Is it time we welcome the gay community to ours?

[Corki]

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.

I realize this thread has flown along while I was at work, but I didn’t want to leave this comment unanswered.

1. How is what I said showing a lack of concern? I am very concerned although I wouldn’t call it evangelizing. The topic of this thread is welcoming, not evangelizing.
2. In your earlier comment, which I was addressing here, you indicated that romantic relationships might be sinful but not mortally sinful. On what basis would they be sinful if not for immorality?
3. I never mentioned Communion – you brought that up. I said that this was a mater for the priest to deal with in private conversation.
4. The Church doesn’t deny Communion, in any case. But a couple who is sinning should not present themselves for Communion. As the Pope said recently, when referring to the divorced and remarried, it’s not a sanction or a punishment. It’s a recognition that something is missing in the person’s relationship to the Church.
5. As for the same-sex couple’s situation, there is no regularization that is possible for the couple, only for the individuals. The focus should be on the individuals. With a cohabiting couple or a couple in a civil marriage, a remedy is possible, though not, as you point out, the only possibility.

 

[SMGS127]

For a group to consider a specific teaching or the Church to be “dumb” is to diminish the teaching authority of the Church. Add to that the rejection of Papal Infallibility and I am back to my original question…why would the gay community REMOTELY want to be welcomed by our Church???

We still have to try. Any non-Catholic or "ex-"Catholic or heterodox Catholic rejects papal infallibility, yet we don’t only evangelize to orthodox, devout Catholics right? I can’t tell you how many heterodox Catholics I know who support everything except birth control. So I try to help them understand why we teach what we teach on birth control to bring them back to orthodoxy.

To be fair, I used to be an active lesbian, and yes I viewed the Church’s teaching on gay “marriage” to be dumb and I rejected papal infallibility. And look at me now. We’re not suggesting that the whole community will accept, but every soul brought to a state of grace means something, right?.

I don’t need a bible or even a Magisterium to tell me that somethings are basically un-natural or disordered. That can be obvious to any reasonable person.

Are you sure you would feel that way if you only had attractions to members of the same sex and almost every single person in your life persecuted for it? I ran the heck away from religion when I was a teenager, because I thought it told me I didn’t exist, that my attractions didn’t exist, that I was a bad person. Bad catechesis isn’t just being lackadaisical on morals; it can also involve being way too harsh in language. This is what Pope Francis means when he says not to judge gay people who seek to follow Christ. Obviously we should be firm in our morals, but we should still show true and perfect love to them as human beings with full dignity of life. Many Catholics and CERTAINLY many Protestants do not follow this, using terrible language to describe both those with SSAs and those who act upon them.

“They still seek out Christ, but they don’t understand why their attractions are wrong,”

Could it be that they simply do not want to accept the truth?

Perhaps, but they don’t get much help when they are told that they don’t exist by conservative Protestant family members who don’t believe in SSAs or when they are cursed as f****ts or worse by religious people or when Mormon families are required by their religion to kick them out of their homes as young teenagers if they come out. Why should they believe Catholics are any different? Even many who grow up in Catholic communities do not grow up in communities of love and comfort, unfortunately. As I said, not many people can adequately explain the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and some don’t even try, choosing instead to hurl insults and attacks at gay people.

I’m not looking for a fight. My observations of the actions of the gay community are not false. My wish is that some prominent gay person or gay supporter would come out and condemn the anti-Catholic actions of those few (if they really are just a few).

You observe the actions of a small minority. Think about it this way. When individual members of the Tea Party shout out racist comments, it gets huge media attention. When the rest of the Tea Party comes out and rolls their eyes and tries to explain, no one cares and they don’t get any airtime. Why do you expect the gay community to be treated any differently? The media wants ratings; portraying the gay community as provocative gets those. Showing festivals of gay people listening quietly to live music while fully dressed in a park does not. Heck, even searching Google Images for “LGBT pride festivals” pulls up a ton of provocative images of parades but only one or two of actual festivals.

