Gay Catholics urge synod fathers to reject 'harsh language' [CH-UK]

[ComplineSanFran]

The Church is a hospital for sinners; glory to God that any sinner is in church.

On the issue of receiving the Eucharist, if someone partakes of the Holy Gifts unworthily, whether due to unconfessed homosexual acts or whatnot, that is a grave tragedy and sadness.

We should absolutely call out sinful acts for what they are. And we need to do a much better job of preparing folks to receive Christ’s Precious Body and Blood, as too many people appear to perceive the Eucharist as something rote and ordinary, or as some sort of entitlement or birthright, when neither could be further from the truth. But I tread very carefully when I am tempted to look around me in the communion line and ask questions about whether so-and-so “belongs” in line.

So please, Brittrossiter, explain to this Anglican who worships in a church where there is open communion, and no one pays any attention to who receives the Sacrament or who does not, WHY this forum is filled, filled, filled with posts saying, ‘this person and that person has no right to receive the Sacrament. Gays are not welcome at the table, people who are pro-choice are not welcome, certain politicians are not welcome, anyone who does not believe a certain way is not welcome…’

I DO understand Church teaching. What I do NOT understand is why any one person assumes to be the keeper of the moral check-list.

Isn’t that up to the individual and God, perhaps with a priest?

I recall one posting where a person who acted as an usher in a parish said that it would be his responsibility to identify two men who sat together and looked homosexual and ask them to leave the church. If one was sitting alone, then repentance was assumed. Two, however, indicated sin. So they must go.

To me that says everything.

If the Sacrament of the Eucharist is only for the worthy, then I feel very sorry. In my tradition, the Sacrament is an open gift. Jesus comes to us all.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Um…are you saying that the Catholic church will excommunicate someone–which means to “officially exclude (someone) from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church”–and then, still expect them to attend the Mass they’ve just been commanded not to take part in anyway???

.

Yes an excommunicated Catholic is told they can not be part of the Sacramental life of the Catholic Church until reconciled with it but are still considered Catholic and are expected to still attend Mass weekly. The thinking may be if they still come and sit in the pew that they may at some point be led to get in line and reconcile.

 

[Sy_Noe]

So please, Brittrossiter, explain to this Anglican who worships in a church where there is open communion, and no one pays any attention to who receives the Sacrament or who does not, WHY this forum is filled, filled, filled with posts saying, ‘this person and that person has no right to receive the Sacrament. Gays are not welcome at the table, people who are pro-choice are not welcome, certain politicians are not welcome, anyone who does not believe a certain way is not welcome…’

I DO understand Church teaching. What I do NOT understand is why any one person assumes to be the keeper of the moral check-list.

Isn’t that up to the individual and God, perhaps with a priest?

I recall one posting where a person who acted as an usher in a parish said that it would be his responsibility to identify two men who sat together and looked homosexual and ask them to leave the church. If one was sitting alone, then repentance was assumed. Two, however, indicated sin. So they must go.

To me that says everything.

If the Sacrament of the Eucharist is only for the worthy, then I feel very sorry. In my tradition, the Sacrament is an open gift. Jesus comes to us all.

Now I can’t help but wonder what the usher meant by looked homosexual? And what if one gay man attended the 4:00 vigil and his husband the 7 am Mass the next morning? Or what if 2 female siblings attended together and sat together in the same pew?

I understand Catholic Church teaching too on how the Catholic Church looks at what it believes to mean to receive unworthily. But lack of open communion is just another reason I don’t practice the Catholic faith. I read Jesus’s words in Jn 6:37 and can’t help but ask myself, is Jesus there at His table for sinners too or just for who are the holiest right at that moment and he would turn the rest of us away? Or as you said is He there for us all? I guess it is an ongoing discussion between the closed communion churches and the open ones though.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Now I can’t help but wonder what the usher meant by looked homosexual? And what if one gay man attended the 4:00 vigil and his husband the 7 am Mass the next morning? Or what if 2 female siblings attended together and sat together in the same pew?

I understand Catholic Church teaching too on how the Catholic Church looks at what it believes to mean to receive unworthily. But lack of open communion is just another reason I don’t practice the Catholic faith. I read Jesus’s words in Jn 6:37 and can’t help but ask myself, is Jesus there at His table for sinners too or just for who are the holiest right at that moment and he would turn the rest of us away? Or as you said is He there for us all? I guess it is an ongoing discussion between the closed communion churches and the open ones though.

