Is it time we welcome the gay community to ours?

[JB_Dugan]

I But if they are unrepentant, and unwilling to live Holy and Chaste lives then they are just as unwelcome as any other unrepentant sinner.

My point exactly…

Why would the gay community want to be accepted if they are unrepentant, and unwilling to live Holy and Chaste lives…???

 

[JB_Dugan]

I must have read your post wrong, because you insinuate that there is “their club” and an “our club”. If I’m not mistaken, we are the Universal Church which is open to all sinners. All people are welcome whether they are straight, gay, brown, purple or green. Until some realize that making some people feel unwelcome is not the way that the Gospels should be preached, then nothing will change.

I am not questioning whether we should welcome them or not…

I am wondering why they would want to be welcomed into a “club” , organization, or Religion that they, as a group, seem to despise???

 

[JB_Dugan]

I doubt that every Catholic in the gay community wants to be part of the CC.

In my case I wanted God back into my life. I was born a Catholic and felt that the CC was a good place to start, had I been born a Methodist I would have likely returned to a Methodist church

The Catholic Church is the BEST place to start if you really want God back in your life.

Many gays do see some in the CC as homophobic and bigots.

That is the understatement of the year…

As an individual I have seen some but see few if any at my parish. I have several close friends who are Catholic who are not bigoted or homophobic. I guess I and the homophobes will have to learn to live together. After all you can’t be loved by everyone.

I have some friends who are gay but they don’t admit it. Most of the homophobes think they are straight and…we all get along just fine.

Truthfully, I have some problems with a few of the teachings but there are many that I truly love.

Frobert, old sport, it is all or nothing. The Catholic Church is not a “cafeteria” religion. We don’t pick and choose.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

In parishes, priests know their parishioners. Parishes are not so big that priests do not know their congregations. A priest will most likely be well aware that a couple are cohabiting.

They may go to another parish. They may go separately. It is a fact that there are large parishes where priests do not know the status all of their parishioners.

It means being accepted in the way that all sinners are accepted into our Church.

One is accepted into the church by repenting and believing in the gospel. Is that what you mean?

However, gays (i.e., practicing homosexuals) may well come to church services, functions, or prayer/study groups even if they don’t repent. But they are then going to be in an atmosphere that is rather inimical to their chosen life style and behaviors–hopefully prompting them to repentance. You could mean, of course, they want to connect with the Church to change their behavioral choices. As an example, the article I cited discusses the mission of Courage to help gay people who wish to turn joyfully to a life of chastity. Incidentally you still haven’t responded to the points made in this article. Why is that?

Of course those in a state of grave sin may not receive Communion, but that applies as much to all others in a state of grave sin as it does to homosexuals., no more, no less.

Of course.

There are many cohabiting couples, divorced and remarried couples, etc. within our Church. Turning a blind eye and pretending that we, or the parish priest is not aware of the status of such people is willful self-delusion. We disapprove of their living arrangement and we do not compromise on Church teaching, but we do accept these people as part of our parish community. I cannot see why homosexual ‘couples’ are to be regarded as particularly ‘toxic’.

That may be so in some cases. Many others do not turn a blind eye. And any authoritative statement on the subject by the church would reject turning a blind eye. They all direct that scandal to the faithful given by public sin should be avoided.

Cohabiting couples, divorced and remarried couples, etc. cannot teach in Catholic schools, cannot teach in Religious Education programs, serve as lectors or Extraordinary Ministers. Neither can known practicing homosexuals. In larger parishes the pastor simply does not know the marital status of every person or couple in the pew. Neither do the parishioners. But one thing is certain, if two people of the same gender are clearly romantically involved, anybody will know their status (and simultaneously its immorality) simply by looking. And it cannot be approved or affirmed.

I do honestly think that the reason many people do regard them as being particularly unacceptable (compared to cohabiting couples, or divorced and remarried couples) is down to a “yuck” factor. I think that represents discrimination (as compared to cohabiting or divorced and remarried couples) and is contrary to Church teaching which states of homosexuals that, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.

Unjust discrimination of the kind the Catechism discusses takes place in acts, not in how something strikes us. The “yuck” factor is a sign of spiritual and psychological health given that homosexual acts are against nature, according to St. Paul as verified by biblical commentators and the Catholic moral tradition. Being revolted by homosexual intercourse which is contrary to nature and not by heterosexual intercourse which is according to nature (even if immoral in cases) is not at all discriminatory. Yet this does not render any act of hostility or act of unjust discrimination acceptable. These acts of discrimination are wrong. We hate the sin but love the sinner. But there are many human acts that we find revolting and should.

