Gay activists outraged by Vatican cardinal's condemnation of homosexual acts

[Elizabeth502]

It’s truly unfortunate that OTNP has taken my comments utterly out of context and distorted & twisted their meaning, not to mention their intent.

I’ve never uttered a word about “stupidity,” or implied such a thing. Catholicism, however, is an entire system of a religion. It is not synonymous with non-denominational or Protestant Christianity. That was a not a value judgment, a statement of superiority whatsoever. Catholics obviously believe in the relative greater worth of their own religion, but so do Mormons believe about theirs, Jews about theirs, etc. The entire point is that a religion which is as systematic as Catholicism in its theology and in its philosophical underpinnings has reasons in context for its views on sexuality, not just certain behaviors within sexuality. To dismiss a Catholic understanding as an unimportant difference from other Christian viewpoints is to miss the underlying reasons for objections to this as an active lifestyle.

Nor obviously did I say or imply that you’re “just a ravenous guy.” I pointed out your very own extreme contradictions, however – contradictions which you apparently have trouble coming to terms with or explaining to others.

Nor did I say anything about Catholics explaining other people’s “feelings.” But feelings don’t justify acts for Catholics themselves. An awful lot of all of our personal sins in this world are the result of acting on our feelings and rationalizing our immoral actions based on feelings.

 

[JReducation]

Maybe the problem here is that there are two ways of approaching truth, in Catholic tradition; but only one method is being employed here.

1. For a very long time we relied very heavily on the Thomistic approach to truth, which went from the head to the heart. This approach can sound very cold. Thomas used it, because it worked for him and for his time. But he was not the only theologian writing and speaking about the same truths.
2. There has always been the second method espoused by Bonaventure and the Franciscan school, to which our current pope subscribes more. That is going from the heart to the head. You begin with human experience, feelings and motives. You affirm their value. Then you proceed to chanel them using reason. This method comes across less cold, less academic, but in the end, it reaches the same truths.

Sometimes we, even though we may hae been nurtured in Thomistic methodology of doing systematic theology, have to transition over to the Bonaventurian methodology for the sake of affirming the reality of human experience, emotions and thoughts as real and valuable, even when they may need to be redirected so that they conform to reveal truth.

It would be good for us on these threads to make use of both of these methods in speaking about moral issues that touch people’s lives at a deep emotional level so that they do not feel that Catholicism is blind to human feelings, which is not the case at all. Bonavneture and Aquinas are just two ways of doing theology and sometimes one is more appropriate than the other. We have to be well versed in both so that we can switch back and forth in order to teach truth and also affirm that people’s feelings are real.

It’s a balancing act, but a necessary one in order to teach truth in charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[onthenarrowpath]

Nor obviously did I say or imply that you’re “just a ravenous guy.” I pointed out your very own extreme contradictions, however – contradictions which you apparently have trouble coming to terms with or explaining to others.

I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me when I see the following in your previous post:

** First you sound utterly ravenous for a guy; then you deny having any “longing” whatsoever. **

As for having trouble coming to terms with or explaining supposed “contradictions” to others…Elizabeth, I tried explaining myself as best as I know how. I’m not contradicting myself. It is YOU who are having the problem reading my words. But I absolutely refuse to bang my head against a wall trying to get you to understand what I’m trying to say. I’ve done that too much in my life, and there comes a time when you just can’t endure any more headaches. I don’t need the approval of any Catholic, so I’m honestly not interested in carrying on a debate that would amount to nothing more than a futile waste of my time. You say you don’t want me to “talk down” to you, but clearly you do it yourself, as you have come across as very insulting and demeaning to me, whether you realize it or not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Maybe the problem here is that there are two ways of approaching truth, in Catholic tradition; but only one method is being employed here.

1. For a very long time we relied very heavily on the Thomistic approach to truth, which went from the head to the heart. This approach can sound very cold. Thomas used it, because it worked for him and for his time. But he was not the only theologian writing and speaking about the same truths.
2. There has always been the second method espoused by Bonaventure and the Franciscan school, to which our current pope subscribes more. That is going from the heart to the head. You begin with human experience, feelings and motives. You affirm their value. Then you proceed to chanel them using reason. This method comes across less cold, less academic, but in the end, it reaches the same truths.

