Homosexuals Come Home...we miss you....

[CMatt25]

I truly have difficulty imagining encountering people at Mass who diapparove of your clothing or question your voting patterns. Quite honestly if there were a dress code in my Diocese we’d have about three people at Mass. Other than truly provacative or inappropriate clothing, I have never heard any objection to what anyone wears to Mass. We expect the Priest to be suitably attired but the parishioners? No. As to people thinking you should vote a certain way, again are people walking up to you at Mass and saying well you aren’t welcome because you aren’t voting for X instead of Y?

A lot of times people think everyine is talking about them only to find out that most people have enough to deal with in their own lives without taking on the burdens of others.

I hope you read Archbishop Sheen’s amazing words. I think they are very appropriate with respect to this thread.

Lisa

Yes Lisa I read his words. Again Christ one time drove moneychangers away. When I read or hear conservatives bring that up, it gives me the impression they think that gives them license to drive people away. Christ also walked on water. Christ did a lot of things you, myself, and others can not do.

You may have difficulty so I’ll give you an example. At a time when I was still receiving the Eucharist, I vividly recall the disapproving look I received from a lady in the front row of chairs as I turned around at the altar to return to my seat, in a nice clean pair of knee length cargo shorts, a clean plain solid navy blue colored tee shirt, and white New Balance sneakers. And this forum is called Catholic Answers and with such a title I am sure I am not the only one who expected the faithful Catholics on it to be representative of Catholics at Mass and the Catholic Church. And there have been many threads discussing attire with the same disapproval expressed as that lady I encountered at Mass did. Perhaps in cases one can not be considered a practicing or faithful Catholic but a baptized/confirmed Catholic not only can be but according to the Catholic Church is a Catholic. Why it is so difficult for folks on this forum to type one additional word to get it right I will never understand. Telling those who are Catholics according to the Church that they are not Catholic, can be discouraging and detrimental to their faith. You hear it enough times and it can weaken any desire to be part of the Catholic family.

In any case you don’t need to reply as I won’t be returning to this thread. As another poster saw fit to point out to me, this thread is not about me. Which of course I already knew. But Coptic has been so kind on this thread and asked me to “come home” and I merely felt he deserved a reply. I’m sorry now I even bothered. As had I known doing so was going to elicit a response that the thread is not about me, I wouldn’t have. God bless you on your journey and peace be with you.

 

[LisaA]

Yes Lisa I read his words. Again Christ one time drove moneychangers away. When I read or hear conservatives bring that up, it gives me the impression they think that gives them license to drive people away. Christ also walked on water. Christ did a lot of things you, myself, and others can not do.

You may have difficulty so I’ll give you an example. At a time when I was still receiving the Eucharist, I vividly recall the disapproving look I received from a lady in the front row of chairs as I turned around at the altar to return to my seat, in a nice clean pair of knee length cargo shorts, a clean plain solid navy blue colored tee shirt, and white New Balance sneakers. And this forum is called Catholic Answers and with such a title I am sure I am not the only one who expected the faithful Catholics on it to be representative of Catholics at Mass and the Catholic Church. And there have been many threads discussing attire with the same disapproval expressed as that lady I encountered at Mass did. And one does not need to look far before they will see or hear it said here on this forum and elsewhere that you can’t be a Catholic if you vote for Barack Obama, or for another Democrat, or if you are pro choice, and so on and so on. Except that is not the Catholic Church’s answer. Perhaps in cases one can not be considered a practicing or faithful Catholic but a baptized/confirmed Catholic not only can be but according to the Catholic Church is a Catholic. Why it is so difficult for folks on this forum to type one additional word to get it right I will never understand. Telling those who are Catholics according to the Church that they are not Catholic, can be discouraging and detrimental to their faith. You hear it enough times and it can weaken any desire to be part of the Catholic family.

In any case you don’t need to reply as I won’t be returning to this thread. As another poster saw fit to point out to me, this thread is not about me. Which of course I already knew. But Coptic has been so kind on this thread and asked me to “come home” and I merely felt he deserved a reply. I’m sorry now I even bothered. As had I known doing so was going to elicit a response that the thread is not about me, I wouldn’t have. God bless you on your journey and peace be with you.

Since you said you are not homosexual and the thread is about welcoming those with same sex attractions Home, I suspect some of the response related to the seemingly off topic content in your original post. OTOH I suspect Coptic Christian is generous in spirit and would be interested in welcoming any ‘lost lambs’ back Home whether they strayed as a result of same sex attraction or other disagreement with the Church. We all know those who left after the sex abuse scandal. I know they would be welcomed back too.