 

[Brendan_64]

Cohabiting couples, divorced and remarried couples, etc. cannot teach in Catholic schools, cannot teach in Religious Education programs

They can and do, in the UK.

To be honest, if Catholic Schools in the UK had a policy of only employing Catholics, and Catholics whose lifestyle was in accordance with the teachings of the Church, more than half the schools would have to close for lack of available staff.

That isn’t ideal by any means, but that is the reality of trying to provide Catholic education within the secular society that is the UK.

The flip side of this is that I know of non-Catholic teachers in Catholic schools, or Catholic teachers who have fallen from following the ways of the Church, being evangelised through them teaching in a Catholic school.

It’s a subject for another thread really, but in a Catholic school with an overwhelming majority of Catholic children, the majority of those children will probably only really go to a Catholic church at weddings, funerals and at Christmas (and many of them don’t even do that). For these children, the school effectively becomes the only real point of contact with their Faith, which places a big responsibility on teachers to get it right. And when so many teachers are either non-Catholics, or ‘paper-Catholics’ (because there simply aren’t enough available Catholic teachers) that poses big challenges for Catholic schools in the UK…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Cohabiting couples, divorced and remarried couples, etc. cannot teach in Catholic schools, cannot teach in Religious Education programs, serve as lectors or Extraordinary Ministers. Neither can known practicing homosexuals. In larger parishes the pastor simply does not know the marital status of every person or couple in the pew. Neither do the parishioners. **But one thing is certain, if two people of the same gender are clearly romantically involved, anybody will know their status (and simultaneously its immorality) simply by looking. ** And it cannot be approved or affirmed.

False. Being romantically involved with a person of the same sex, though sinful, is not mortally sinful. Having sex with that person is mortally sinful. You may be able to tell from looking that they’re romantically involved, but you can’t tell that they are having sex. You might be able to tell from looking that they are committing the sin of scandal, but we do not deny people communion for committing the sin of scandal.

An increasing number of gay people – not a whole lot, but a decent number – live with another person of the same sex and are companions, but are not sexually active. What would you like them to do to indicate to you that they are chaste? Would you like them to talk publicly about their sex lives? Isn’t that precisely what we complain about gay people doing?

I can imagine cases where a couple is clearly telegraphing their sexual involvement with each other in such a way that communion should be withheld. But in general I agree with Brenden, and I would add: if we don’t assume a straight couple is having sex, we shouldn’t assume a gay couple is having sex either. To say otherwise is to assume that gay people are not capable of sexual discipline.

Being revolted by homosexual intercourse which is contrary to nature and not by heterosexual intercourse which is according to nature (even if immoral in cases) is not at all discriminatory.

I agree. But, as you say, the actions that flow out of this feeling of revolt should be carefully discerned.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

They can and do, in the UK.

To be honest, if Catholic Schools in the UK had a policy of only employing Catholics, and Catholics whose lifestyle was in accordance with the teachings of the Church, more than half the schools would have to close for lack of available staff.

That isn’t ideal by any means, but that is the reality of trying to provide Catholic education within the secular society that is the UK.

The flip side of this is that I know of non-Catholic teachers in Catholic schools, or Catholic teachers who have fallen from following the ways of the Church, being evangelised through them teaching in a Catholic school.

It’s a subject for another thread really, but in a Catholic school with an overwhelming majority of Catholic children, the majority of those children will probably only really go to a Catholic church at weddings, funerals and at Christmas (and many of them don’t even do that). For these children, the school effectively becomes the only real point of contact with their Faith, which places a big responsibility on teachers to get it right. And when so many teachers are either non-Catholics, or ‘paper-Catholics’ (because there simply aren’t enough available Catholic teachers) that poses big challenges for Catholic schools in the UK…

You would know better than I about life in the UK.

 

[frobert]

The Catholic Church is the BEST place to start if you really want God back in your life.

Many gays do see some in the CC as homophobic and bigots.

That is the understatement of the year…

Just curious, why do you think this was an understatement?

 

[Corki]

False. Being romantically involved with a person of the same sex, though sinful, is not mortally sinful.

Being romantically involved with a person of the same sex, even with out sexual relations, is gravely wrong. It may or may not be mortally sinful, depending on the other conditions for mortal sin and personal culpability.