Sometimes we, even though we may hae been nurtured in Thomistic methodology of doing systematic theology, have to transition over to the Bonaventurian methodology for the sake of affirming the reality of human experience, emotions and thoughts as real and valuable, even when they may need to be redirected so that they conform to reveal truth.

It would be good for us on these threads to make use of both of these methods in speaking about moral issues that touch people’s lives at a deep emotional level so that they do not feel that Catholicism is blind to human feelings, which is not the case at all. Bonavneture and Aquinas are just two ways of doing theology and sometimes one is more appropriate than the other. We have to be well versed in both so that we can switch back and forth in order to teach truth and also affirm that people’s feelings are real.

It’s a balancing act, but a necessary one in order to teach truth in charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I very much disagree with you, when it comes to theological definitions. Those don’t vary, and they’re not going to vary, no matter the level of compassion and interest in “people’s feelings.” A perfect example is the very policy on homosexuality: we are to love the sinner, hate the sin. We are to welcome every person, including those who declare what they do, who they are (by behavior or by self-proclaimed “identity”), and not to set up layers of acceptability when it comes to persons. We are all loveable creatures of God. When I meet another person, I don’t examine what that person has or has not done, what “category” of person they are. It has nothing to do with how I approach them, how I accept them, nor should it.

But I don’t have to accept another person’s framework of morality just because I accept the person. Those are two entirely different things. And respectfully, I know a ton of Franciscans – have for years – and none of these close friends of mine would say what you have said. Franciscans, like all good Christians/Catholics welcome everyone. They are particularly approachable. That does not mean they approve of sin. What you’re talking about is a pastoral approach and a spirituality, which is entirely different from moral theology as authentically taught by the Church. There aren’t two different authentic Catholic moral theologies: one Thomistic, the other Franciscan/Bonaventurian.

There are absolutely distinct spiritualities in Catholic tradition – all equally valid and many of them quite distinct from one another (while some overlap). This was a CAF thread not too long ago. And there are many validly different pastoral approaches in the Church.

[Edited to further clarify my meaning: You can claim two different (or for that matter, more) approaches to moral theology, but the end result will determine if the approach is authentic. If the variants come up with signficantly different conclusions than accepted moral theology, they cannot be considered authentic. There aren’t pick-and-choose moral positions, whatever the system or explanation used to arrive there.]

 

[Darren69]

God is the only one to make judgement on this.

 

[rlg94086]

Agreed - both that it won’t ever happen and what I would do if it did happen. Even if it were 100% proven that a person is born “homosexual” (a separate genetic classification, as opposed to a tendency), the Church wouldn’t change the teaching about sexuality.

 

[manygift1spirit]

I really think you misunderstood the post. If the two approaches arrive at different and irrreconcilable conclusions, that is a sure sign that at least one approach was not followed appropriately. The point was made that the goal for each approach is the same Truth. But, as a pastoral issue, JR was proposing using both approaches so as to presumably arrive at the Truth more quickly.

Now that may in fact not work out more quickly like that. But you have not represented the point fairly to suggest the results from the two approaches could validly be inconsistent. It is a methodological issue for a pastoral goal, but the doctrinal goal remains the same.

(I am of course open to correction if I myself misinterpreted JR’s post)

 

[Greg27]

The Church still officially teaches homosexual acts are objectively sinful and as with the other sexual sins, one would need to repent of them before being able to enter heaven. However in my understanding the church makes a careful distinction between homosexual acts (which are not approved) and people who have a homosexual orientation, who can approach Christian perfection if they remain celibate and take part in the sacraments, and who not should be subject to arbitrary and unjust discrimination (i.e. jobs, social services, education, etc). So there is a balance here between the teaching on sexual morality which confines legitimate sex activity to that between heterosexual partners in a marriage and the social teaching which emphasizes the inalienable dignity of each person who is made in God’s image. Even the so called ‘mortal sinner’ or unbeliever still has the dignity of being a human person and their fundamental rights and dignity cannot be ignored or set aside because of their sexuality or acts connected with their sexuality. This is something I think is sometimes forgotten by Christian and other fundamentalists in moral debates over issues like abortion and homosexuality.

