Homosexuals in the Seminary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Everyman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Everyman:
It’s where you seem unwilling to call sin what it is–sin.
Click to expand...
Oh, then it was simply a misunderstanding. Homosexuality is a sin.
 
Guar Fan:
Oh, then it was simply a misunderstanding. Homosexuality is a sin.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality (the struggle) is not a sin. The act is a sin, as well as championing the “gay” agenda.
 
40.png
manualman:
Unclear on your message here. If by your definition of practicing homosexual you mean someone who understands the sinfulness of the behavior and with full consent does it anyways, there IS a distinct difference. A sinner who has repented, received absolution and resolved to sin no more is seen rather differently than the sinner who says in his heart ‘forget God, I’m doing what I want.’
Click to expand...
A sinner who has confessed with contrition a particular sin has a clean slate regarding that particular sin. A sinner who justifies the sin in some way is no different from the other sinner except that they have the additional sin of pride on their conscience. The difference is two sins instead of one sin. Of course we know that for God, forgiving 40 sins is as easy as forgiving 1 sin.
 
40.png
st.jerome:
A sinner who has confessed with contrition a particular sin has a clean slate regarding that particular sin. A sinner who justifies the sin in some way is no different from the other sinner except that they have the additional sin of pride on their conscience. The difference is two sins instead of one sin. Of course we know that for God, forgiving 40 sins is as easy as forgiving 1 sin.
Click to expand...
Correct, but as Bishop Sheen used to point out, you now have 40 holes to fill.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Correct, but as Bishop Sheen used to point out, you now have 40 holes to fill.
Click to expand...
True. The simple things are not always the easy things.
 
Still you make it sound automatic. Sin,DING forgiven. Sin, DING, forgiven. Uh, no. Sins are forgiven when repented of.

Priests are instructed NOT to grant absolution if the confessor is obviously NOT repentant about his sin!

Maybe I’m just dense, but this thread seems to mean different things to different people!
 
*The *New Oxford Review has, in my opinion, misrepresented what Instruction Concerning… actually says.

Specifically, The New Oxford Review states:
The most egregious sentence is that those “who practice homosexuality” (italics added) are “profoundly respected.” So we should have profound respect for those who commit homosexual acts, which are mortal sins. By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers, and child molesters.
Click to expand...
Butthere is no such sentence! Instruction Concerning… says:
From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The *Catechism *distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Click to expand...
Regarding *acts, *it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.
Click to expand...
Deep-seated homosexual *tendencies, *which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
Click to expand...
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.
Click to expand...
The New Oxford Review has chosen to paraphrase and re-order the sentence I bolded above. The result is that the Vatican’s statement is presented thoroughly out of context. The New Oxford Review statement implies that the Vatican made an explicit statement about respecting practicing homosexuals. But that’s not what *Instruction concerning… *says. It carefully and thoroughly distinguishes between persons and acts, and indicates that persons are to be respected; immoral acts are to be abhored.

I have no idea why The New Oxford Review chose to misrepresent *Instruction concerning… *in this way. I find their position completely unpersuasive, and frankly, silly. But whether there was malice, or whether the editors of TNOR just “saw what they wanted to see,” or whether somebody just failed the competency test, I have no idea.
 
cathologos said:
*The *New Oxford Review has, in my opinion, misrepresented what Instruction Concerning… actually says.

Specifically, The New Oxford Review states:
Butthere is no such sentence! Instruction Concerning… says:

The New Oxford Review has chosen to paraphrase and re-order the sentence I bolded above. The result is that the Vatican’s statement is presented thoroughly out of context. The New Oxford Review statement implies that the Vatican made an explicit statement about respecting practicing homosexuals. But that’s not what *Instruction concerning… *says. It carefully and thoroughly distinguishes between persons and acts, and indicates that persons are to be respected; immoral acts are to be abhored.

I have no idea why The New Oxford Review chose to misrepresent *Instruction concerning… *in this way. I find their position completely unpersuasive, and frankly, silly. But whether there was malice, or whether the editors of TNOR just “saw what they wanted to see,” or whether somebody just failed the competency test, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your exegesis of the documents. I have now read them myself and reread the NOR article and am now a bit perplexed. I feel good that the Church seems to not be going off the deep end as I feared.

But I hate to think that the folks at NOR might be less than honest. There are only so many orthodox Catholic publications out there, and the NOR writers certainly have a talent for wit and words. I don’t think I’ll give up on them yet.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Well, sin should become as loathsome to us as it is to God. As we are more conformed to the image of Christ, so sin should become more repugnant. Equally, the more we are conformed to the image of Christ, the more so should we grow in love FOR the sinner, not out of some sanctimonious or pharisaical attitude (“Lord, I thank Thee that I am not a sinner such as THIS one”), but from the knowledge that it could just as easily be us in the grip of sin and despair. It isn’t impossible, but it isn’t easy, either. Nonetheless, I think we have to strive for that balance.
Click to expand...
But what good does it do to foster hatred of anything? That sounds contrary to the image of Christ you recommend. Did Christ demonstrate hatred?
 
Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV
Well, sin should become as loathsome to us as it is to God. As we are more conformed to the image of Christ, so sin should become more repugnant. Equally, the more we are conformed to the image of Christ, the more so should we grow in love FOR the sinner, …
Click to expand...
40.png
Aquarius:
But what good does it do to foster hatred of anything? That sounds contrary to the image of Christ you recommend. Did Christ demonstrate hatred?
Click to expand...
Jesus and St. Paul both support the correct attitude and disposition to sin (and the sinner) that JKirkLVNV presented:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” Matt. 5:29-30

“Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.” 1 Cor.6:18
 
40.png
Everyman:
Thank you very much for your exegesis of the documents. I have now read them myself and reread the NOR article and am now a bit perplexed. I feel good that the Church seems to not be going off the deep end as I feared.

But I hate to think that the folks at NOR might be less than honest. There are only so many orthodox Catholic publications out there, and the NOR writers certainly have a talent for wit and words. I don’t think I’ll give up on them yet.
Click to expand...
I read NOR also. And I did read their critique of the document. I don’t think they were being dishonest. I think they were challenging a particular statement. At one level, their point is valid. Obviously, when talking about sinners, the Church holds we should hate the sin and love the sinner. At least I took the Church’s statement in this light. But even so, should they go out of their way to say they have “profound respect” for those who commit homosexual acts? I know they’re trying to be sensitive. And maybe that’s warranted for this politically-charged topic. But couldn’t they have picked some other phrase? Should they or would they go out of their way to say they have “profound respect” for Adolf Hitler? Theoretically, they could also defend that on the old hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner ground…but they’d invite a whole lot of valid criticism if they did. Some things are better left unsaid.
 
40.png
miguel:
I read NOR also. And I did read their critique of the document. I don’t think they were being dishonest. I think they were challenging a particular statement. At one level, their point is valid. Obviously, when talking about sinners, the Church holds we should hate the sin and love the sinner. At least I took the Church’s statement in this light. But even so, should they go out of their way to say they have “profound respect” for those who commit homosexual acts? I know they’re trying to be sensitive. And maybe that’s warranted for this politically-charged topic. But couldn’t they have picked some other phrase? Should they or would they go out of their way to say they have “profound respect” for Adolf Hitler? Theoretically, they could also defend that on the old hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner ground…but they’d invite a whole lot of valid criticism if they did. Some things are better left unsaid.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right on. What you said is exactly what I’ve been trying to communicate the whole time on this thread.
 
cathologos said:
*The *New Oxford Review has, in my opinion, misrepresented what Instruction Concerning… actually says.

Specifically, The New Oxford Review states:
The most egregious sentence is that those "who practice homosexuality" (italics added) are “profoundly respected.”

But there is no such sentence! Instruction Concerning… says:
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.

The New Oxford Review has chosen to paraphrase and re-order the sentence I bolded above. The result is that the Vatican’s statement is presented thoroughly out of context.
Click to expand...

I think this is a bit overstated. NOR made their paraphrasing clear. The word persons in Instruction Concerning… clearly refers to **those who practise homosexuality, etc. **And those persons the Church claims to profoundly respect.

cathologos said:
The New Oxford Review statement implies that the Vatican made an explicit statement about respecting practicing homosexuals. But that’s not what *Instruction concerning… *says.
Click to expand...

Actually, Instruction concerning… does explicitly say that. That’s not the only thing it says. I’m not sure what you mean by the “NOR statement implies…” Are you saying the NOR took one statement out of context so that it could assert the document was just about respecting practicing homosexuals? If not, what are you saying?
 
40.png
Aquarius:
But what good does it do to foster hatred of anything? That sounds contrary to the image of Christ you recommend. Did Christ demonstrate hatred?
Click to expand...
I don’t think I foster hatred of anything. But, with respect, to apply what you SEEM to be saying, how then should we regard sin in general? Our Lord was fairly dead set against sin, though He, being God, was bound to know that we would struggle with it. In the Gospel, when the woman caught in adultery was dragged before Him, even though the object lesson of the story is that we ALL sin (and therefore we should take a merciful attitude toward sinners, hoping for mercy of our own sins), it cannot be denied that adultery was and is a sin, or He wouldn’t have told the woman,“Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.” He didn’t tell the Jews who brought the woman before Him,“We really need to examine the patriarchal antecedents for our teaching on sexual morality.” He didn’t say,“Leave her alone, she’s obvioiusly got psychosexual abandonment issues.” He still seems to have called a spade a spade.

I don’t think that we should treat homosexuals in any way other than the manner in which we are called to by the Church in the Catechism (and so called, by extension, by Christ). I’m not in favor of making fun of them, mocking them, deriding them. I think that’s bad and I think it grieves Christ. We’re supposed to help each other bear one another’s burdens, one another’s crosses. I also don’t think that we can ever call homosexual acts anything other than a sin.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Homosexuality (the struggle) is not a sin. The act is a sin, as well as championing the “gay” agenda.
Click to expand...
As well as the act of giving interior consent to the homosexual tendency one might feel.
 
Even those that commit mortal sins? How about murderers?
Click to expand...
“There is forgiveness to be found in every sin” - Cdnl. Cormac Murphy O’Connor.

With forgiveness, comes a respect for our fellow human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top