Is it time we welcome the gay community to ours?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You seem to assume that homosexuals are only interested in having gay sex all the time. That’s just utterly false. Heterosexuals are open to teachings that involve chastity – why wouldn’t homosexuals be?.

Every single homosexual I have ever known has wanted and intended to engage in homosexual sex at one time in their lives. And in my younger days I was pretty involved with the gay world. And many of these young men had a disdain but also a interest in spirituality or religion. I witnessed people engaging in acts and going to Church or Mass the next day. But here is the thing, the idea of “welcoming” someone who fully intends on keeping to their sin, whatever the sin is, is false evangelization. And we need to be fully honest to not just Catholics who may suffer SSA but also those who might convert. The homosexual identity for may homosexuals is linked in the idea of unnatural sex and relationships. But when someone points this out. They are marginalized as uncompassionate and unwelcoming. There is a HUGE disconnect here with this particular group of people who struggle with a sin.
We also may be culpable in someone else’s sin by purposefully NOT emphasizing the redemptive process and the evil of sin.
If we plan on being welcoming and nice to the point of compromising God’s law, we are doing them no favors and by coming into our parishes, we could actually be making them more guilty.

We MUST NOT compromise God and His Sacrifice and His path to salvation on the narrow road by telling people that the narrow road is easy and not really necessary.

Confession contrition and communion, can only be attained with true turning from one’s sin. And that is not an easy task. But it cannot be made harder by false ideas of holiness and salvation.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not really a practical comparison, rapists are violent criminals. Being gay doesn’t violate secular law, and is not violent.

But acting on gay sex can violate secular law (though secular law has no bearing on this issue) More importantly it is violent. In the most basic sense Male homosexual sex is an act of violence. Without going where we should not go, at it’s most basic level, it is violent, it is just that two people are agreeing to the violence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Every single homosexual I have ever known has wanted and intended to engage in homosexual sex at one time in their lives. And in my younger days I was pretty involved with the gay world. And many of these young men had a disdain but also a interest in spirituality or religion. I witnessed people engaging in acts and going to Church or Mass the next day. But here is the thing, the idea of “welcoming” someone who fully intends on keeping to their sin, whatever the sin is, is false evangelization.

We welcome masturbators like that to Church every day. The only reason not to welcome a person to Church is that this person is profaning the Church in some way – example: the moneychangers at the temple. (So, for example, if a couple of any genders is making out in church, they are not welcome there). There is simply no other Scriptural reason to deny someone entrance to the Church. And if we allow them to enter, we treat them lovingly and respectfully. (Once we have a relationship with them, we can try to witness to them about how to change their lives, if they are living in sin. But we can’t start with this).

Of course, communion is another matter. I do think you can be welcoming without giving someone communion. But I also think you have to refrain from presumptuous action in withholding communion.

And we need to be fully honest to not just Catholics who may suffer SSA but also those who might convert. The homosexual identity for may homosexuals is linked in the idea of unnatural sex and relationships. But when someone points this out. They are marginalized as uncompassionate and unwelcoming.

Can you explain to me how this connection between unnatural sex and the homosexual identity means that we should treat homosexuals differently from any other sinner?

We also may be culpable in someone else’s sin by purposefully NOT emphasizing the redemptive process and the evil of sin.

Once again, this assumes a prior relationship. Jesus did not go around telling people their sin unless he first established a relationship with them. And, in our case, we can never convict anyone else of sin without first acknowledging our own sin.

We MUST NOT compromise God and His Sacrifice and His path to salvation on the narrow road by telling people that the narrow road is easy and not really necessary.

This is why we should publicly be proclaiming the truth of the gospel – not by railing against gay people, but by (in our homilies) repeating Paul’s words condemning homosexual activity and teaching very clearly the theology of the body. We should do this publicly, and in the context of friendships – otherwise we should refrain from comment (unless someone who claims to be a Catholic is sinning seriously right in front of us).

 

[Catolico65]

Once again, this assumes a prior relationship. Jesus did not go around telling people their sin unless he first established a relationship with them

NOT TRUE!

And, in our case, we can never convict anyone else of sin without first acknowledging our own sin.

This is a very common tactic to shut up Christians. Well I got news for you buddy I am a sinner and still sin. Homosexuals need to repent just like me.