If the Cardinal then is saying people will go to hell because of their sexuality or gender identity issues then he I think is giving a distorted version of Catholic teaching. But strictly speaking he is in correct if he says it is because of unrepented sexual sins, which include homosexual acts. But the media misquote sometimes.

I think gay rights activists have to realistic; not everyone will accept their views. I think Catholics should be allowed to form and express their own views relating to human sexuality, even if you personally disagree with them, so long as they are formed in good conscience on what that person (whatever their social rank) believes to be the most rational view consistent with evidence and experience. That extends to the view that homosexual sex acts are sometimes (or always) wrong and disordered. So long as such views are not used to try and deprive gay people of fundamental human rights (i.e. the right to freedom of religion, to employment, to education, etc) they should be left alone and attempts to refute them should be done using rational debate rather than emotional attacks.

Human sexuality is a complex phenomenon which is still not properly understood and everyone in my view, including the church, has to formulate their moral teaching in accordance with objective evidence from the sciences. Still, an ‘is’ in nature is problematic when used to draw an ‘ought’ as to normative guidelines for conduct, as David Hume realised, so either side should be careful in using sexual activity in either the heterosexual or homosexual sense to draw up normative rules of conduct for human sexual behaviour. Ethical views should be derived through careful application of rational thinking and impartial analysis of the evidence in light of the best of moral and theological thinking from tradition, rather than an unchangeable set of principles which cannot change in light of any new evidence or circumstance or scientific discovery, in light of the aim of allowing people to flourish to the fullest extent possible in this life.

 

[JReducation]

I very much disagree with you, when it comes to theological definitions. Those don’t vary, and they’re not going to vary, no matter the level of compassion and interest in “people’s feelings.” A perfect example is the very policy on homosexuality: we are to love the sinner, hate the sin. We are to welcome every person, including those who declare what they do, who they are (by behavior or by self-proclaimed “identity”), and not to set up layers of acceptability when it comes to persons. We are all loveable creatures of God. When I meet another person, I don’t examine what that person has or has not done, what “category” of person they are. It has nothing to do with how I approach them, how I accept them, nor should it.

But I don’t have to accept another person’s framework of morality just because I accept the person. Those are two entirely different things. And respectfully, I know a ton of Franciscans – have for years – and none of these close friends of mine would say what you have said. Franciscans, like all good Christians/Catholics welcome everyone. They are particularly approachable. That does not mean they approve of sin. What you’re talking about is a pastoral approach and a spirituality, which is entirely different from moral theology as authentically taught by the Church. There aren’t two different authentic Catholic moral theologies: one Thomistic, the other Franciscan/Bonaventurian.

There are absolutely distinct spiritualities in Catholic tradition – all equally valid and many of them quite distinct from one another (while some overlap). This was a CAF thread not too long ago. And there are many validly different pastoral approaches in the Church.

[Edited to further clarify my meaning: You can claim two different (or for that matter, more) approaches

to moral theology, but the end result will determine if the approach is authentic. If the variants come up with signficantly different conclusions than accepted moral theology, they cannot be considered authentic. There aren’t pick-and-choose moral positions, whatever the system or explanation used to arrive there.]

I have never said that the moral truth varies from Bonaventure to Aquinas. I was speaking about the approach to truth. The truth remains the same. As a Franciscan I know this very well. If I expressed myself unclearly, I apologize.

I’m trying to say that we can teach and guide, while at that same time acnowledging the fact that peoplle have very deep feelings about these issues and recognizing that those feelings are real. Sometimes, in our effort to explain truth, we can come across very cold. That can be avoided. We can teach truth, while we also affirm that a person’s feelings are real and that they are important to them. That’s all I’m saying.

My point was that Bonaventure’s style of teaching truth is much more feeling than Aquinas, not that he arrives at a different truth. He arrives at the same truth, but from a different perspective. He comes at it from the heart, whereas Aquinas comes at it from the head.