Perhaps we overspeak to say someone is “not Catholic” when they have strongly held positions in direct opposition to fundamental Catholic teaching. It’s not for us to say what’s in your heart although we can judge and respond to your words. We can determine if they are in line with what the Church teaches. That being said, if you openly profess a completely different understanding of matters such as the sanctity of life, then you can’t claim to be a devout and practicing Catholic. You may be a Catholic by baptism and having been confirmed but you seem mentally at war with the Church’s teaching on very important issues. I think most of us who respond to your posts keep wondering why you hold your own conclusions higher than Church teaching. As a result of your opposition to the Church’s position on various important issues, you say you feel unwelcome. It’s rather like the old saying, if God feels distant, who moved?

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes Lisa I read his words. Again Christ one time drove moneychangers away. When I read or hear conservatives bring that up, it gives me the impression they think that gives them license to drive people away. Christ also walked on water. Christ did a lot of things you, myself, and others can not do.

You may have difficulty so I’ll give you an example. At a time when I was still receiving the Eucharist, I vividly recall the disapproving look I received from a lady in the front row of chairs as I turned around at the altar to return to my seat, in a nice clean pair of knee length cargo shorts, a clean plain solid navy blue colored tee shirt, and white New Balance sneakers. And this forum is called Catholic Answers and with such a title I am sure I am not the only one who expected the faithful Catholics on it to be representative of Catholics at Mass and the Catholic Church. And there have been many threads discussing attire with the same disapproval expressed as that lady I encountered at Mass did. And one does not need to look far before they will see or hear it said here on this forum and elsewhere that you can’t be a Catholic if you vote for Barack Obama, or for another Democrat, or if you are pro choice, and so on and so on. Except that is not the Catholic Church’s answer. Perhaps in cases one can not be considered a practicing or faithful Catholic but a baptized/confirmed Catholic not only can be but according to the Catholic Church is a Catholic. Why it is so difficult for folks on this forum to type one additional word to get it right I will never understand. Telling those who are Catholics according to the Church that they are not Catholic, can be discouraging and detrimental to their faith. You hear it enough times and it can weaken any desire to be part of the Catholic family.

In any case you don’t need to reply as I won’t be returning to this thread. As another poster saw fit to point out to me, this thread is not about me. Which of course I already knew. But Coptic has been so kind on this thread and asked me to “come home” and I merely felt he deserved a reply. I’m sorry now I even bothered. As had I known doing so was going to elicit a response that the thread is not about me, I wouldn’t have. God bless you on your journey and peace be with you.

Dude,

I wear sandals and shorts to mass and keep my eyes either up or to the ground…focus on what is necessary…what you did by going to the Eucharist should supersede the earthly mortals looks and glances…they don’t bother me…my mind is elsewhere. Sorry to see you leave.

 

[Tigg]

As another poster saw fit to point out to me, this thread is not about me. Which of course I already knew. But Coptic has been so kind on this thread and asked me to “come home” and I merely felt he deserved a reply. I’m sorry now I even bothered. As had I known doing so was going to elicit a response that the thread is not about me, I wouldn’t have. God bless you on your journey and peace be with you.

CMatt,
**I’m not trying to cause offense. **I’m just not sure if you understand that this thread is not about you.

CMatt: By her own words, Elizabeth tried to convey to you her intention and the rest of her post explained in better words than I could have come up with about the rejection of positions (POV) rather than rejection of the person. I see nothing in her words that could cause your response (see thread title.)

In all fairness, you are on a Catholic forum. Can you possibly understand what our faith means to us? It is the epitome of who we are. We don’t just blindly believe what the Church says, but we try to incorporate all the fullness and beauty of Her treasury into our very attitudes and the way we live our lives. We must defend her, you see, when we believe error has been stated.

You too, are welcome home. Even if it be a long journey for you, you will find peace and acceptance at the end.