Here is an example from a festival:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd....51x315/1276989_569573266423465_52165025_o.jpg

How many crazy people holding “I hate religion” signs in 3 pieces of leather do you see?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Romance ultimately wanting sexual expression is not a cultural convention: it is part of human nature. To choose to pursue a romantic relationship that wants or tends toward sexual acts that are contrary to nature is a seriously sinful act and cannot be condoned by the Church.

What of pursuing a romantic relationship that does not want or tend toward sexual acts?

I ask the question because what you’re saying seems to suggest that all romantic feelings are, if only on some unconscious level, directed toward genital sexual expression. And I’m not sure I buy that. Do we feel romantic feelings about a person or about an act? Do we fall in love with a person or with an act? It seems to me that the telos of romance need not be construed as any given sexual act, but as a quality of relationship with a particular person. The sexual act, when it is licit, may be instrumental in developing the growing unity of a couple who are called to marriage, but it is not essential or indispensable to that unity. Why then must it be indispensable or essential to all romance, to all people, or to all people’s conceptions of attraction or of eros?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Havard]

How many crazy people holding “I hate religion” signs in 3 pieces of leather do you see?

None but the bear in the red leotard made me LOL.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

None but the bear in the red leotard made me LOL.

I didn’t know what thread I had opened and looked for a literal bear. "There ain’t no bears…"

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t buy that as an answer.

I am afraid I see more of an agenda of acceptance.

You may want to reconsider. I have met few same-sex attracted people who are actually serious about having a conversation about religion and same-sex attraction who are not also expert (relative to the average churchgoer, at any rate) in what words like malakoi, arsenokoitai or bdelygma might mean.

For instance, if you were to quote I Corinthians 6 in a translation that uses the word “homosexual” to one of these same-sex attracted folks, they would likely dismiss outright whatever else you might have to say as not worth their time and would likely dismiss you as well as having no idea of what you were talking about. Why? Because attributing our understanding of sexuality, of heterosexuality and homosexuality–an understanding, by the way, that developed after the late 19th Century when those words were coined–is ahistorical and unscholarly: it says more about someone’s agenda as a translator (as well as the agenda or academic carelessness [which is worse?] of the person quoting that translation) than about thoughtfulness or scholarship or any attempt to understand what the Greek is actually saying and what Paul’s argument actually is.

That same same-sex attracted person, however, would be hard pressed to deny that the Bible does not smile upon some sexual acts, including penetrative sex between two men. And this is where the catechetical teaching, properly understood, comes into play: the teaching affirms the distinction between inclination and act that the misuse of the word “homosexual” in a translation of I Corinthians 6 tends to obscure.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Havard]

I didn’t know what thread I had opened and looked for a literal bear. "There ain’t no bears…"

Haha, those bears shouldn’t be wearing leotards either.

 

[JimG]

First of all, I am a woman.

Second of all, you asked about the community. I gave you the opinion by the actively gay community that religious views on gay marriage are dumb. Am I actively gay? No. Do I think religious views on gay “marriage” are dumb? No, I wholeheartedly support the Church on every issue. But do actively gay people think that Church teaching is misguided because they don’t believe in papal infallibility and see it as based off of mistranslations of original Greek text in the New Testament? Yes. That is not the same as them thinking it is a “dumb” Church or even a “dumb” religion. But they do think the policy is dumb, by and large.

Why? Because, as actively gay people, they see no DIFFERENCE between their relationships and those of heterosexuals outside the genders of the individuals involved. So they see no reason to bar gay relationships from becoming marriage. They also see no reason for Christians to oppose it, because there is a theologically sound argument that every NT reference to homosexuality is actually a mistranslation of the word pederasty, which is a different concept.

Are these Catholic arguments? Of course not. But most actively gay people are not devout Catholics for obvious reasons; as I said, the Christians in the gay community are often in “gay-affirming” Protestant churches. They still seek out Christ, but they don’t understand why their attractions are wrong, and many, MANY people completely fail in their jobs of explaining in a way that isn’t essentially “because the Bible tells me so” (a horrible evangelization tactic, by the way).

I am a devout Catholic and I am loyal to the Magisterium. Don’t look for a fight where there is none, just because I dismissed your stereotypes of the gay community as completely false.

