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

[ProdigalSun]

Well that is your view on homosexuality. There are others in this world that do not feel the same and that is also alright. To each there own everyone on both sides has their reasons. I personally can not judge anyone because I am not God.

To address the other topic here. No one is talking about abortion here or adultery. Its about homosexuality. They are two different topics. Changing one thing does not mean change the other or everything.

Have a nice day!

YOu can not judge anyone??? Are you sure about that. There is nothing that you think is morally wrong and should not be done by another person even though they see nothing morally wrong with it???

hmmm… I don’t believe you!

 

[ProdigalSun]

So…who came up with the word “disordered” when describing homosexuality within the Catholic paradigm?
Who decided that this was the word that should be used?

.

Do you have a better one??? What word can we use that will help the sinner feel comfortable while at the same time helping them understand that their action is sinful.

Please… enlighten: us!

 

[ProdigalSun]

How about “non-procreative”?

.

This of course does not get the point across to help the sinner understand that he is sinning!

Do you have anything else since this word does not the work in the context of this paragraphs subject.

 

[ProdigalSun]

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.

No one is saying that these people are not welcome(this is only your perception). one only has to be properly disposed.

No is assuming to be the keeper of the moral checklist (this is just your perception). WE only state what the church teaches.

I know of no one that goes around making sure everyone is predisposed to accept the Eucharist.

Every Catholic needs to go to Mass on Sunday whether he is Gay person in a state of Mortal sin or a straight person in a state of mortal sin.

A cause for scandal needs to be dealt with by the pastor of a church not some lay usher looking for sinners.

Lastly we are not talking about your ecclesial community we are talking about The Church. I’m sure your Anglican community allows many things that do not fit into The Church’s idea of truth and justice.

Peace!

 

[ProdigalSun]

.
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…)

.

Because that would not help the Catholic come to an understanding of what homosexuality is. thus not bringing our brothers and sisters with SSA into a full communion with Christ and his Church.

 

[HeartnSoulMan]

The Church today is very sensitive to the dignity of the human person. I believe in the past one saint said when asked about homosexuals (meaning practicing homosexuals) his reply was not to worry about them because they were just people who have nothing to do with salvation.

In a sense this is still true anyone who is happy to be committing a grave sin really has nothing to do with their own salvation. This happy word means they do not recognize the gravity of life, or salvation. They don’t understand the concept of justice when it comes to God. So they have in a sense just thrown in the towel from battling against human nature to find salvation.

The priest or monsignor who announced that he was happy being actively homosexual was also announcing his inability to understand the need for the transformation from sinner to saint necessary for salvation.

An individual who has homosexual desires and rejects them is practicing virtues. This is the same as a heterosexual who also rejects temptation and embraces chastity through the virtue of purity. All sexuality outside of legitimate sexual behavior within a sacramental marriage is sinful, stupid, detrimental, and asinine. Further is rejects not just the teachings of the church but the will of God.

So I would add to what the saint said that all people who are HAPPY in their sin are those who have nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Corki]

Because that would not help the Catholic come to an understanding of what homosexuality is. thus not bringing our brothers and sisters with SSA into a full communion with Christ and his Church.

The thing about the language is that it’s not directed AT persons who have the challenge of homosexuality. It’s directed at ALL Catholics. Any change in language that is more welcoming has to also maintain a preciseness so that ALL Catholics understand it.

 

[Rau]

The thing about the language is that it’s not directed AT persons who have the challenge of homosexuality. It’s directed at ALL Catholics. Any change in language that is more welcoming has to also maintain a preciseness so that ALL Catholics understand it.

The evidence would suggest that many Catholics don’t understand the language, so that is an argument to adjust the language, while retaining the same message. I don’t think it can be done by swapping one word for another, but I suspect it can be done. The subject of “welcoming” is a different one.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Yet that is what is happening. I have chosen to not let things like this upset me because that leads to nothing but bad stuff like anger. Now that I no longer let these things bother me I am more at peace. A gay person living how they choose is not bothering me or anyone in any way what so ever that I can see.

To each there own I suppose. a gay person doing there thing does not affect me personally. but A govt. changing the definition of marriage certainly does. For me to look the other way or worse smile and shrug about sin only implicates me in that sin. If I truly love that person who is sinning is to let them know what they are doing is a sin and to pray for their conversion while showing compassion and acceptance of the person not the sin.

