Homily on sexual morality

[OraLabora]

I think if anyone leaves the Church because of a homily on sin, then we failed in our mission to save souls. That is the primary mission of the Church Militant. Not to facilitate people condemning themselves to sin, but to facilitate their conversion to Truth, and to work at conforming their lives to Christ, something that is always a work-in-progress as we are all sinners, whether the sin is sexual or evading taxes or being an alcoholic, or whatever.

I agree with the Church’s teachings on sin. It is my heartfelt wish that we all stop sinning, myself included! But the goal remains conversion, not chasing someone out. It means showing them a path to reconciliation, not condemning them.

The types of sin addressed in this homily are nothing new under the sun, and certainly not something that coincided with Vatican II. Humankind’s propensity for depravation was well known in the time of Saint Paul when he wrote in Romans chapter 1:

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

As I pointed out several posts ago, Saint Benedict understood human nature very well and that some approaches work with some but not others. He also noted, and I stress the importance of this, that if a shepherd causes the loss of a soul, it will remain a stain on his own soul at judgement day.

So while fire-and-brimstone will work with some, with others it will have the opposite effect. Yes they need to hear the message that sin is wrong, and it has to be clear. But it also has to be filled with hope, and a better way.

I agree with you that we have not heard the homily and cannot fully critique it, but in charity I am assuming the OP was in good faith when she started this thread, and it doesn’t hurt to debate the point by assuming her good faith.

 

[exnihilo]

I think if anyone leaves the Church because of a homily on sin, then we failed in our mission to save souls. That is the primary mission of the Church Militant. Not to facilitate people condemning themselves to sin, but to facilitate their conversion to Truth, and to work at conforming their lives to Christ, something that is always a work-in-progress as we are all sinners, whether the sin is sexual or evading taxes or being an alcoholic, or whatever.

I agree with the Church’s teachings on sin. It is my heartfelt wish that we all stop sinning, myself included! But the goal remains conversion, not chasing someone out. It means showing them a path to reconciliation, not condemning them.

We also have failed if people don’t know what is sinful or people carry on with a sin because it must not be too bad. People do go to Hell for sin. That is why there is Hell in the first place.

Why is it only sexual sin is considered unworthy of being discussed in a homily? If the priest said you’ll go to Hell if you don’t help the poor we wouldn’t be having this discussion. For the record I don’t even know if the priest said anything like that. None of us were there, save one, and I can’t recall what they claimed was said.

 

[qui_est_ce]

(sixteen characters)

 

[Elf01]

I can understand parents not wanting to be put into a situation where they have to explain more to their children than they’d like but the advance warning covers that.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not sure how many of the verses below are read during Mass, but a lot of the Bible is apparently unsuitable for children. Are warnings given before these verses are read?

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Prostitute

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Rape

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Whore

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: adultery

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Fornication

 

[Joe_5859]

Why is it only sexual sin is considered unworthy of being discussed in a homily?

Primarily because of children for whom parents would like to preserve their innocence. Parents don’t need their 5 year old asking them what masturbation and pornography is. There is a time to have those discussions with one’s children, of course. When they are 5 (excepting remarkable circumstances) is not the time. It’s just not.

Not that a priest cannot address these topics in a homily tactfully or with euphemisms. Or even if he just uses the word once, it would probably slip by unnoticed for the majority of children. But the OP said the priest used these words (and more) at least half a dozen times each in a 7 minute homily. Now, maybe she’s exaggerating somewhat, but I’m guessing that at least means that it was so prevalent that it was unavoidable to have heard it. I know I would have a problem with that sitting at Mass with my children beside me. I do not in any way have a problem with Catholic teaching on sexual matters as I know and believe them to be 100% true and necessary for general health and happiness. But teaching it at that moment in that way is not something I would consider appropriate.

 

[Hebrews12]

The types of sin addressed in this homily are nothing new under the sun, and certainly not something that coincided with Vatican II.

You misunderstood my reference to Vatican II. It was around that time that sexual immorality became socially acceptable in the secular world, and there was, and is still, a portion of the Church that agrees with that secular view, or at least is unwilling to condemn it publicly and forcefully. What have we seen as a result? Now sexual immorality is outright celebrated in the secular world instead of merely being accepted or tolerated. Have priests done a good job in making the Church’s view clear to those in the pews? Some have, certainly. Others have certainly not. Many in this thread have attested to the fact that many Catholics they know personally are not even aware of the Church’s views, or think they are a minor issue to be ignored at will.

So what do we do about it? More wishy-washy feel-good homilies? I really can’t comment on the homily discussed in this thread since I have not heard it. All I can say is that if the Church is to be saved from the crisis of people leaving, which they have been doing in droves for many years, we need to be willing to say some uncomfortable truths, because nobody out in the secular world will say those things and they need to be said.