The bolded part is the part that has always puzzled me. No difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships? It seems to say that the fact that human beings are comprised of men and women is just some accidental factor without meaning. The difference, of course, is that an opposite sex relationship can be marital, and a same sex relationship can never be marital. It is the very sexual complementarity of the sexes that makes a conjugal relationship possible, It is sexual complementarity that makes marriage possible.

 

[SMGS127]

The bolded part is the part that has always puzzled me. No difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships? It seems to say that the fact that human beings are comprised of men and women is just some accidental factor without meaning. The difference, of course, is that an opposite sex relationship can be marital, and a same sex relationship can never be marital. It is the very sexual complementarity of the sexes that makes a conjugal relationship possible, It is sexual complementarity that makes marriage possible.

Well the way they see it is an evolutionary model. Many LGBT people have stipulated that homosexual attraction evolved out of a population control model. Others have stipulated that it resulted in accidental exposure to hormones in-utero, but that since they can have that “full” relationship with a member of the same sex but not with a member of the opposite sex, it’s only most natural for them to do that. You’re thinking of it from a very Catholic perspective that most LGBT people do not have. Even LGBT Christians view it as this world being a temporal punishment, but that faith in Christ alone will save everyone, and that they should try to have as fulfilling a life on Earth as they can while serving Christ in charity. And of course, LGBT members of other religions or no religions have much, much different world views on what “marriage” means.

 

[Catholic13]

They also see no reason for Christians to oppose it, because there is a theologically sound argument that every NT reference to homosexuality is actually a mistranslation of the word pederasty, which is a different concept.

IQUOTE]

That argument never holds any water because all sex outside of marriage is strictly condemned. God condemned all sex outside of marriage but allows gay sex?

 

[SMGS127]

That argument never holds any water because all sex outside of marriage is strictly condemned. God condemned all sex outside of marriage but allows gay sex?

No, they’re arguing that homosexuality as a whole isn’t condemned in those passages, so if they get married to each other, they can have licit sex just as any heterosexual couple can have licit sex once married. It’s just that they believe same-sex “marriages” to be real.

Obviously they’re wrong about the validity of same-sex “marriages,” but that doesn’t mean that the argument wouldn’t hold theological weight in Protestant circles without Tradition to correct them.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Obviously they’re wrong about the validity of same-sex “marriages,” but that doesn’t mean that the argument wouldn’t hold theological weight in Protestant circles without Tradition to correct them.

Oh, I don’t know. My understanding is that they misread Romans 1 pretty dramatically. I don’t think Romans 1 can sustain an interpretation that permits sex between two men.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Well, then, suppose that the gay couple didn’t obviously appear to be romantically involved, but they sat with each other and were reasonably affectionate. (I take it that two men can be affectionate without romance, no?) Some people in the church assume that they are romantically and sexually involved. This is not a case of scandal, right? Though it is definitely a case of *perceived *scandal.

If two gay guys conducted themselves like good friends who are guys, how would anyone including the priest know. If they express their affection such that it betrays romantic attraction, then we have a romantically involved couple or flirtation. That would be a public statement. If they told the priest they were gay and romantically involved (not just friends), he would have to tell them they cannot receive Holy Communion no matter how they are publically seen in church alone or together. I’ve been speaking and said many times I was considering a romantically-involved couple who have revealed it to the priest or who are obviously so.

I suppose not, if you can show me where the Church teaches that such a romantic relationship is, in itself, mortally sinful.

In the CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 2003 “clear and emphatic opposition [to same sex marriage] is a duty” and “One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” “all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions.” “When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.” “When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth."

Naming it “gravely immoral” and proscribing “any kind of formal cooperation” show the seriousness of the matter.

You’ve got me wrong. I want the Church to be able to effectively evangelize anyone who comes in the doors. Since I have SSA, I feel particularly strongly about evangelizing gay people. And I don’t feel that it does anyone a favor for us to presume that a couple of gay individuals who come to a Catholic church are sexually active (or romantically involved).

I admire your fidelity and courage in your struggle. I favor an approach like this this for ministry to Catholics struggling with SSAs or who were active in a gay lifestyle and seeking to leave.