Sy, yes, that is an ongoing discussion - open vs closed communion. Rightfully so. Perhaps though my concern in the earlier post of mine is how did we get to this place of assessing who is worthy and who is not? And then making public pronouncements as to the verdict?

My Mormon friends all have Temple Recommends. They have been vetted by the Bishop and deemed worthy to enter the Temple. Just show your card at the door. Perhaps that is what people here might find useful.

 

[shockerfan]

How about “non-procreative”?

.

very watered down. A man and woman who by nature might not be able to reproduce are “non-procreative”, yet they are still “ordered” for each other.

This relationship is quite different from one where the body parts are not complimentary.

 

[shockerfan]

Since when does the church say it’s not normal?
(as in “abnormal”?)

That is a VERY different meaning than what ‘disordered’ is trying to convey.

I don’t recall the church using those words. Does it?!

.

I think if you step back and consider the Church’s teachings as a whole, the phraseology makes better sense. The Catechism goes out of its way to say how our gay brothers, sisters, sons and daughters should be treated as the children of God they are.

But we can’t hide the truth, if that means putting their very souls at risk. This means we have to teach people that there is a design of the human body, and a two fold purpose for that design. Using the bodies in a way that goes against the design is a sin…whether the person is gay or straight.

Saying men and women are “ordered” for each other is a statement reflective of the design of the bodies. Thus, man / man or woman / woman relationships, in this context, are disordered. Using “harsh” to describe this makes sense only if one ignores the context of of the usage of “disordered” within the Catechism as a whole.

 

[SWolf]

That’s irrelevant. The topic is the Synod and the request is to change the wording in **the Catechism **and other documents. While there are plenty of documents that address people outside the Church, these are specifically directed to the Church and her members. To change wording that appeases non-Catholics but that dims the clarity of Church teaching for Catholics is counter-productive.

Leo XIII:

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

 

[SWolf]

So please, Brittrossiter, explain to this Anglican who worships in a church where there is open communion, and no one pays any attention to who receives the Sacrament or who does not, WHY this forum is filled, filled, filled with posts saying, ‘this person and that person has no right to receive the Sacrament. Gays are not welcome at the table, people who are pro-choice are not welcome, certain politicians are not welcome, anyone who does not believe a certain way is not welcome…’

For their souls:

1 Corinthians 11:27: So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Acting openly against the Church Christ established and then trying to receive communion from Her is most certainly unworthy.

Where have people said Gays are not welcome to communion. If they are openly sexual and unrepentant, yes, otherwise not necessarily.

I have not gone to Communion on several occasions for being in a state of mortal sin.

 

[Corki]

Since when does the church say it’s not normal?
(as in “abnormal”?)

That is a VERY different meaning than what ‘disordered’ is trying to convey.

I don’t recall the church using those words. Does it?!

.

CCC 2358 This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

How can this statement possibly be read to mean that this is normal? There are plenty of documents that describe homosexuality in similar terms. An objectively disordered inclination means not ordered to the normal

Are you saying that there is Church teaching that refers to homosexuality as normal or are you just looking for a document that uses the words “not normal”?

 

[ARSpade]

So please, Brittrossiter, explain to this Anglican who worships in a church where there is open communion, and no one pays any attention to who receives the Sacrament or who does not, .

Well, of course you would.

I mean, the Church of England was founded totally in order to allow the sin of divorce. It would be even more hypocritical of you guys to then go denying bread and wine to anybody that showed up with any sin.

We try to hold up to a bit higher standard over here.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Well, of course you would.

I mean, the Church of England was founded totally in order to allow the sin of divorce. It would be even more hypocritical of you guys to then go denying bread and wine to anybody that showed up with any sin.

We try to hold up to a bit higher standard over here.

Firstly, the Church of England was not ‘founded’. England became Christian (formally) in 597 when Augustine arrived as the first Archbishop of Canterbury. If you are speaking of when England told the Pope, ‘No thank you,’ in the 1500’s, that is another long and complicated story. (See GKC for details.)

Perhaps we are seeing the role of Sacrament in different ways. Baptism is offered to all who seek it. It assumes that we are in need of purification and desire inclusion into the Church. I believe, for those of us who practice open communion, that the Eucharist is also offered to all. It has nothing to do with standards nor worthiness. Nor even membership.

If your church wants to make it about all those three things, then you are denying Christ to those who seek Him sincerely. And to me that seems unfortunate.

