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

[pnewton]

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

The Catholic Church has only defined it is* mortal *sin that separates one from communion.

 

[Corki]

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

.

Some language is needed to make clear that this is not something ordered toward the good. The CCC doesn’t single out homosexuality as the only inclination that is not ordered toward the good. There are dozens of references to what is good and what is not.

The statement that follows in the CCC regarding avoiding all unjust discrimination only makes sense in the context of something that is disordered.

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.

There are numerous documents that say exactly that.

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 isn’t the only document that uses the term disordered. It is a consistent use across many documents for many purposes. Objection to same-sex “marriage” is only one of the applications.

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…)

No, sterility is not an impediment to marriage. Older couples, and couples where one spouse is missing organs necessary for fecundity can licitly and validly marry in the Church.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

The understanding is different in the sense that TEC doesn’t attempt to explain how it occurs other than by the mystery of faith. The CC attempts to with their theory of transubstantiation. For Episcopalians it is enough to live in the mystery of faith that Christ is present.

But the Episcopal Church does not “clearly deny the real presence”. In fact TEC states just the opposite of your understanding about their Eucharist…

“Christ’s body and blood are really present in the sacrament of the eucharist.”

episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/eucharist

 

[Midwest88]

Same-sex attraction is a disorder. For quite some time i didn’t think it was, but now, well, people change. It’s a disorder. To act upon the attraction and act like it’s no big deal… Ha!

I’m compelled make a jpeg with Bart Simpon writing multiple times “same-sex attraction is a disorder” in front of a chalk board.

 

[Suudy]

The understanding is different in the sense that TEC doesn’t attempt to explain how it occurs other than by the mystery of faith. The CC attempts to with their theory of transubstantiation. For Episcopalians it is enough to live in the mystery of faith that Christ is present.

But the Episcopal Church does not “clearly deny the real presence”. In fact TEC states just the opposite of your understanding about their Eucharist…

Here’s from the BCP:
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
Christ is present spiritually present, not physically. When I say “real presence” I mean what the Catholic church means. That Christ is truly, physically present; body, blood, soul, and divinity. The TEC does not accept this.

“Christ’s body and blood are really present in the sacrament of the eucharist.”

episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/eucharist

This is not what the BCP says. Nor is it what I learned in my confirmation classes. Have they changed their minds recently?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Here’s from the BCP:
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
Christ is present spiritually present, not physically. When I say “real presence” I mean what the Catholic church means. That Christ is truly, physically present; body, blood, soul, and divinity. The TEC does not accept this.

This is not what the BCP says. Nor is it what I learned in my confirmation classes. Have they changed their minds recently?

ComplineSanFran can let us know if they changed their mind recently but I doubt it. A decade ago an Episcopal priest told me those receiving respond “Amen” (I believe) to the “Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven” and likewise he said with the blessed wine, to the “Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation”.

 

[Suudy]

ComplineSanFran can let us know if they changed their mind recently but I doubt it. A decade ago an Episcopal priest told me those receiving respond “Amen” (I believe) to the “Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven” and likewise he said with the blessed wine, to the “Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation”.

And when I was Episcopalian, they said the same words. Indeed, their service is extremely similar to mass. However, in confirmation classes we were referred to the BCP and it was made clear that communion was a communal act, and that Christ was present only spiritually. That the liturgy was important as helping to build and maintain community, but was unnecessary for the affectation of any sacraments, and that nothing actually happened during the service except for Christ moving in us and among us.

When I went to the LCMS confirmation classes (long story on why), they taught something different. There we were taught that the bread and wine only became Christ when consumed by a faithful Christian. Otherwise, the bread and wine remained bread and wine. There was no substantial change. Perhaps this is the TEC belief, but it was certainly very different than what I was taught in my TEC confirmation classes.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

ComplineSanFran can let us know if they changed their mind recently but I doubt it. A decade ago an Episcopal priest told me those receiving respond “Amen” (I believe) to the “Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven” and likewise he said with the blessed wine, to the “Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation”.

Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Sy, you are good to quote what is spoken as one receives - the Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven / the Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation. I believe that similar words are spoken at the reception in a Roman Catholic Mass.

Suudy, you quoted from the 39 Articles in the Book of Common Prayer. They are historical documents that were written in the 16th Century when England was sorting out where it stood between Catholic theology and Reformed Protestant theology (not to mention the political situation). They are not binding, nor carved in stone.

Eucharistic theology is complex and not my forte. I CAN say that transubstantiation is not a definition Anglicans have ever really taken on. RCs first started using it in the 4th Lateran Council, I recall (13th c).

I prefer ‘Holy Mysteries.’ Consubstantiation is more in line with Anglican belief but you know, one thing I love about Anglicanism is its ability to say, ‘It’s a mystery and it doesn’t matter what words you use. It’s God.’

 

[Sy_Noe]

And when I was Episcopalian, they said the same words. Indeed, their service is extremely similar to mass. However, in confirmation classes we were referred to the BCP and it was made clear that communion was a communal act, and that Christ was present only spiritually. That the liturgy was important as helping to build and maintain community, but was unnecessary for the affectation of any sacraments, and that nothing actually happened during the service except for Christ moving in us and among us.

When I went to the LCMS confirmation classes (long story on why), they taught something different. There we were taught that the bread and wine only became Christ when consumed by a faithful Christian. Otherwise, the bread and wine remained bread and wine. There was no substantial change. Perhaps this is the TEC belief, but it was certainly very different than what I was taught in my TEC confirmation classes.

What I was also told by the same Episcopal priest 10 yrs ago, allow me to again quote him as I just referred to his correspondence for my previous post.

“We don’t say how or when it becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. The Roman Catholics have an elaborate doctrine called Transubstantiation. Episcopalians just say that it is Christ’s Body and Blood.”

So that’s good enough for me while in the meantime I await for an actual Anglican such as ComplineSan Fran to explain it to us.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Sy, you are good to quote what is spoken as one receives - the Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven / the Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation. I believe that similar words are spoken at the reception in a Roman Catholic Mass.

Suudy, you quoted from the 39 Articles in the Book of Common Prayer. They are historical documents that were written in the 16th Century when England was sorting out where it stood between Catholic theology and Reformed Protestant theology (not to mention the political situation). They are not binding, nor carved in stone.

Eucharistic theology is complex and not my forte. I CAN say that transubstantiation is not a definition Anglicans have ever really taken on. RCs first started using it in the 4th Lateran Council, I recall (13th c).

I prefer ‘Holy Mysteries.’ Consubstantiation is more in line with Anglican belief but you know, one thing I love about Anglicanism is its ability to say, ‘It’s a mystery and it doesn’t matter what words you use. It’s God.’

Thank you, ComplineSanFran, for clearing this up for Suudy and I. Or at least for me. I can’t speak for Suudy. But yes similar words are spoken at any Roman Catholic masses I’ve ever been to and those receiving respond too by saying “Amen”. I had saved my correspondence with the Episcopal priest and he also explained, “We don’t say when it becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. The Roman Catholics have an elaborate doctrine on this called Transubstantiation. Episcopalians just say that it is Christ’s Body and Blood.”

 

[philipl]

When I visit Catholic churches, I see families and couples as well as individuals sitting in the pews. Gays and lesbians are already in your community. They are already a part of the life of the Church. I keep saying it’s the new normal, just as divorce and blended families had to become the new normal however many decades ago.

All this crisis mode talk about ‘them’ and ‘their’ disorder. Well, perhaps people could just calm down a bit and let ‘them’ lead normal lives - going to work, raising the children, coming to church, and having lives that have meaning.

How is the church going to say its now ok to be divorce and remarried, yet in the past the teaching of the church is wasnt ok? One way or the other the church will have been in error in it teaching. How will the church knowingly allow homosexuals that are sexually active tell them their relationship is fine, yet in the past the church has taught that homoxexual sex was wrong?

