following Christ and the Church, not our consciences, which are not infallible.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It already does so but by using fairly harsh language and as such can be wrongly interpreted. My bold:
While I agree with the bits on compassion, it’s hard to get past the harsh language. It would have been plenty to use “sinful” instead of “grave depravity”; it’s easy for the affected person to conflate that with “I’m depraved”.
Moreover:
Again, my bold. This statement is true: conversion does not happen instantly. It is a gradual process for everyone, no matter which habitual sin one is enslaved to. Not enough folks here on CAF seem to realize that. Monks, on the other hand, get it. Their vows speak of it. Their rule speaks of it. It’s fallacious to expect LGBQT to conform to Church teaching before entering. Even “married” LGBQT should be allowed in and their partners treated with respect. They may never make it to “full” conversion, but they may progress in holiness in spite of blind spots, blind spots we all have on this or that issue. Some may progress at a run, others at a walking pace. If God expected a perfect result for salvation, we’d all be doomed and a redeemer would not have been necessary.
(tbc)
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
(cont’d)
If an LGBQT person enters the Church (in spite of the harsh language) he or she is entering to begin a conversion process. From personal experience I know that entering the Church thinking you are already converted, is wrong-headed. Eventually you will fall flat on your face as your inclinations catch up to you. It leads to a bitter dark night of the soul, but eventually you come to understand why God had to send a redeemer.
If an LGBQT person enters the Church (in spite of the harsh language) he or she is entering to begin a conversion process. From personal experience I know that entering the Church thinking you are already converted, is wrong-headed. Eventually you will fall flat on your face as your inclinations catch up to you. It leads to a bitter dark night of the soul, but eventually you come to understand why God had to send a redeemer.