This is why “welcoming” of homosexual persons in the Church should be focused on individuals rather than couples. When you try to be welcoming of “couples”, you are encouraging, or at the least, giving tacit approval to sinful behavior.

The comparison with straight couples is flawed. First of all there is nothing wrong with heterosexual dating so there is nothing wrong about acknowledging a heterosexual couple in the Church. But most importantly, when a couple is cohabitation or is married outside the Church or is remarried without an annulment, the goal is to get the couple’s situation remedied so that they can return to the full Sacramental life of the Church. There is no corresponding goal when working with a same sex couple.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

False. Being romantically involved with a person of the same sex, though sinful, is not mortally sinful. Having sex with that person is mortally sinful. You may be able to tell from looking that they’re romantically involved, but you can’t tell that they are having sex.

We’re not talking about a man crush. We’re talking about two people of the same gender who are romantically involved. Romance ultimately wants sexual expression. Homosexual romance and the inclination toward it are morally disordered and the acts expressing it against nature. If you can see that they are romantically involved, that relationship can’t receive approval any more than any other sin or disordered inclination. Even if they aren’t yet or anymore having sexual relations (or even if one just gives them the benefit of the doubt) the romantic relationship itself is disordered. Whereas the romantic relationship of the heterosexual couple is according to nature. The issue is the nature of the attraction and relationship.

That being said, without any signs of a romantic relationship between two same gender people together at Mass certainly they should not be denied Holy Communion. More below.

You might be able to tell from looking that they are committing the sin of scandal, but we do not deny people communion for committing the sin of scandal.

But a priest can and sometimes must deny Communion lest he give scandal and thereby sin. The avoidance of scandal figures large in church law.

An increasing number of gay people – not a whole lot, but a decent number – live with another person of the same sex and are companions, but are not sexually active. What would you like them to do to indicate to you that they are chaste? Would you like them to talk publicly about their sex lives? Isn’t that precisely what we complain about gay people doing?

Well first of all, nobody, heterosexual or homosexual, should put themselves in the occasion of sin. You know as well as I do the coy, sophomoric question of high school students through young adults: “But why is it wrong if we just live together and don’t ‘do anything?’” My usual response is, “If you can do that, you need a psychologist not Confession.”

If you are talking about an older heterosexual couples who live together outside of marriage, they can meet with the priest and if they commit to living as “brother and sister” they are admitted to Communion and receive it worthily.

The problem with an obvious homosexual couple is that they are in a disordered romantic relationship and that cannot be condoned.

Now there are college roommates and working people who have same gender roommates without any SSAs or romantic involvement. No one can or should deny them Communion.

So if people are just roommates without any obvious romantic leanings, how would one know if they are gay or not? and sexually active or not? No one thinks bunkmates in the military are gay, nor should they.

I think the questions you raise above are non-issues when one does not try to push the boundaries and look for at least tacit public affirmation of homosexual romance and the inclination that leads to it.

I can imagine cases where a couple is clearly telegraphing their sexual involvement with each other in such a way that communion should be withheld. But in general I agree with Brenden, and I would add: if we don’t assume a straight couple is having sex, we shouldn’t assume a gay couple is having sex either. To say otherwise is to assume that gay people are not capable of sexual discipline.

The issue is affirming a disordered romantic relationship.

I agree. But, as you say, the actions that flow out of this feeling of revolt should be carefully discerned.

True.

 

[Usige]

In parishes, priests know their parishioners. Parishes are not so big that priests do not know their congregations. A priest will most likely be well aware that a couple are cohabiting.

Not sure about your parish, but there are more than 4,000 people in my parish. Our two priest don’t seem to know me from Tom and my wife and I are very involved in marriage prep and NFP training. We are well known to the deacons and parish secretary, but the priests? Not so much. The assumption that priest know every couple is most certainly not the case in my area.

It means being accepted in the way that all sinners are accepted into our Church. Of course those in a state of grave sin may not receive Communion, but that applies as much to all others in a state of grave sin as it does to homosexuals., no more, no less.

There are many cohabiting couples, divorced and remarried couples, etc. within our Church. Turning a blind eye and pretending that we, or the parish priest is not aware of the status of such people is willful self-delusion. We disapprove of their living arrangement and we do not compromise on Church teaching, but we do accept these people as part of our parish community. I cannot see why homosexual ‘couples’ are to be regarded as particularly ‘toxic’.

I do honestly think that the reason many people do regard them as being particularly unacceptable (compared to cohabiting couples, or divorced and remarried couples) is down to a “yuck” factor. I think that represents discrimination (as compared to cohabiting or divorced and remarried couples) and is contrary to Church teaching which states of homosexuals that, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.