 

[andrewstx]

Coptic, my case is not as a homosexual but I appreciate your efforts here. Unfortunately I have experienced one too many other siblings who seem to me to consider themselves greater than me. They reject me as one of them. Forbid me in their presence to use the family name given to me for all time by our Father. They think they are better educated than me. They think they dress more appropriately than me for Mass. They think they make a better choice on who to vote for in a secular election. They say they know more than I do. I am assured in my belief by the Father and His #1 Son that I am loved. But it got to the point where I was made to feel no longer part of the family by others within the household. I call it driven away because that is how I feel. But if you want to call it “left” that’s fine with me. I can say left because I felt driven away. I’m just leaving it between them and God. If He asks them about it, they can answer to Him. In any case I have been ridiculed and put down one too many times to want to “come home” now as you put it. I fear if I did in no time it would be back to the same things. I could not be myself. I would have to dress a certain way. Vote a certain way. Told I had to believe everything in a certain way. Carry a heavy yoke to be part of the family when Jesus instead said His yoke is easy and His burden is light for us. That home no longer feels like home to me. I am not welcome to the table to eat as I am anyway. And it is not the home I remember. I don’t see enough humility. I see a place which to me is filled (well not filled) but which seems to me of the people who are there, to have more nowadays in it that come across to me as believing they are greater, holier, and they want a purer house even if smaller. I’ve heard about this purer/smaller concept more since Benedict 16 assumed the Papacy. I don’t hold a lot of optimism that things are going to be different in the house anytime soon. But I’ll keep my eyes and ears open. In a manner of speaking it reminds me of an inn which had no room. And I need room to be me and to breathe Coptic or else I will suffocate.

Dont feel alone CMatt. I too was rejected by my family not for rejecting the teachings of the church (they were fundamental Protestants), but for converting to Catholicism and voting Democrat. This was early 70s before abortion became an issue.

Reading the social teaching of the church convinced me that the Catholic chruch was liberal. Things have really changed in the last 40 years.

 

[mab23]

AMEN to the OP’s Original post!

 

[Seeker1961]

It’s kind of sad that a thread like this has received such little interest, but the threads taking a primarily lecturing stance against homosexuals get so much traction.

 

[LisaA]

Dont feel alone CMatt. I too was rejected by my family not for rejecting the teachings of the church (they were fundamental Protestants), but for converting to Catholicism and voting Democrat. This was early 70s before abortion became an issue.

Reading the social teaching of the church convinced me that the Catholic chruch was liberal. Things have really changed in the last 40 years.

Just curious, do you think the Church changed or the defnition of “liberal” has changed? Truly I cannot imagine the Democrat party of my parents era touting homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, etc. As a lot of people have said, I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.

The Church’s doctrines have not made this transition thank heavens!

Lisa

 

[epan]

The Catechism of the OHCAC states that Homosexuality is disordered based on Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The Church welcomes all. People that have Homosexual tendencies are welcome as well. What is Social Justice? It is as follows…

These are the elements of Social Justice that require all Catholics to follow…

So many threads post controversial attempts to change the mind concerning Same Sex Marriage, Homosexual acts…

This thread takes the premise that I want all people, homosexuals of any kind to learn that Jesus loves you and so do I. Come home…you are no different than the Prodigal Son…we welcome you. I cannot and will not accept thoughts contrary to Church teaching.

I ask all who want our brothers and sisters to come home to tell them that you care, tell them that they have a home…educate them that the “gay” lifestyle is not healthy physically or mentally…

Give them the Solidarity that we have, provide them the education that they need, organize on this thread and elsewhere and advocate for their return home…this is true Social Justice…

I appreciate the sentiment. I doubt that it has much resonance with most homosexuals though. There are plenty of churches which are more accepting, where they can embrace a more positive self image, and also find the love of God. I would expect that most would prefer those other churches. Why would anyone want to go to a place to hear something like, “You are “disordered”, but we love you”, when that person’s life experience does not bear that out?

When a religion does not agree with what one finds to be true experientially, then it loses credibility. The growth of faith relies on reinforcement of beliefs through experience. When experience belies those beliefs, then faith is challenged. Sometimes it is possible to overcome this through new insight, sometimes not.

In the case of the Catholic Church’s opinion on homosexuality, this presents a challenge. I am not talking about people who have sex just because it feels good. Those people exist in all sexual orientations, and the Church would find them sinful regardless of orientation. I am referring to homosexuals who fall in love, and the sexual unions fulfills that love. This feels as natural to them, as it does to any heterosexual. So, using words such as “disordered” to describe the phenomenon is disconsonant with their experience.

 

[andrewstx]

What has really changed in the last 40 years is society. In the early 70s abortion was not an issue yet, though still dissaproved.

And homosexuality was not an issue yet, I think it was Anita Bryan that brought that issue to the forefront.