 

[JimG]

.
How about…they don’t call it anything.
?

The pope himself told Bishops last week during his visit to the US to avoid “harsh and divisive” language.

How about the church simply sticks to the teaching that couples are not supposed to have sex unless they are married…and there is no same-sex marriage in the Catholic church.
Therefore, both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are not married are supposed to stay chaste.
Simple.

I think they should rewrite the “disordered” bit in the CC and say instead that because homosexuality “cannot lead to procreation” we don’t have same-sex marriage in the Catholic church.

It is the same for heterosexual couples too, yes?
Isn’t there something to the effect that if they def cannot procreate, they don’t get married? (I don’t know if I’m remembering this right…)
.

With respect to heterosexual couples, the fact that they are infertile would not be an impediment to being married in the Church. What would be an impediment would be the inability to have sex–conjugal sex–regardless of the state of their fertility. That impediment would apply to someone who is permanently and incurably impotent prior to a marriage, for example.

For same sex couples, they by definition are incapable of conjugal sex–ever. It is impossible to them, which is why marriage is impossible to them. Their bodies are not ordered to each other.

 

[Brendan]

My guess is that many LGBT people are your brothers and sisters in Christ and baptized members of the Catholic Church. That would be a good reason alone to change the language.

The language is accurate. It is a moral disorder, the object of the desire is not ordered towards a moral good.

And it is intrinsically so, in that the satisfaction of the desire can never be morally licit

It is because they are my brothers and sisters in Christ that the language is used, and it is a loving act to use it.

To claim otherwise would be to lead them in the falsehood that the satisfaction of the desire would ever be morally licit. That would not only be a falsehood ( and thus against Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life) it would give them false hope that acting on their desires would be a moral thing to do.

 

[Suudy]

So please, Brittrossiter, explain to this Anglican who worships in a church where there is open communion, and no one pays any attention to who receives the Sacrament or who does not, WHY this forum is filled, filled, filled with posts saying, ‘this person and that person has no right to receive the Sacrament. Gays are not welcome at the table, people who are pro-choice are not welcome, certain politicians are not welcome, anyone who does not believe a certain way is not welcome…’

First, nobody has say gays are not welcome. And I’m not even sure pro-choice politicians are unwelcome, if their public acts do not run contrary to Church teaching. What is the issue, is what has already been explained by SWolf. Those in a state of mortal sin are unworthy to receive the body and blood of Christ.

Now, as for “anyone who does not believe a certain way,” the Church has held that one must not only be in a state of grace, but one must also understand what is occurring. This is why we do not allow children to receive communion. So non-Catholics are not permitted to receive communion because they may not understand the actual significance of the Eucharist.

Finally, having come from the Episcopal church, I can say their understanding is most definitely NOT the same as the Catholic understanding. They clearly deny the real presence, so a non-Episcopalian is consuming nothing more than bread and wine. It is a communal act, and the value is in the act, not in what is being received. So, I’m not at all surprised at open communion in the Episcopal church.

I DO understand Church teaching. What I do NOT understand is why any one person assumes to be the keeper of the moral check-list.

Who here is doing that? I don’t see anyone setting up checkpoints in their local parish to examine the conscience of each person as they work their way up to the altar. What is happening here is a conversation about what are the condition that permit a person to approach the altar for communion.

Isn’t that up to the individual and God, perhaps with a priest?

Again, any discussion is about the conditions of proper reception of communion. And if anyone is the gatekeeper, it would indeed be the priest. What I do NOT see happening here is any suggestion that individual parishioners police the Eucharist. I know of no real world examples of any gay person, divorced and remarried, or otherwise where an individual parishioner admonished them not to receive communion. I do know of cases where people have told the priest about unusual situations.

I recall one posting where a person who acted as an usher in a parish said that it would be his responsibility to identify two men who sat together and looked homosexual and ask them to leave the church. If one was sitting alone, then repentance was assumed. Two, however, indicated sin. So they must go.

And whoever posted that is wrong. Everyone is welcome at mass. Not everyone is welcome for communion.

To me that says everything.

About what? The Church? Or that individual? It seems quite irresponsible to hold the Church accountable for the comments of some anonymous poster on CAF.

If the Sacrament of the Eucharist is only for the worthy, then I feel very sorry. In my tradition, the Sacrament is an open gift. Jesus comes to us all.