 

[Colorad007]

Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Sy, you are good to quote what is spoken as one receives - the Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven / the Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation. I believe that similar words are spoken at the reception in a Roman Catholic Mass.

Suudy, you quoted from the 39 Articles in the Book of Common Prayer. They are historical documents that were written in the 16th Century when England was sorting out where it stood between Catholic theology and Reformed Protestant theology (not to mention the political situation). They are not binding, nor carved in stone.

Eucharistic theology is complex and not my forte. I CAN say that transubstantiation is not a definition Anglicans have ever really taken on. RCs first started using it in the 4th Lateran Council, I recall (13th c).

I prefer ‘Holy Mysteries.’ Consubstantiation is more in line with Anglican belief but you know, one thing I love about Anglicanism is its ability to say, ‘It’s a mystery and it doesn’t matter what words you use. It’s God.’

Anglicans believe in pretty much whatever they want about the Eucharist, as they do just about everything else. One Anglican will tear up in adoration and another will use the host to scratch his back. That is Anglicanism.

 

[Colorad007]

How is the church going to say its now ok to be divorce and remarried, yet in the past the teaching of the church is wasnt ok? One way or the other the church will have been in error in it teaching. How will the church knowingly allow homosexuals that are sexually active tell them their relationship is fine, yet in the past the church has taught that homoxexual sex was wrong?

It’s not.

 

[Sy_Noe]

How is the church going to say its now ok to be divorce and remarried, yet in the past the teaching of the church is wasnt ok? One way or the other the church will have been in error in it teaching. How will the church knowingly allow homosexuals that are sexually active tell them their relationship is fine, yet in the past the church has taught that homoxexual sex was wrong?

By “church”, since you’re a Catholic, I’m going to assume you mean the Catholic Church. If so, who said they are? I hear something about divorce, speeding up the annulment process, and Communion but honestly my attention hasn’t been glued to it. And this thread is about harsh language towards gays and lesbians where an adjective may or may not be changed. But all I read in ComplineSan Fran’s post which you quoted was that all sorts of people are already within your Catholic faith communities. Merely trying to live normal lives - going to work, raising children, coming to church, and having lives that have meaning. That’s a far cry from saying the CC will admit error.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Anglicans believe in pretty much whatever they want about the Eucharist, as they do just about everything else. One Anglican will tear up in adoration and another will use the host to scratch his back. That is Anglicanism.

I can’t speak for Episcopalian communicants. I could only attest to what I’ve been told and have read as to what TEC officially teaches about the Eucharist. But if I’m ever in an Anglican church, I’m going to count how many scratch their backs with the host. My hunch is I wouldn’t need many fingers to do so. But like ComplineSanFran, I too love the ability Anglicans have to say certain matters of faith are a mystery. And I’m not even Anglican! And in addition one of the things I, and I presume many others, love about TEC and some of the other mainline churches is that not so many matters of faith and belief need to be spelled out in black and white in concrete. I know some consider such diversity a hindrance. I otoh, and I presume other believers, embrace it when it comes to matters of faith. Not everyone fits well in a tightly closed box and I can actually breathe better when humans allow some diversity in their understanding of God, as finite as our human understanding of God can be. So I don’t mind at all when faith communities allow diversity and when believers can still worship and commune together. I know something my Episcopal contacts have stressed to me as I’ve sought to learn a little about them, is their unity as part of the same worshiping family despite some diversity in views. That sounds like just about any family to me. I can guarantee you when my family gathers around the Thanksgiving table that we all are not going to agree on everything. I can’t imagine my family is unique in that regard.

 

[SuperLuigi]

They want the word “disordered” removed from talking about LGBQ. Why are they so desperately seeking approval from everyone? If LGBQ were so confident of their lifestyle and so convinced that’s it’s not sinful, then why do they need the Church to approve?

I’ve asked the same thing about relationship quality. Those who are in secure relationships do not need third party approval or anonymous third party attention.