Perhaps we would not have had the big sex abuse scandal if some more of our priests had heard stricter condemnations of homosexual acts. So many of the cases were homosexual in nature, between priests and older, teenage (post-pubescent) boys, which don’t meet the criteria of pedophilia, but are relationships common among homosexuals outside of the Church. Abusive by nature of the power differential, sure, but fairly common in homosexual culture.

Seriously, what purpose is there for religion if we do not take a black-and-white approach to morality in a world of grays? The secular message day in and day out is that if something feels good, do it, and that’s okay. The debauchery and degeneracy is at a fever pitch.

I get that some parents don’t want their kids to hear certain words, but to that I say look at what is already being taught in the public schools, what’s on TV, what’s being pushed in children’s books these days. Even if your kid is not being exposed to these things, their friends are, and their friends are telling them. If you don’t think kids are very aware of homosexuality and transgenderism and a host of other things, on an almost daily basis now, wake up. Shouldn’t the Church address these matters and provide a competing message?

 

[exnihilo]

Primarily because of children for whom parents would like to preserve their innocence. Parents don’t need their 5 year old asking them what masturbation and pornography is. There is a time to have those discussions with one’s children, of course. When they are 5 (excepting remarkable circumstances) is not the time. It’s just not.

What about adultery and fornication? I’m sure those are said during Mass readings. You literally can’t teach a kid the Ten Commandments if we are going to shield them from these words.

 

[Joe_5859]

I get that some parents don’t want their kids to hear certain words, but to that I say look at what is already being taught in the public schools, what’s on TV, what’s being pushed in children’s books these days. If you don’t think kids are very aware of homosexuality and transgenderism and a host of other things, on an almost daily basis now, wake up.

This rationalization for being sexually explicit does not hold water. Not all parents send their kids to public school. Some parents take very seriously their role to monitor what TV and books children watch and read. Do you really imagine a 5 year old child whose parents don’t just plop them in front of the TV to watch adult programs has any idea what transgenderism is? Or pornography? They don’t. And they don’t need to because they could not possibly understand it at that age.

Using this rationale, we would basically never have to watch what we say around even the youngest of children because “they’ve probably heard it all anyway.” No they haven’t.

 

[exnihilo]

I get that some parents don’t want their kids to hear certain words, but to that I say look at what is already being taught in the public schools, what’s on TV, what’s being pushed in children’s books these days. Even if your kid is not being exposed to these things, their friends are, and their friends are telling them. If you don’t think kids are very aware of homosexuality and transgenderism and a host of other things, on an almost daily basis now, wake up. Shouldn’t the Church address these matters and provide a competing message?

Exactly right. If parents home schools their kids, prevent them from having any access to the Internet, TV, radio, and movies, and allows them no friends, only then will they not encounter these ideas. You would have to completely isolate them.

I imagine the folks that complain loudest about this don’t take any of these measures.

 

[Joe_5859]

What about adultery and fornication? I’m sure those are said during Mass readings. You literally can’t teach a kid the Ten Commandments if we are going to shield them from these words.

Fair enough. We do teach children about “adultery” in an age appropriate way (i.e. being pure of heart). I don’t know that “fornication” comes up in the lectionary. But answering questions about what adultery means in the context of the 10 Commandments is not quite the same thing as explaining what Father means when he says “Don’t masturbate while watching pornography on the internet.” It’s a bit hard to explain that one in an age appropriate way.

But, again, I’m not opposed to him addressing such concepts using more veiled terminology. You can say something “watching impure things on the internet.” The adults will all understand what you mean. And the children will interpret it at their own level.

 

[Joe_5859]

I imagine the folks that complain loudest about this don’t take any of these measures.

You imagine incorrectly. Homeschooled children are not necessarily isolated. They should not be if you are doing it right. And generally their circle of friends will include like-minded people who also don’t want to throw their children to the wolves from the time they are babies.

I’m wondering, does anyone in this thread who sees no problem using this sort of language in a homily have children themselves?

 

[FrDavid96]

He, in addition to being our Priest administrator, also works 1 day a week at the Chancery and teaches courses at our Theology school. He is not a full-time priest in the parish.

It’s nice to know that this priest does have the confidence of his bishop. I cannot imagine a bishop who would allow a priest he does not trust to be teaching theology.

I admit I’m curious as to what job he holds at the chancery. Without getting too personal, is it possible for you to tell us? If yes, please do. If it’s not possible, then please just a simple “no.”

This anonymous priest’s reputation has already been maligned enough by strangers saying that he needs to be dragged before the bishop and treated like some kind of heretic. Therefore, if you can answer my last question without being so specific as to identify him, I am curious what job he holds at the chancery.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s nice to know that this priest does have the confidence of his bishop. I cannot imagine a bishop who would allow a priest he does not trust to be teaching theology.