The tendency to be too heady can, unintentionally, lead the person in this situation to feel that their feelings have no importance. That’s not true. We are very conscious of their feelings and we should communicate that sensitivity, without compromising truth. This is where Bonaventure does a very good job in his writings and in his leadership when he was our superior general. He was always very orthodox with those who were in moral danger, but very gentle and very affirming of their human feelings and emotions. This is what made him a most beloved spiritual father. What I’m trying to say here is that we need more of his style in dealing with others who suffer with same sex attraction and other serious moral issues.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

Overall, I have almost no problem with your post 110. Btw, it affirms what I also said, that varying approaches are valid. Unfortunately, though, what you posted below is often an opening for some people to conclude that 2 + 2 = 5.

The tendency to be too heady can, unintentionally, lead the person in this situation to feel that their feelings have no importance. That’s not true. We are very conscious of their feelings and we should communicate that sensitivity, without compromising truth.

I agree that how one says it, or arrives at it, is important, and I have never discounted anyone’s feelings. God uses our feelings as a pathway to personal redemption and conversion.But the consequences of truth can feel “cold” when they are absolute, which they are. I apply the same to myself. Just because I feel something does not justify my acting on it, or to say that a particular behavior which is the result of my feelings is moral for me. Otherwise, we are all ultimately autonomous and all morality is subjectively and emotionally based, and that is absolutely not Catholic moral theology, in any tradition.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[per4mer530]

People who are entrenched in sexual sin certainly CAN enter the kingdom of heaven, as long as they leave their ways and follow the Lord’s plan for our sexuality…OR of course there is the possibility they are unaware of the sinfulness of their behavior or its gravity or are not giving full consent…in which case their actions would not be mortal sins, and they could still enter heaven. I wish some people in here were a little less black and white about the issue…but nevertheless, I definitely agree with the person who stressed that it is not our position to judge the salvation of others. We should simply pray for them

 

[redrosetea]

People who are entrenched in sexual sin certainly CAN enter the kingdom of heaven, as long as they leave their ways and follow the Lord’s plan for our sexuality…OR of course there is the possibility they are unaware of the sinfulness of their behavior or its gravity or are not giving full consent…in which case their actions would not be mortal sins, and they could still enter heaven. I wish some people in here were a little less black and white about the issue…but nevertheless, I definitely agree with the person who stressed that it is not our position to judge the salvation of others. We should simply pray for them

Yes we should pray for them…I think some are quite lonely, and want only to be a friend , and are afraid of being pushed away because of who they are

 

[Elizabeth502]

People who are entrenched in sexual sin certainly CAN enter the kingdom of heaven, as long as they leave their ways and follow the Lord’s plan for our sexuality…OR of course there is the possibility they are unaware of the sinfulness of their behavior or its gravity or are not giving full consent…in which case their actions would not be mortal sins, and they could still enter heaven. I wish some people in here were a little less black and white about the issue…but nevertheless, I definitely agree with the person who stressed that it is not our position to judge the salvation of others. We should simply pray for them

Can’t disagree overall with that. Btw, to clarify: my own statements here really are in response to specific discussion on the thread (moral issues, etc.), rather than a response to the actual statements of the cardinal in question, which i.m.o. is a separate issue. No one, regardless of position, can know what the ultimate spiritual outcome will be of any soul.

The unfortunate thing, though, is that truth can hurt (all of us), in that most morality eventually falls along black and white lines; behavior is about decision (not about intellectual gray area), and once a person is informed, does understand, takes time to examine his or her own conscience, etc., then that person begins to be responsible for his or her own decisions & actions. I can easily rationalize so, so many of my sins based on my supposed need to indulge my feelings and unmet needs, but again-- that’s just a disordered way of responding to life.

At the very least, the cardinal in question made a political and social blunder if he was as condemnatory as reported. Clerics should be modeling charity & truth together, and the question of the final personal judgment is not known to any cleric, including the pope.

But I’ll say again, I think there is a great deal of fundamental illogic in the stand that many actively gay lay Catholics take. They want the Church that supposedly they otherwise believe in, to reverse itself on this one issue. They are adamant that the magisterium is off-base. If I were gay & felt that way, I would leave – not out of submission or compulsion, but because intellectually I couldn’t support the rest of a Church that espoused a belief I was radically opposed to. They are just incompatible belief systems, period. I think the Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence & the other sacraments but do not categorize homosexual behavior as immoral. Someone can correct me on that.