I fully agree that we should welcome all sinners, but we should not go out of our way to not offend them.

I think one of the reason that cohabitating heterosexuals are less “discriminated against” is that there is hope that their relationship can be brought into conformance with divine law (i.e. that they will marry). In the case of practicing homosexuals there is no hope for their relationship to conform to divine law. If we assume the best about people then when I see a man and woman kiss and hold hands I will assume they are married (I know naive), but what is the best case assumption I can make about two men that kiss and hold hands?

As an FYI, I have an aversion to cohabitating and divorced/remarried heterosexual couples too. When doing marriage prep we often have couples with children that have been living together for a while that might have just got an annulment. They are so happy and talk about how blessed their families are to be finally able to marry in the Church. I want to bang their heads together and say “Hello, McFly. Do you know what adultery and fornication are?” At best I can tell them what the church teaches about fornication, adultery and receiving the sacraments in a state of sin. BUT… I try to console myself that they are at least on the road to resolving their sinful behavior.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think one of the reason that cohabitating heterosexuals are less “discriminated against” is that there is hope that their relationship can be brought into conformance with divine law (i.e. that they will marry). In the case of practicing homosexuals there is no hope for their relationship to conform to divine law.

Yes, there is. They could simply become close friends, without a sexual relationship. That is a perfectly godly thing to do.

If we assume the best about people then when I see a man and woman kiss and hold hands I will assume they are married (I know naive), but what is the best case assumption I can make about two men that kiss and hold hands?

That they’re Russian?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Being romantically involved with a person of the same sex, even with out sexual relations, is gravely wrong. It may or may not be mortally sinful, depending on the other conditions for mortal sin and personal culpability.

This is why “welcoming” of homosexual persons in the Church should be focused on individuals rather than couples. When you try to be welcoming of “couples”, you are encouraging, or at the least, giving tacit approval to sinful behavior.

The comparison with straight couples is flawed. First of all there is nothing wrong with heterosexual dating so there is nothing wrong about acknowledging a heterosexual couple in the Church. But most importantly, when a couple is cohabitation or is married outside the Church or is remarried without an annulment, the goal is to get the couple’s situation remedied so that they can return to the full Sacramental life of the Church. There is no corresponding goal when working with a same sex couple.

Your post shows very little concern for evangelizing gay people. If you think that romantic relationships between people of the same sex are immoral, even apart from sexual contact, then you should be encouraging people to stop such relationships. You do not encourage them to stop when you deny them communion. If you have no reason to believe they are committing a mortal sin, you risk alienating them from the Church entirely by such an action. You tacitly encourage them to continue in their sin.

And the goal working with a same-sex couple is exactly the same: it is to get the couple’s situation remedied so that they can return to fullness of life in God’s church. In their case, this means friendship or separation, not marriage. But often straight couples become friends or separate, too, and the Church has no problem with those outcomes.

 

[Usige]

Yes, there is. They could simply become close friends, without a sexual relationship. That is a perfectly godly thing to do.

At which point they would no longer be practicing homosexuals. I would still say that even a non sexual romantic relationship is disordered if not exactly sinful.

That they’re Russian?

Nope. I work with many Russians and while they (very rarely) kiss on the cheek, I have never seen any of them hold hands or kiss on the mouth.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We’re not talking about a man crush. We’re talking about two people of the same gender who are romantically involved. Romance ultimately wants sexual expression.

I disagree. I think you’re confusing cultural norms for universal truths. But even if you’re right, wanting sexual expression in a relationship puts you in the near occasion of mortal sin, but it does not mean you have mortally sinned.

Even if they aren’t yet or anymore having sexual relations (or even if one just gives them the benefit of the doubt) the romantic relationship itself is disordered. Whereas the romantic relationship of the heterosexual couple is according to nature. The issue is the nature of the attraction and relationship.

I’m fine with all of this. But, when it comes to denying communion, the issue is not the nature of the attraction; it is the state of the person’s soul.

But a priest can and sometimes must deny Communion lest he give scandal and thereby sin. The avoidance of scandal figures large in church law.

Suppose that most people in the Church believe that people who dress like Goths are evil sexual perverts. Does this make it appropriate to deny a teenager wearing black clothes and dark eyeliner communion? In this case, you have the appearance of scandal, without scandal itself. In order for scandal to actually occur, the beliefs of the congregation need to be correct.