It’s not. I’d be happy for them to show up on their own, or in groups of 20, or wearing tuxedos with golden sequins. I don’t care how they get there, but I’m sick of Catholics making them feel unwelcome. Why is it so important to you to keep gay couples out of church?

You mean an obviously romantically involved gay couple feels that the choice to pursue and display this relationship is not morally acceptable in the church and so they feel unwelcomed when they show up together? I suppose they would. As long as they make that choice I can’t see how they wouldn’t.

We’re talking about Catholics who know what the faith is . . . admittedly in varying degrees. Secondly, I never said gay couples (i.e., romantically involved) should be thrown out of Church. I said their status as a romantically-involved couple is against nature and the moral teaching of the Church and that cannot be recognized or condoned by the Church. (I guess that makes them feel unwelcomed.) If a priest knows that they are pursuing a romantic relationship, he cannot approve it and must tell them to refrain from receiving Communion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In the CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 2003 “clear and emphatic opposition [to same sex marriage] is a duty” and “One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” “all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions.” “When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.” “When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth."

Naming it “gravely immoral” and proscribing “any kind of formal cooperation” show the seriousness of the matter.

Once again, you have a different understanding of romance than I do. I take it for granted that people can be romantically involved without wanting sex or marriage. I don’t think this is common in modern America, but it’s been more common, historically. So Church teaching about gay marriage doesn’t seem applicable, for me.

I’m not too insistent on the point, however. Most romantically involved gay couples are not chaste, by any means.

 

[SMGS127]

Oh, I don’t know. My understanding is that they misread Romans 1 pretty dramatically. I don’t think Romans 1 can sustain an interpretation that permits sex between two men.

I would agree with you. If someone had an interest in justifying being both Protestant and actively gay, they’d probably suggest St. Paul was still referring specifically to calamites. Romans 1:26-27 is probably the hardest argument for a Protestant theologian trying to “prove” homosexuality isn’t a sin though.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would agree with you. If someone had an interest in justifying being both Protestant and actively gay, they’d probably suggest St. Paul was still referring specifically to calamites. Romans 1:26-27 is probably the hardest argument for a Protestant theologian trying to “prove” homosexuality isn’t a sin though.

Just between us – – I just love to watch people do the verbal acrobatics involved in claiming that Paul is talking about people acting against their own natures (as if Paul’s talking about heterosexuals “going gay”) as opposed to people acting sexually against nature, as such. The whole thing imports a notion of homosexuality and heterosexuality on a culture that had no such categories.

 

[JimG]

Well the way they see it is an evolutionary model. Many LGBT people have stipulated that homosexual attraction evolved out of a population control model. Others have stipulated that it resulted in accidental exposure to hormones in-utero, but that since they can have that “full” relationship with a member of the same sex but not with a member of the opposite sex, it’s only most natural for them to do that. You’re thinking of it from a very Catholic perspective that most LGBT people do not have. Even LGBT Christians view it as this world being a temporal punishment, but that faith in Christ alone will save everyone, and that they should try to have as fulfilling a life on Earth as they can while serving Christ in charity. And of course, LGBT members of other religions or no religions have much, much different world views on what “marriage” means.

No doubt I am thinking of it from a Catholic perspective, but mainly I am thinking of it from the perspective of the nature of man and woman, whose reproductive systems are obviously complementary. The natural perspective precedes the religious perspective. In fact, one hates to call it a “perspective” at all. It’s the way that human beings are made. Man and woman together can be marital. That’s been the ‘perspective’ pretty much of human history.

 

[JB_Dugan]

We still have to try. Any non-Catholic or "ex-"Catholic or heterodox Catholic rejects papal infallibility, yet we don’t only evangelize to orthodox, devout Catholics right? I can’t tell you how many heterodox Catholics I know who support everything except birth control. So I try to help them understand why we teach what we teach on birth control to bring them back to orthodoxy.

Yes, yes, we have to try, and yes, yes, we should try to bring them back to orthodoxy…
But (relating back to my original question) I just don’t see the whole gay community having any desire to join us.