But really, if I felt so strongly about this issue I don’t see how I could stay in the RCC while living an actively gay lifestyle. This is no different from my position on women “priests.” I’ve said the same about them: If you want ordination, seek a different faith tradition, rather than stay in and continue to feel miserable & make others uncomfortable by the constant negativity. I don’t disrespect anyone for leaving a religion that opposes their conscientious beliefs; I just don’t understand why they would want to stay in a nondemocratic institution while holding such radically different views, and continuing to express surprise that an ancient institution is not interested in revolutionizing itself.

 

[momor]

onthenarrowpath wrote:
“I’m sure the church does know the difference. But what I’m getting at is that there are also certain “things” (for lack of a better word to mean activities, situations, acts, etc…) that I want to “do” (again, for lack of a better word) with a man that I have no desire to do with a woman. “Things” such as snuggling, embracing and holding, kissing, running my fingers through his hair…but those aren’t considered sexual activities. There has to be a reason why I crave those things with a man, but not with a woman. To do them with a man would be more comforting for me…more fulfilling…more secure…more contenting. They’d feel “right” to me with a man, whereas doing them with a woman would only be an empty act…not a complete expression of my heart.”

Previously I believe you posted something to the effect that christian teaching denies you the ability to have this kind of relationship. I can’t see anything in what you describe that I would consider sinful. It is sexual activity outside of marriage that is sinful, not the non-sexual affection and love you describe. I was surprised no one else mentioned this or am I missing something?

That said, I’m not sure it’s really possible to have this kind of relationship life long due to sexual feelings that are likely to be associated with it and the frustration likely to follow. But if you can find a partner with whom this works, where is the sin?

 

[speaker1777]

16 I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

24 And they that are Christ’s, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences.

13 Meat for the belly, and the belly for the meats; but God shall destroy both it and them: but the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

No need to get too caught up in the flesh and its form and what can be done with it. And possessing a satisfaction of the flesh is nothing compared with one day possessing the beautific vision by which we will be infinitely satisfied or blessed or happy by seeing God as he is face to face. So we trade the things of this life for the life to come in that which we shall see God and we know it to be so wonderful beyond words by faith.

Now being made male and female in the beginning, man was to image God in begetting as he does eternally his Son. By a man and woman becoming one flesh, they like God can beget children in their own likeness but for man according to the flesh and with God begetting also a likeness to God in holiness. Error from this image has been given words for although the ability of the flesh to receive delight in the soul can come by external stimuli, the delight is not so to be except within the word of God that is his commandments. Yet by the same Spirit we bear the fruit of Joy in chastity.

Seeking a way to stimulate the flesh outside the law of God is sin. Yet we were not made ultimately for the purpose for gratifying the desires of the flesh but rather for God. In these times for fear of fornication, it is better to be married for not all are given the perfect gift of continency for some God calls to be married, that is, joined together for the remainder of their lives on earth to aid towards heaven each other and their children. All thoughts to do something against the law of God is temptation but temptation is not sin. Only when we make an act of the will or take pleasure in something forbidden do we begin to sin.

10 But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up.

5 Now the end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith.

 

[onthenarrowpath]

My apologies to anyone I may have offended in this forum, with anything I may have said…most especially to Elizabeth.

I have decided to make a change in my life and to my personality. From now on, I have decided I will be cordial to people, but distant and extremely reserved in my interactions with them. I will not trust people, nor will I allow them to get too close to me. However, if at any point in the remainder of my life, the Lord should choose to allow someone special to come into my life and touch my heart, I will proceed cautiously and only permit myself to feel something for them in return in accordance with what God may allow. I have made this decision about my life because it is the only safe way in which I can proceed through life itself without being hurt as result of allowing myself to experience or express my emotions to other people. I have tried to “be myself” in life, and the only result is that I end up getting hurt. It is much safer to remain distant with people, and only express my true self and inner heart and emotions with the Lord.