If a congregation believes that two gay men who go to Church together are necessarily in a state of mortal sin, then the congregation needs to be educated. The two gay men do not need to penalized for going to church together. If people are scandalized by things that are not scandalous, that is their problem.

Well first of all, nobody, heterosexual or homosexual, should put themselves in the occasion of sin.

Agreed. But it is not a mortal sin to put oneself in the occasion of sin.

The problem with an obvious homosexual couple is that they are in a disordered romantic relationship and that cannot be condoned.

And we will encourage them to repent by ostracizing them or assuming that they are sexually active?

I think the questions you raise above are non-issues when one does not try to push the boundaries and look for at least tacit public affirmation of homosexual romance and the inclination that leads to it.

Well, that’s not what I’m trying to do. I am concerned with evangelizing gay people – not by distorting the truth about sin, but by extending Christ’s mercy. I care very deeply about that issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Nope. I work with many Russians and while they (very rarely) kiss on the cheek, I have never seen any of them hold hands or kiss on the mouth.

It’s just the gymnasts then?

 

[Usige]

It’s just the gymnasts then?

I can’t say since I don’t know any Russian gymnasts. All I know is that the engineers, programmer, and DBAs that I work with don’t go around holding hands or kissing friends on the mouth. Heck I don’t think I’ve ever seen any of them make a PDA with their spouses. I thought one of the women had brought her brother to dinner once because she never stood closer than 2 feet next to him. Only half way through did I figure out it was her husband when they started to talk about their children.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Your post shows very little concern for evangelizing gay people. If you think that romantic relationships between people of the same sex are immoral, even apart from sexual contact, then you should be encouraging people to stop such relationships. You do not encourage them to stop when you deny them communion. If you have no reason to believe they are committing a mortal sin, you risk alienating them from the Church entirely by such an action. You tacitly encourage them to continue in their sin.

And the goal working with a same-sex couple is exactly the same: it is to get the couple’s situation remedied so that they can return to fullness of life in God’s church. In their case, this means friendship or separation, not marriage. But often straight couples become friends or separate, too, and the Church has no problem with those outcomes.

Everyone who is in mortal sin should be denied communion. The difference is that we should deny ourselves unless our sin is somehow “public” in nature and then a priest can deny. But every Catholic should be taught the rules for reception of our Lord or else we are inviting them to sin further. While it would not be the place of any lay Catholic to physically stop or deny someone from receiving our Lord, we can and should be vocal and educational on who may receive it and why. Which may include the phrase: Practicing homosexuals may not receive the Lord in the Eucharist. Is saying that denying someone? Not physically but we are telling someone they can’t do something. My guess is that somebody will take offence. Just as they did when Jesus said hard teachings. But that does not mean we run after them saying we didn’t mean it. But rather we can lead them where we should lead our loved ones and ourselves when we sin. To the confessional. A sacrament that is too often forgotten. I don’t hear too many homosexuals complaining that the door to the confessional was closed to them because of their lifestyle.

 

[Captain_America]

Your post shows very little concern for evangelizing gay people. If you think that romantic relationships between people of the same sex are immoral, even apart from sexual contact, then you should be encouraging people to stop such relationships. You do not encourage them to stop when you deny them communion. If you have no reason to believe they are committing a mortal sin, you risk alienating them from the Church entirely by such an action. You tacitly encourage them to continue in their sin.

And the goal working with a same-sex couple is exactly the same: it is to get the couple’s situation remedied so that they can return to fullness of life in God’s church. In their case, this means friendship or separation, not marriage. But often straight couples become friends or separate, too, and the Church has no problem with those outcomes.

Hard to generalize, eh?

I would think that for some people, when the rubber hits the road, and being denied communion is a physical proof or sign of their problem, then for some it may well act as a positive force in their lives.

Actually, for me this is the value of confession. My sin loses the ambiguity entirely once I talk of it; it’s less a mental fabrication.

I wouldn’t be so quick to say denial of communion has no positive effect.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hard to generalize, eh?

I would think that for some people, when the rubber hits the road, and being denied communion is a physical proof or sign of their problem, then for some it may well act as a positive force in their lives.

Actually, for me this is the value of confession. My sin loses the ambiguity entirely once I talk of it; it’s less a mental fabrication.

I wouldn’t be so quick to say denial of communion has no positive effect.

But my entire point is that we don’t know that these people are committing mortal sin. Presumptuously accusing someone does not tend to bring them to Christ.