Things were much different 40 years ago, and the church and society has made a huge shift to the right.

 

[epan]

What has really changed in the last 40 years is society. In the early 70s abortion was not an issue yet, though still dissaproved.

And homosexuality was not an issue yet, I think it was Anita Bryan that brought that issue to the forefront.

Things were much different 40 years ago, and the church and society has made a huge shift to the right.

Anita Bryant did nothing to advance anything but hatred. I hope that she found an easier path, once she was forced out of the public arena. There is a lesson there. The OP here, proposing a charitable path, which is laudable.

 

[Seeker1961]

On the “disordered” word. I have to confess that it still bothers me to read it or hear it. I have to do as my Confessor said and remind myself that first and foremost I am a Child of God every time I confront it. It’s really hard not to take that as meaning that I as a person am not worthy and that I cannot be a part of the Church because I don’t fit the normal pattern.

Whether I choose to act on my attractions or not they are still there. No angel came down and hit me with a harp saying “you now like men!”. Would have been easier but that wasn’t in the plan. So, I remain “disordered” to Catholics no matter how I live my life. I’d be lying if I said that doesn’t hurt.

 

[andrewstx]

Anita Bryant did nothing to advance anything but hatred. I hope that she found an easier path, once she was forced out of the public arena. There is a lesson there. The OP here, proposing a charitable path, which is laudable.

I was not neccesarily agreeing with miss Bryant, I only said it took her actions to bring homosexuality to the forfront. and I beleive that to be true.

Prior to Miss Bryant homosexuality was hardly discussed.

And I agree with Coptic Christian and the OP.

I just wish this thread got more attention.

 

[LisaA]

What has really changed in the last 40 years is society. In the early 70s abortion was not an issue yet, though still dissaproved.

And homosexuality was not an issue yet, I think it was Anita Bryan that brought that issue to the forefront.

Things were much different 40 years ago, and the church and society has made a huge shift to the right.

Ummm I think you have contradicted yourself. You state (correctly) that 40 years ago abortion and homosexuality were not issues. They were not issues because society for the most part did not think these were mainstream activities to be promoted and publicized. You are right, both have existed since the beginning of humanity. But compare the attitude pre-Roe versus today or pre-Chrisopher Street versus today and I think you will see that SOCIETY has shifted LEFT. The Church has remained the same.

The seeming rightward shift is simply a contrast to the secular agenda as promoted by our educational system, the mainstream media and at high levels of government.

Lisa

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I appreciate the sentiment. I doubt that it has much resonance with most homosexuals though. There are plenty of churches which are more accepting, where they can embrace a more positive self image, and also find the love of God. I would expect that most would prefer those other churches. Why would anyone want to go to a place to hear something like, “You are “disordered”, but we love you”, when that person’s life experience does not bear that out?

When a religion does not agree with what one finds to be true experientially, then it loses credibility. The growth of faith relies on reinforcement of beliefs through experience. When experience belies those beliefs, then faith is challenged. Sometimes it is possible to overcome this through new insight, sometimes not.

In the case of the Catholic Church’s opinion on homosexuality, this presents a challenge. I am not talking about people who have sex just because it feels good. Those people exist in all sexual orientations, and the Church would find them sinful regardless of orientation. I am referring to homosexuals who fall in love, and the sexual unions fulfills that love. This feels as natural to them, as it does to any heterosexual. So, using words such as “disordered” to describe the phenomenon is disconsonant with their experience.

Can you think of a better word that means not in accord with the natural order or the purpose of the sexual act, to describe the homosexual act, that would be more acceptable to a homosexual?

The term ‘disorder’ is not applied to the whole person, but to the propensity to indulge in sex that stops with and serves no more than physical pleasure. In Catholic theology,* sex serves a purpose beyond pleasure, therefore the requirement for complementarity in this marital mutual self-giving act.*

Indulging in sex to completion feels good because the physical mechanism works in such a way, regardless of partner, even without a partner, technically speaking. A homosexual who falls in love, as you argue, seeks sexual expression with his partner and “feels” that it is a natural act, and “feels” that the sexual union fulfills that love. Well, it is still on the level of feeling, to feel good, is it not, but not really fulfilling the purpose of sexual union in love? The fact is masturbation brings about the same physiological euphoria and is thus also a disorder in Catholic theology.