This is why we should publicly be proclaiming the truth of the gospel – not by railing against gay people, but by (in our homilies) repeating Paul’s words condemning homosexual activity and teaching very clearly the theology of the body. We should do this publicly, and in the context of friendships – otherwise we should refrain from comment (unless someone who claims to be a Catholic is sinning seriously right in front of us).

The Gospel is incomplete without talking about sin.

Furthermore, a person that is a decided homosexual is corrupt at heart per St. Paul and the last thing we need to is omit the need to repent.

Therefore, proclaiming only half of the Gospel, the salvation part, will not help the homosexual person because it omits the very important part of repentance. Repentance is a very necessary part for the homosexual in that they generally justify their actions as natural and are also vain at heart (per the Gospel).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Originally Posted by Prodigal_Son
Once again, this assumes a prior relationship. Jesus did not go around telling people their sin unless he first established a relationship with them.

NOT TRUE!

Please cite for me a case in the Gospels where Jesus told a particular person their particular sin, and he did not already have a relationship with that person. The only case I can think of pertains to the sin of the Pharisees, but I think that Jesus did actually have a close relationship with the Pharisees.

Jesus walked around telling people not to sin, publicly. And with some people, like the woman at the well, he spoke very directly to people about their sins – but he formed a relationship with her first.

This is a very common tactic to shut up Christians. Well I got news for you buddy I am a sinner and still sin. Homosexuals need to repent just like me.

You clearly have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m talking about sitting down with a person and sharing deeply, from the heart, about your own struggle with sin – and this can lower another person’s defenses to talk about their own sins. St. Paul did this. The saints did this. It is not a tactic to shut Christians up. It is a tactic to spread the gospel.

The Gospel is incomplete without talking about sin.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Furthermore, a person that is a decided homosexual is corrupt at heart per St. Paul and the last thing we need to is omit the need to repent.

What sin does not reveal a corrupt heart?

And, if you read my words, instead of assuming I am some liberal quack, you will see that I affirm the need for people to repent.

Therefore, proclaiming only half of the Gospel, the salvation part, will not help the homosexual person because it omits the very important part of repentance. Repentance is a very necessary part for the homosexual in that they generally justify their actions as natural and are also vain at heart (per the Gospel).

This is true of all sinners. Gossip, fornication, revenge, murder, adultery, masturbation – all these things are perfectly natural, through the eyes of the flesh. It is only through eyes of faith that we recognize that these things are wrong.

As for “vain at heart (per the Gospel)” do you care to give a citation? I did not know the Gospels explicitly mentioned homosexuality at all.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry – delayed response.

You might be right, but what about the unrepentant rapist? Or public sinner? We are all sinners and in need of mercy. Lucky for us catholics, we have the sacrament of penance. But don’t you think we should make a distinction between embracing the sin vs. embracing the sinner? The problem with most of the gay lobby is that they want to be welcomed into the Church and have their lifestyle embraced.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “their lifestyle”. I don’t think they should feel welcome to unrepentently talk about their sex lives, not at all. But I don’t think it’s a terrible thing for them to talk about being gay. There’s nothing sinful, in itself, about being gay.

At any rate, I agree on the principle that we tolerate people, not sins.

For the record, a homosexual who understands that the gay lifestyle is wrong and is trying to work that out, but occasionally falls, is much more admirable that the pharisaical type. I definitely identify with the former. But it probably is not good to be either.

It’s funny that you would call the sexually active and unapologetic gay person “pharisaical”. Why? It seems to me that “prideful” might be an apt term, but I don’t necessarily see much of the pharisee in such people.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Except unrepentant rapists do deliberate harm to others for self-satisfaction. Unrepentant homosexuals do not do deliberate harm to others, nor do they force others into involvement in their sin; the other person willingly commits it as well. Neither believes it is a sin, nor do they wish anything but love for the other. There are significant differences. So yes, I would support an active evangelization program for a group of people characterized by misguided love that I wouldn’t support for a group of people characterized by intentional evil.

I’m not sure why we wouldn’t actively evangelize rapists, if rape was legal. And I think the comparison is a better one than you think it is. For most of recorded history, some forms of rape **have **been legal. And in these cases, the rapists did not think they were deliberately harming the other person; society had some other explanation for how there was no harm. In just the same way, homosexual activity is now socially presented as harmless, even though there are harms. God does not arbitrarily decide what is right and wrong; *all *sins are harmful (and not just because they’re sins).