To be fair, I used to be an active lesbian, and yes I viewed the Church’s teaching on gay “marriage” to be dumb and I rejected papal infallibility. And look at me now. We’re not suggesting that the whole community will accept, but every soul brought to a state of grace means something, right?.

Yes, every soul means something. The owner of the soul has to want to join our club and agree to the rules.

Are you sure you would feel that way if you only had attractions to members of the same sex and almost every single person in your life persecuted for it? I ran the heck away from religion when I was a teenager, because I thought it told me I didn’t exist, that my attractions didn’t exist, that I was a bad person. Bad catechesis isn’t just being lackadaisical on morals; it can also involve being way too harsh in language. This is what Pope Francis means when he says not to judge gay people who seek to follow Christ. Obviously we should be firm in our morals, but we should still show true and perfect love to them as human beings with full dignity of life. Many Catholics and CERTAINLY many Protestants do not follow this, using terrible language to describe both those with SSAs and those who act upon them.

I have no concept of what it is like to be sexually attracted to a person of the same sex.
I’m sorry you had a problem with your faith. Maybe it was bad catechesis or religious education…or whatever. But I am glad you got your act together…for your own spiritual well being.

Perhaps, but they don’t get much help when they are told that they don’t exist by conservative Protestant family members who don’t believe in SSAs or when they are cursed as f****ts or worse by religious people or when Mormon families are required by their religion to kick them out of their homes as young teenagers if they come out. Why should they believe Catholics are any different? Even many who grow up in Catholic communities do not grow up in communities of love and comfort, unfortunately. As I said, not many people can adequately explain the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and some don’t even try, choosing instead to hurl insults and attacks at gay people.

Yes, it is terrible the way some are treated by other religions. And yes no one should be insulted.
I can’t understand why you say that “not many people can adequately explain the Church’s teaching on homosexuality”.
There have been countless posts right here on this forum CLEARLY explaining the Church’s teachings on homosexuality as well as other subjects. I think if someone really wanted to know…they could be enlightened very quickly and accurately. I am getting the feeling that those who don’t understand the teachings simply don’t want to accept them and are claiming ignorance of misunderstanding…or worse…they expect the Church to change.

You observe the actions of a small minority. Think about it this way. When individual members of the Tea Party shout out racist comments, it gets huge media attention. When the rest of the Tea Party comes out and rolls their eyes and tries to explain, no one cares and they don’t get any airtime. Why do you expect the gay community to be treated any differently? The media wants ratings; portraying the gay community as provocative gets those. Showing festivals of gay people listening quietly to live music while fully dressed in a park does not. Heck, even searching Google Images for “LGBT pride festivals” pulls up a ton of provocative images of parades but only one or two of actual festivals.

Here is an example from a festival:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd....51x315/1276989_569573266423465_52165025_o.jpg

How many crazy people holding “I hate religion” signs in 3 pieces of leather do you see?

I agree with you here. The media does like sensationalism and anything peaceful is boring.
That’s not fair.

I want to thank you for taking so much of your time to explain some things to me…but I still do not have an answer to my question from you or anyone else…

As one who was an active lesbian, you could give me a straight answer.

Why would the gay community WANT to be welcomed into ours?

 

[wcknight]

Some folks in the gay community already are in our community as well. I see some gay folks at mass nearly every week. I do not think gay marriage will ever be accepted by the Church no matter how many states pass it. What I do see is some gay couple(s) suing the Church for discrimination.

I think there are gay folks who want to remain in the Church but can not or will not abide by its rules against gay marriage or gay relations. It is a tough dilemma that they face. I could not imagine being with my wife and not being able to express our affection for each other and I can not imagine leaving my faith behind either.

I have a gay niece and she left the Church long ago… I pray she finds her way home.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

If a person has no objections to your catechizing then it is ok otherwise some might consider it rude and unchristian.

If one were catechizing another, and they intentionally omitted a truth because they were afraid of offending, this would constitute a sin of omission, and if the catechumen committed sin because of it, it would be extremely grave. It is actually considered a spiritual work of mercy to instruct someone who is ignorant in a charitable way. If the catechumen becomes offended because they persist in sin, the fault is theirs.