That’s a good point that I completely missed. That the bishop trusts him to have him in the chancery and teaching theology certainly says something.

I hope it’s clear that my intent has never been to malign the priest or accuse him of heresy. I think it’s clear to all that every action and decision the priest made is his decision to make, and nothing he has said or done is theologically incorrect. Whether it’s the most pastorally prudent decision to make is I think the main point of discussion.

And, even if we presume all is exactly as has been laid out by the OP with no extenuating circumstances, I don’t necessarily consider that some sort of character defect on the priest. We don’t all make the best decision all the time. I know I don’t. I look at it more as a potential learning experience than marching him off before the Grand Inquisitor. I’m not a priest, though, so I admit I don’t know how things go down in closed door, one-on-one meetings with the bishop. Maybe I’m being unrealistic.

In any case, I pray things work out for her parish.

 

[OraLabora]

You misunderstood my reference to Vatican II. It was around that time that sexual immorality became socially acceptable in the secular world,

Respectfully, I’m not sure I completely agree. Any student of history will tell you that the Roman Empire hit a low of debauchery that makes what is happening now pale in comparison. On top of that there was no democracy, just depraved emperors to bring the ship down with them. St. Paul did not write what he wrote in Romans in a vacuum…

It’s more cyclical in nature it seems. Empires grow (Roman, British) and empires fade (Roman, British).

Granted with the Internet we seem to have stepped on the gas pedal with regards to the speed of our decline, but debauchery existed well before the Internet era.

And don’t fool yourself into thinking it didn’t exist pre-Council. Montreal, for instance, was well known for its red light district and as the center of lewdness in Canada for many years prior to Vatican II. And this was in a fervently practicing city about 70% Catholic at the time, 20% Protestant, and quite a sizeable Jewish population.

Vatican II just coincided with the period where we became more open about our sins, rather than hiding them. First it was sex, next came homosexuality, and now it’s gender identity that have lost their social taboos.

 

[Hebrews12]

Do you let your kids know about the world? Current events? Do you lock them away in their bedrooms before you watch the evening news? Do all your friends do the same? Do none of your children’s friends have older siblings or older cousins? Do none of your children’s friends’ friends have older siblings or older cousins, or have parents who let their children know about the world?

We have whole political parties now dedicated to things like gay marriage, transgenders in changing rooms, and pushing these agendas in public school kindergartens and preschools. These issues are debated in the public square. People living sinful lives are encouraged to practice their sin in broad daylight on the streets of every town and city. We don’t have to like it, I certainly don’t, but these subjects are in the zeitgeist.

Kids in some places of the world grow up in war zones, and have to confront serious and horrifying issues like death and violence, even genocide. In our part of the world, kids grow up surrounded by sexual immorality. You can try to hide it from them, but sometimes a (metaphorical) bomb lands in your neighborhood and you can’t predict when or where. That’s the nature of living in a culture war zone.

I don’t think we should be in a rush to expose kids to these sorts of realities, but we should first recognize that this is the reality of the world kids are growing up in now, and parents and other well-meaning, like-minded adults are not the sole influence on their children. Children mainly learn about the world through their peers, and every idea or concept that enters into the very extended social network of children’s lives (which includes older kids, as well as parents having affairs, parents talking in front of kids, kids overhearing things in the news, sexually abusive parents/uncles/teachers, and just whatever kids are exposed to walking down the street which these days could be anything) spreads rapidly through that network without parents even being aware of it much of the time.

Kids always know more about things and sooner than their parents expect, no matter how sheltered they may be. Knowing this, shouldn’t kids also be exposed to morality on those subjects? I guarantee you the other side is trying very hard to make sure your kids end up with the wrong ideas about right and wrong. It’s literally written in their political platforms.

 

[exnihilo]

Respectfully, I’m not sure I completely agree. Any student of history will tell you that the Roman Empire hit a low of debauchery that makes what is happening now pale in comparison. On top of that there was no democracy, just depraved emperors to bring the ship down with them. St. Paul did not write what he wrote in Romans in a vacuum

We are pretty debased. I am aware of morals in the Empire but I’m not sure they were that much worse or worse at all. I’m interested in your argument. I’m open to the idea it just isn’t immediately obvious to me.

Also, there is the difference in that Romans were pagans. The debauchery we have is in formerly Christian society. From that perspective I think it is worse.

 

[Rau]

Is it possible that the priest is doing exactly what he was charged to do by his Bishop?

Much speculation is possible. How should that influence the OP?

 

[babochka]

What about adultery and fornication? I’m sure those are said during Mass readings. You literally can’t teach a kid the Ten Commandments if we are going to shield them from these words.

When they are too young to have a concrete concept of these sins, I certainly don’t go into detail about them.

 

[Axsenex]

Still debating on this subject?