I think rapists who are told it is OK to rape need to be welcomed into the Church, and only in the context of the love of other Christians should they be informed of their sins. You don’t close the church door, not even on a rapist.

 

[epan]

My view is no we shouldn’t, one thing I love about being Catholic is we never back down on our views. The church teaching your talking about is dogma, it’s something they can’t ever change. These are really bad times we’re living in, and now especially is not the time to make changes.

Well, let’s be honest. The Church has backed down on its views many times. It is a matter of historic record, and incontrovertible. The church has backed down on slavery, persecution of jews, money lending, heresy, divorce (though it won’t quite be forthright on this one yet), and other issues.

So, it would be more accurate to say, “The Church has backed down on some issues, but not on others. Is this an issue which the time has come to back down on, as the Church has with persecution of Jews?”

We know that other perfectly legitimate Christian denominations, looking in good faith at the same sources, have decided to stop persecuting homosexuals. If there were a moral supremacy by an particular religion of denomination, then there could not possibly be so many religions or denominations. The fact that so many religions exist is the best evidence that there is no ONE religion.

So, yes, this is a legitimate question. And, it can be put in broader terms. Does the Catholic Church wish to survive? We know that it changes its moral positions reluctantly, but certainly, in order to survive. Is this one of those issues which will require it to reform its views?

 

[itsjustintime]

The popularity of the Church is declining in those who have a strained relationship with the law of the Church. Homosexuals have been welcomed into the Church as far back as the book of Romans in the bible. Unfortunately, people aren’t realizing that entering the Church means leaving behind one’s past sinfulness. “Be renewed in the Spirit of your minds.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The popularity of the Church is declining in those who have a strained relationship with the law of the Church. Homosexuals have been welcomed into the Church as far back as the book of Romans in the bible. Unfortunately, people aren’t realizing that entering the Church means leaving behind one’s past sinfulness. “Be renewed in the Spirit of your minds.”

Hey all, let’s play “blame the sinner”, shall we?

 

[epan]

The popularity of the Church is declining in those who have a strained relationship with the law of the Church. Homosexuals have been welcomed into the Church as far back as the book of Romans in the bible. Unfortunately, people aren’t realizing that entering the Church means leaving behind one’s past sinfulness. “Be renewed in the Spirit of your minds.”

Is your claim that homosexuals have been welcomed into the church historically? Are you serious?

 

[estesbob]

Well, let’s be honest. The Church has backed down on its views many times. It is a matter of historic record, and incontrovertible. The church has backed down on slavery, persecution of jews, money lending, heresy, divorce (though it won’t quite be forthright on this one yet), and other issues.

So, it would be more accurate to say, “The Church has backed down on some issues, but not on others. Is this an issue which the time has come to back down on, as the Church has with persecution of Jews?”

We know that other perfectly legitimate Christian denominations, looking in good faith at the same sources, have decided to stop persecuting homosexuals. If there were a moral supremacy by an particular religion of denomination, then there could not possibly be so many religions or denominations. The fact that so many religions exist is the best evidence that there is no ONE religion.

So, yes, this is a legitimate question. And, it can be put in broader terms. Does the Catholic Church wish to survive? We know that it changes its moral positions reluctantly, but certainly, in order to survive. Is this one of those issues which will require it to reform its views?

The Church didn’t change its teachings on any of the things you mentioned.Nice try though.

 

[Captain_America]

This is just a thread where one guy goes on and on and on.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We welcome masturbators like that to Church every day. The only reason not to welcome a person to Church is that this person is profaning the Church in some way – example: the moneychangers at the temple. (So, for example, if a couple of any genders is making out in church, they are not welcome there). There is simply no other Scriptural reason to deny someone entrance to the Church. And if we allow them to enter, we treat them lovingly and respectfully. (Once we have a relationship with them, we can try to witness to them about how to change their lives, if they are living in sin. But we can’t start with this).

Of course, communion is another matter. I do think you can be welcoming without giving someone communion. But I also think you have to refrain from presumptuous action in withholding communion.

Can you explain to me how this connection between unnatural sex and the homosexual identity means that we should treat homosexuals differently from any other sinner?

Once again, this assumes a prior relationship. Jesus did not go around telling people their sin unless he first established a relationship with them. And, in our case, we can never convict anyone else of sin without first acknowledging our own sin.