It just goes to show that gay relationships are not equal to straight ones. :yup:

 

[SuperLuigi]

By “church”, since you’re a Catholic, I’m going to assume you mean the Catholic Church. If so, who said they are? I hear something about divorce, speeding up the annulment process, and Communion but honestly my attention hasn’t been glued to it. And this thread is about harsh language towards gays and lesbians where an adjective may or may not be changed. But all I read in ComplineSan Fran’s post which you quoted was that all sorts of people are already within your Catholic faith communities. Merely trying to live normal lives - going to work, raising children, coming to church, and having lives that have meaning. That’s a far cry from saying the CC will admit error.

I would assume the Church would be looking to communicate the destructive nature homosexuality and other sexual sins with charity but without downplaying the seriousness of the sins themselves.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I’ve asked the same thing about relationship quality. Those who are in secure relationships do not need third party approval or anonymous third party attention.

It just goes to show that gay relationships are not equal to straight ones. :yup:

In that case, straight Catholics in sacramental secure marriages shouldn’t need to worry about how civil law defines marriage. But I really think with many LGBT Christians and other LGBT, it’s not that they need approval by the Catholic Church to secure their relationships. What this thread began about are the harsh sounding adjectives to describe their orientation which can then be thought of applying to them or their lifestyles. Even if it is not meant to apply to them.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I can’t speak for Episcopalian communicants. I could only attest to what I’ve been told and have read as to what TEC officially teaches about the Eucharist. But if I’m ever in an Anglican church, I’m going to count how many scratch their backs with the host. My hunch is I wouldn’t need many fingers to do so. But like ComplineSanFran, I too love the ability Anglicans have to say certain matters of faith are a mystery. And I’m not even Anglican! And in addition one of the things I, and I presume many others, love about TEC and some of the other mainline churches is that not so many matters of faith and belief need to be spelled out in black and white in concrete. I know some consider such diversity a hindrance. I otoh, and I presume other believers, embrace it when it comes to matters of faith. Not everyone fits well in a tightly closed box and I can actually breathe better when humans allow some diversity in their understanding of God, as finite as our human understanding of God can be. So I don’t mind at all when faith communities allow diversity and when believers can still worship and commune together. I know something my Episcopal contacts have stressed to me as I’ve sought to learn a little about them, is their unity as part of the same worshiping family despite some diversity in views. That sounds like just about any family to me. I can guarantee you when my family gathers around the Thanksgiving table that we all are not going to agree on everything. I can’t imagine my family is unique in that regard.

Thank you, Sy. Beautifully said. I struggle to understand the black and white beliefs, perhaps because I live so much of my life in the grey zone. I find that black and white believers need to have everything in concrete, as you say, which to me indicates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ way of thinking.

If I am doing things according to all the rules, then I am safe and God loves me. AND I can point to others who are NOT doing things according to all the rules and know that they are in the wrong. I am safe, or saved, as it were, and the other is not.

There are other people, faith traditions, and even political leaders, who want inclusion, which means they want people to be loved, taken care of, and welcomed at the table, regardless of who they are. And, additionally I might add, not call each other harsh names.

I think it’s two very different ways of understanding God, the Church, and how we are to love one another. I’m not sure if one is right and the other is wrong, but it certainly is difficult to understand each other, isn’t it?

 

[pnewton]

I prefer ‘Holy Mysteries.’ Consubstantiation is more in line with Anglican belief but you know, one thing I love about Anglicanism is its ability to say, ‘It’s a mystery and it doesn’t matter what words you use. It’s God.’

This is also its weakness. Wiccans can look at a tree and say the same thing. But like they say, an error in the beginning…

This thread is about the Catholic synod, not Anglicans, Wiccans or really any other faith. There are other places for those discussions. Catholic Canon Law is founded both in moral theology and authority. Yes, a lot of things are mysteries. Homosexuality is not. That has been defined and understood by all Christians up until the last couple of generations. The Catholic Church simply has not abandoned her post on the subject.