God Bless you all, and please forgive me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

OTNP,
Thank you, but from my own viewpoint, I took no permanent offense by your remarks, recognizing their passion for what they were – sincere passion. It’s natural when hurt to protect oneself; and separate from that, lots of people in various walks of life feel it’s necessary to guard their emotions or expression, lest they be taken advantage of, hurt again, become subject to illicit passions, and more. Thus, my only effort was not to discredit such passion, but to persuade you that you are not alone in such passions, in internal conflicts, or in frustration – that this is hardly limited to Catholics/Christians with SSA.

Other people in other situations which we’ve not touched on here feel that life is a constant battle to curb passions, instincts, compulsions, temptations, and attractions – many of which are equally perceived as “essential” or deterministic.

As to your feelings, God dwells there and it is where he wants to meet you. What we feel today is not what we will feel tomorrow or a year from now. I keep you in my prayers.

 

[redrosetea]

My apologies to anyone I may have offended in this forum, with anything I may have said…most especially to Elizabeth.

I have decided to make a change in my life and to my personality. From now on, I have decided I will be cordial to people, but distant and extremely reserved in my interactions with them. I will not trust people, nor will I allow them to get too close to me. However, if at any point in the remainder of my life, the Lord should choose to allow someone special to come into my life and touch my heart, I will proceed cautiously and only permit myself to feel something for them in return in accordance with what God may allow. I have made this decision about my life because it is the only safe way in which I can proceed through life itself without being hurt as result of allowing myself to experience or express my emotions to other people. I have tried to “be myself” in life, and the only result is that I end up getting hurt. It is much safer to remain distant with people, and only express my true self and inner heart and emotions with the Lord.

God Bless you all, and please forgive me.

God loves you, never forget that. If you were the only person that ever lived Christ would have died just to save you…A rich life is still possible for you, but perhaps not the one you imagined…However it will be filled with all kinds of spiritual gifts and friends that only want to see you get to heaven

I am proud of you for having the grace to do His will…I can see the Holy Spirit is working in your life

 

[CatholicGerman]

I’m a little miffed how sometimes it appears to be a gay vs. straight thing when really its not. The law is very clear. Sexual relations are only allowed within the bounds of marriage as defined by God, like you said. That means if you are gay and not married, or if you are straight and not married, its a no no.

Completely agree with this comment, and the others like it. The emphasis on homosexuality risks losing sight of the real point. Sometimes I think they focus on homosexual sex because they don’t have the guts to denounce fornication of all kinds. The teaching should be about chastity.

I think the best thing we can do for our brothers and sisters (gay and straight) who are struggling with chastity, is work to reduce the rampant and in-your-face sexuality of our environment. It’s hard enough to be single and celibate or married and faithful when there’s sex everywhere. I know I struggled, so I understand their situation.

 

[edwest2]

Completely agree with this comment, and the others like it. The emphasis on homosexuality risks losing sight of the real point. Sometimes I think they focus on homosexual sex because they don’t have the guts to denounce fornication of all kinds. The teaching should be about chastity.

I think the best thing we can do for our brothers and sisters (gay and straight) who are struggling with chastity, is work to reduce the rampant and in-your-face sexuality of our environment. It’s hard enough to be single and celibate or married and faithful when there’s sex everywhere. I know I struggled, so I understand their situation.

I think that’s a valid approach. I’m tired of the TV talking about what should be the private sex lives of celebrities or other public figures and ads for sex enhancement products and similar. I’ve switched to the radio and newspapers because I’m tired of being shown things on TV I don’t want or need to see. For years, celibacy and commitment have been put down, with the “If it feels good, do it” idea being promoted. I saw an ad on TV for some herpes product and there was a lady’s voice over the image of a young couple. She sang: “Nothing in my way.” Clearly, herpes or no herpes, just keep on having sex. I picked up a book about “natural health” at a local drugstore, and flipped through it. On one page, the author wrote: Have sex. Without qualifications.

I think we all need to assess our entertainment. God knows I’m not perfect. I’ve struggled, but it’s time to look at what we’re doing. I can’t stand those comedians who go on and on in graphic detail about sexual subjects. I strongly suggest spending some time with Catholic magazines and newspapers.

Hope this helps,
Ed