This is why we should publicly be proclaiming the truth of the gospel – not by railing against gay people, but by (in our homilies) repeating Paul’s words condemning homosexual activity and teaching very clearly the theology of the body. We should do this publicly, and in the context of friendships – otherwise we should refrain from comment (unless someone who claims to be a Catholic is sinning seriously right in front of us).

No, we don’t “welcome” any unrepentant sinner at all. But you are right, we should treat them no differently than masturbators or child molesters or murderers or thieves or adulterers. It is odd that if you started a thread titled "is it time we welcome the child molesting community to ours you would get wildly different answers than you are offering. But the same principle applies. We are talking about an eternity with God or in Hell. The answer is ALWAYS the same. Any sinner is welcome in the confessional. Period. But the idea that homosexuality is somehow deserving of some special welcome is silly.

Can you explain to me how this connection between unnatural sex and the homosexual identity means that we should treat homosexuals differently from any other sinner?

You don’t but then again this thread is not called how to make our church more welcoming to sinners it specifies gays.

You mentioned several things about teaching ethics and always trying to get a handle on issues such as these. That type of world of ethics, philosophy and such attracts minds such as yours and you must protect it from the disease of “gray area” I used to struggle with that as well. It drove me nuts.

 

[Catolico65]

Please cite for me a case in the Gospels where Jesus told a particular person their particular sin, and he did not already have a relationship with that person. The only case I can think of pertains to the sin of the Pharisees, but I think that Jesus did actually have a close relationship with the Pharisees.

Jesus walked around telling people not to sin, publicly. And with some people, like the woman at the well, he spoke very directly to people about their sins – but he formed a relationship with her first.

Greeting someone is not considered establishing a relationship.

Here are other examples in addition to the women at the well: the lady who was about to be stoned, the money changers at the temple, the rich young man.

You clearly have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m talking about sitting down with a person and sharing deeply, from the heart, about your own struggle with sin – and this can lower another person’s defenses to talk about their own sins. St. Paul did this. The saints did this. It is not a tactic to shut Christians up. It is a tactic to spread the gospel.

Who says I haven’t???

I did not know the Gospels explicitly mentioned homosexuality at all.

**
You have left me speechless once again, good grief!**

My recommendation to you is to read the New Testament before delving into discussions in the future about said.

BTW, I see we agree on some points but the theory that establishing a relationship with a sinner and speaking to them kindly is the way to get them to repent is naïve to say the least given that the nailed Jesus to the cross and murdered the prophets, disciples and many saints. I expect you have a fear of being rejected, but better to be rejected by this world than by Jesus.

Also, I’m 48 years old and have been doing my best to spread the Gospel for 25 years, and using “your” method as well, and have been hated and ridiculed and had to change jobs numerous times. The fact is the Gospel is offensive to many people, some just cringe at the sound of Jesus Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Greeting someone is not considered establishing a relationship.

Jesus didn’t just greet the woman at the well. He asked her to help him. He put himself in a position LOWER than her. He did have a relationship with her.

Here are other examples in addition to the women at the well: the lady who was about to be stoned, the money changers at the temple, the rich young man.

He did not tell the prostitute that she was sinning; she already knew it.

In the case of the money changers, he saw them sinning right in front of him. In our example of homosexuality, this would be like walking into your house and finding your sister having sex with another woman. In such a case, sure, you can directly tell them to stop!

And I am not familiar with anything Jesus said to the rich young man to directly convict him of sin. The rich young man “walked away sad,” not because Jesus told him he was sinning, but because he himself knew he was doing wrong.

Who says I haven’t???

I didn’t say you hadn’t done these things. But my impression was that you were talking about something other than what I was talking about.

You have left me speechless once again, good grief!

My recommendation to you is to read the New Testament before delving into discussions in the future about said.

I’ve read the NT many times. But you said the **Gospel **said this, not the NT. Sometimes, “Gospel” is used to refer to the NT as a whole, and I guess that’s what you were doing in this case.

BTW, I see we agree on some points but the theory that establishing a relationship with a sinner and speaking to them kindly is the way to get them to repent is naïve to say the least given that the nailed Jesus to the cross and murdered the prophets, disciples and many saints. I expect you have a fear of being rejected, but better to be rejected by this world than by Jesus.