This is how I was able to come out of my sinful lifestyle because people loved me enough to show me a better way.

Peace!

 

[TyburnTreeHuggr]

Do you have a better one??? What word can we use that will help the sinner feel comfortable while at the same time helping them understand that their action is sinful.

Please… enlighten: us!

How about “misordered?” That’s not in common usage at all but just about anyone could infer that it is misusing the natural order of the act.

 

[LittleFlower378]

The same sex inclination is disordered. That fact is in the CDF documents and taught by the people at Courage. That actually needs to be said because to say otherwise would confuse and only hurt the person with same sex attraction in the long run.

 

[shockerfan]

Seems to me that much of the desire to change the language in the CCC ultimately is more about protecting people’s feelings than it is about protecting their soul. Its certainly not about honesty.

At the same time, its not about making someone feel as if their sin is worse than my sin, or anyone else’s sin, although many of us are guilty of that very thing from time to time. The honest Catholic seeking to do God’s will has the very difficult task of being pastoral and trying to bring people in a difficult situation closer to God, while at the same time not compromising on the truth.

 

[adrift]

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?!

.

[
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

PERSONA HUMANA

DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS
CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html)

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

 

[adrift]

How about “misordered?” That’s not in common usage at all but just about anyone could infer that it is misusing the natural order of the act.

►Definitions

verb (transitive)

1. to put (items, events, etc) into the incorrect order
2. to put into disorder; confuse
3. to make an order (of goods, materials, etc) incorrectly
   :nope:

 

[pnewton]

How about “misordered?” That’s not in common usage at all but just about anyone could infer that it is misusing the natural order of the act.

They could also use multiple words, as in “not properly ordered,” but in the end, the same fact will be conveyed and I think the problem with the language is not the real issue. I thing gay Catholics have a problem with the doctrine, more than the language.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I am in the process of reading the book Liberalism is a sin Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany. So far what a book! And how it can be applied to our time!

But listen to the audio version from one of the chapters of the book which talks about language.

youtube.com/watch?v=SQYczimnz4U

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Making it clear that it essentially refers to an act would not help that much due to human psychology …

Does this mean that because you are convinced you can predict that 100 % of readers are going to misread it, they had better misread something vague as at present rather than a genuinely improved version? Why would you want continuing confusion? Is it because you are afraid of a point of complaint (which in this instance is justified) being listened to and rectified (not that I have the influence to bring it about)?

On another point, in the Sacred Congregation document, I just don’t think there are firm distinctions between the kinds of people described that make it any different - it’s still only an emphatic self-identification with the act that is relevant.

Lastly the term “inclination” is too vague to be of any use.

My version solves the problem entirely by removing harshness from persons as persons. The Pope hugged his old mates, at a personal level. Everybody else’s proposals including existing publications tends to confuse persons and acts.

 

[Rau]

Does this mean that because you are convinced you can predict that 100 % of readers are going to misread it, they had better misread something vague as at present rather than a genuinely improved version? Why would you want continuing confusion? Is it because you are afraid of a point of complaint (which in this instance is justified) being listened to and rectified (not that I have the influence to bring it about)?

On another point, in the Sacred Congregation document, I just don’t think there are firm distinctions between the kinds of people described that make it any different - it’s still only an emphatic self-identification with the act that is relevant.

Lastly the term “inclination” is too vague to be of any use.

My version solves the problem entirely by removing harshness from persons as persons. The Pope hugged his old mates, at a personal level. Everybody else’s proposals including existing publications tends to confuse persons and acts.

Where is “your version”?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Sorry - should have posted link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13340044&postcount=96

My third & fourth paras refer.

 

[Suudy]

Seems to me that much of the desire to change the language in the CCC ultimately is more about protecting people’s feelings than it is about protecting their soul. Its certainly not about honesty.

This. I read a quote on a site somewhere and I’ve re-quoted it since. It’s something like: We have left the age of the primacy of the intellect and have entered the age of the primacy of the passions. No longer is the mind the source of social action, but the heart. Social action is driven by a desire to seek self-fulfillment and improve self-esteem rather than a desire to seek truth. And day by day this seems to be more true.