The Catechism explains the Church’s rationale. I quote some relevant sections below. But let’s clarify what is meant by “worthy.” It doesn’t mean pure. Unconfessed venial sins are not a bar to reception. What it does mean is that one my be reconciled with God and be in a state of grace–that is, free of mortal sin.

And, again, I think this goes back to what I said earlier. If the Anglican church and the Catholic church do not agree on what actually happens at the epiclesis, then the difference between how the Anglicans and the Catholic church treat communion make sense. If the Anglicans believe it is merely bread and wine and communion is a communal act and the significance is in the reception, then being open makes sense. But in the Catholic church, the significance is in the body and blood of Christ. It is really Christ there. And who but the most foolhardy or most arrogant would approach God with no understanding and no fear? Take particular note of 1386.

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

1386 Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with ardent faith the words of the Centurion: “Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea” (“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed.”).

 

[ComplineSanFran]

On a thread about avoiding harsh language…that is quite harsh.

Whatever the catalyst, the emergence of the Church of England was overdue and inevitable and so was the introduction of divorce (tho technically, King Henry had an annulment).

I don’t recall Jesus checking with the disciples if they had “any sin” before he handed them bread and wine.

.

Thank you.

I’m afraid I got side-tracked with the concern of who is able to receive and who is not able to receive the Eucharist. My apologies for that.

To go back to the thread of using ‘harsh language’, my impression is that the language has done more harm than good; it gives the impression that you are finger pointing and calling names. Of course people are going to react badly.

 

[Suudy]

If your church wants to make it about all those three things, then you are denying Christ to those who seek Him sincerely. And to me that seems unfortunate.

Christ is there for those who which to humbly and obediently approach Him. The denial you speak of is an act of mercy, preventing one from “profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” As St Paul says, an unworthy person cannot participate lest he “eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” The Church wishes to spare people from that judgment.

 

[shockerfan]

.
How about…they don’t call it anything.
?

I would say that the watering down of “why” things are sinful leads more people to think the Church’s teachings are arbitrary. This is about the truth saving souls, not about worrying that the truth might hurt someone’s feelings

.
The pope himself told Bishops last week during his visit to the US to avoid “harsh and divisive” language.

You are taking the Pope out of context. He’s the Pope…He’s Catholic…he runs the Church…the Catechism is a Catholic book that he refers to quite a bit…if you want to know what he believes, its in the Catechism. In other words, the Pope does not consider what is written in the Catechism to be “harsh or divisive”, otherwise he would have changed the wording.

.
How about the church simply sticks to the teaching that couples are not supposed to have sex unless they are married…and there is no same-sex marriage in the Catholic church.
Therefore, both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are not married are supposed to stay chaste.
Simple.

Yes, both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are not married are called to chastity. And yes, as I think you are alluding to, homosexual sex outside of marriage should not be considered more sinful than heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

.
I think they should rewrite the “disordered” bit in the CC and say instead that because homosexuality “cannot lead to procreation” we don’t have same-sex marriage in the Catholic church.

The CCC calls adultery an “injustice”. Is this harsh and should we just say “its not allowed”.

The CCC says that incest “corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality”. That is really harsh! Should it just say that its not allowed?

The CCC says that fornication is “gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young”. That’s harsh…get rid of that language too?

The CCC calls masturbation " is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." Get rid of that language too?

.
It is the same for heterosexual couples too, yes?
Isn’t there something to the effect that if they def cannot procreate, they don’t get married? (I don’t know if I’m remembering this right…)

.

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-a-person-is-infertile-through-no-fault-of-his-own-can-he-get-married-in-the-cathol

 

[shockerfan]

I don’t recall Jesus checking with the disciples if they had “any sin” before he handed them bread and wine.

.

If you believe in the Trinity, then you would believe that Jesus Christ as the 2nd Person of the Trinity would be present when the Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostle Paul regarding not receiving the body and blood “unworthily”.

 

[Suudy]

I don’t recall Jesus checking with the disciples if they had “any sin” before he handed them bread and wine.

Do you think He was unaware? Did He need to ask?

 

[pnewton]

I would think the avoidance of harsh language could be done, but the rejection of this term cannot be done. It is intolerant to expect the Catholic Church to conform to modern society. It would be best not to even directly address the term. I know homosexuals want everybody to tell them that have sex with people outside of marriage is fine, but the Church will not do that. Likewise, marriage requires, one man and one woman. Period. These are not doctrines the synod can or will “reject”.