I didn’t say that we don’t talk about sin directly after the relationship of agape is established. Actually, I think it would be unloving to *ignore *sin, at that point. So I think we’re more on the same page here than you might think.

Also, I’m 48 years old and have been doing my best to spread the Gospel for 25 years, and using “your” method as well, and have been hated and ridiculed and had to change jobs numerous times. The fact is the Gospel is offensive to many people, some just cringe at the sound of Jesus Christ.

Well, I honor you for your work. I am of the opinion that your suffering may have planted the seeds of repentance in even those who have persecuted you.

 

[epan]

The Church didn’t change its teachings on any of the things you mentioned.Nice try though.

You are entitled to your opinion. I can refer you to published theological opinions which would refute your point.

Nice try. But try to be a bit more humble. You are entitled to your opinion, even when it does not agree with historic accounts. But it remains your opinion.

You have only stated your own opinion, which many others hold, and which a larger number of well educated and well informed people, even academic expert theologians, might disagree with.

In my opinion, which is not unique at all, your statement strains credulity to the point of absurdity, as any student of history could easily show you. I understand that it is based on faith, rather than fact, but don’t you think you would be more reasonable to state that you don’t BELIEVE that the Church has changed its positions, regardless of what the historical accounts say?

If you would like to explore the topic with a respected theologian (advisor to Vatican 2, published by Fordham Divinity School, etc.), you might start here: A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (ND Erasmus Institute Books) [Paperback]
John T. Noonan Jr

Even if you are dismissive of a more historic perspective, I would encourage any Catholic interested in the topic from the point of view of a respected Catholic theologian to read the book.

 

[estesbob]

You are entitled to your opinion. I can refer you to published theological opinions which would refute your point.

Nice try. But try to be a bit more humble. You are entitled to your opinion, even when it does not agree with historic accounts. But it remains your opinion.

You have only stated your own opinion, which many others hold, and which a larger number of well educated and well informed people, even academic expert theologians, might disagree with.

In my opinion, which is not unique at all, your statement strains credulity to the point of absurdity, as any student of history could easily show you. I understand that it is based on faith, rather than fact, but don’t you think you would be more reasonable to state that you don’t BELIEVE that the Church has changed its positions, regardless of what the historical accounts say?

If you would like to explore the topic with a respected theologian (advisor to Vatican 2, published by Fordham Divinity School, etc.), you might start here: A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (ND Erasmus Institute Books) [Paperback]
John T. Noonan Jr

Even if you are dismissive of a more historic perspective, I would encourage any Catholic interested in the topic from the point of view of a respected Catholic theologian to read the book.

The historical accounts show the Church never changed its teachings in these areas. Nor,btw,are thet going to change their teachings on homosexuality. The truth is they cant no more than thhry can deny the divinity of Christ.

 

[epan]

The historical accounts show the Church never changed its teachings in these areas. Nor,btw,are thet going to change their teachings on homosexuality. The truth is they cant no more than thhry can deny the divinity of Christ.

Haha… and one more time, it slipped your mind to add those words, “in my opinion.” You incorrigible rascal.

I’ll give your opinion more credence, once you are advising the Vatican, and your theological works are being published for peer review by prominent educational institutions. In the meantime, I’ll rely on those who have demonstrated more expertise in the subject.

 

[blaskoman]

You are entitled to your opinion. I can refer you to published theological opinions which would refute your point.

Nice try. But try to be a bit more humble. You are entitled to your opinion, even when it does not agree with historic accounts. But it remains your opinion.

You have only stated your own opinion, which many others hold, and which a larger number of well educated and well informed people, even academic expert theologians, might disagree with.

In my opinion, which is not unique at all, your statement strains credulity to the point of absurdity, as any student of history could easily show you. I understand that it is based on faith, rather than fact, but don’t you think you would be more reasonable to state that you don’t BELIEVE that the Church has changed its positions, regardless of what the historical accounts say?

If you would like to explore the topic with a respected theologian (advisor to Vatican 2, published by Fordham Divinity School, etc.), you might start here: A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (ND Erasmus Institute Books) [Paperback]
John T. Noonan Jr

Even if you are dismissive of a more historic perspective, I would encourage any Catholic interested in the topic from the point of view of a respected Catholic theologian to read the book.

You got a lot of discerning ahead of you! I disagree with almost everything u state.