Yes, experience colors one’s worldview. But man is not just a sensate physical body that responds to stimulus; he is also a spirit. He feels emotions but he also has the facility of reflection, examination of good and what is not good for himself and his neighbor, and not the least of gifts given to him by God, free will.
.

 

[Elizabeth502]

On the “disordered” word. I have to confess that it still bothers me to read it or hear it. I have to do as my Confessor said and remind myself that first and foremost I am a Child of God every time I confront it. It’s really hard not to take that as meaning that I as a person am not worthy and that I cannot be a part of the Church because I don’t fit the normal pattern.

Whether I choose to act on my attractions or not they are still there.

Well, I have disordered attractions. They’re called the 7 Capital Sins, a couple of which I am especially attracted to. They are intrinsic disorders as well. The Saints were well aware of these disorders, how fundamental these were to work against in the Christian journey. They were acutely aware of their disorders.

I do not take my underlying attractions to a couple of these disorders as meaning that

I as a person am not worthy

more than any other person is not worthy. We are all unworthy of the love and mercy of God, whether we have gravely or lightly sinned once or one million times.

 

[epan]

Can you think of a better word that means not in accord with the natural order or the purpose of the sexual act, to describe the homosexual act, that would be more acceptable to a homosexual?

The term ‘disorder’ is not applied to the whole person, but to the propensity to indulge in sex that stops with and serves no more than physical pleasure. In Catholic theology,* sex serves a purpose beyond pleasure, therefore the requirement for complementarity in this marital mutual self-giving act.*

Indulging in sex to completion feels good because the physical mechanism works in such a way, regardless of partner, even without a partner, technically speaking. A homosexual who falls in love, as you argue, seeks sexual expression with his partner and “feels” that it is a natural act, and “feels” that the sexual union fulfills that love. Well, it is still on the level of feeling, to feel good, is it not, but not really fulfilling the purpose of sexual union in love? The fact is masturbation brings about the same physiological euphoria and is thus also a disorder in Catholic theology.

Yes, experience colors one’s worldview. But man is not just a sensate physical body that responds to stimulus; he is also a spirit. He feels emotions but he also has the facility of reflection, examination of good and what is not good for himself and his neighbor, and not the least of gifts given to him by God, free will.
.

I’m no psychologist, but my understanding is that the emotional component of romantic love is essentially the same, regardless of gender of partners. So, in that sense, it is perceived as “natural” by those who love each other.

This was my point, that the Catholic Church is not likely to get these people back, when they can find other churches which are accepting of them. When we talk about the “natural” order of things, it is nothing more, nor less than an historic collection of ideas which preceded the Catholic Church, and which the Church adopted and modified to suit its theology. The fact is, that when people refer to what is “natural”, or what is bound by “natural law”, there are many different reference points for that concept, both older and newer than the opinion of the Catholic Church.

There was a time, when diversity was not appreciated. As the world has shrunk through technology, different races, cultures, political views, and so on… are now accepted as equally valid, depending on context. This also applies to sexual orientation. Yes, I know that the current Pope, and his adherents, adopt the view that such relativism is repugnant and dangerous. But that is not true of all Catholics, nor is it true of many previous popes.

Listening to Sister Ferrell in a recent interview, her primary objection to the Vatican’s opinion on the LCWR is that there is no room even for discussion of some of these pressing social issues, such as the role of women in the Church, contraception, and sexual orientation.

Other churches are will to openly discuss these issues with their membership, and a dialogue results. I don’t know if the Catholic Church has always been this way, or whether this is a hallmark of the current papacy. But I must say that her objection seemed compelling to me. I intend to listen to the Bishop’s rebuttal this afternoon.

The question I would ask is, why would any person subject herself to the Catholic Church’s authority, when there are other Church’s which are more welcoming, and affirming?

 

[iloveangels]

The Catechism of the OHCAC states that Homosexuality is disordered based on Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The Church welcomes all. People that have Homosexual tendencies are welcome as well. What is Social Justice? It is as follows…

What is the OHCAC? Is Coptic a kind of Greek Orthodox? Or something else? Is your group in union with Rome?

Not trying to argue. Just confused about your screen name.

 

[LisaA]

What is the OHCAC? Is Coptic a kind of Greek Orthodox? Or something else? Is your group in union with Rome?

Not trying to argue. Just confused about your screen name.

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The universal Church founded by Christ.

Lisa

 

[iloveangels]

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The universal Church founded by Christ.

Lisa

The one in union with Rome, then you must mean, because that’s what is sounds like you’re saying. Correct?