Is it time we welcome the gay community to ours?

[epan]

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

You are right. I don’t quite understand the desire to distort history to fit into some predefined parameters of faith.

Perhaps you can explain to me how intentional distortion of the historic record serves truth? That one is quite puzzling. Would it not be better to try to understand history, and to reconcile that to faith, rather than to proclaim an article of faith, and then to distort history to match that faith?

We no longer live in a time in which such distortions go unnoticed. The means of refutation of false accounts of history are at everyones’ fingertips today.

Just to pick one example, why persist in the completely ludicrous notion that the Church has not changed its position over the centuries on money lending? The documentation is voluminous, and easily obtained. Why lie about this issue? Usury was a sin, and usually a crime, and was defined as exacting interest on the principal of a loan. There is no dispute about this.

Here is one of thousands of examples of sources, this one by the Renaissance Society, published by the University of Chicago Press: mifami.org/eLibrary/Renaissance_Economics/Gow-PopeEugeniusJewishMoneyFlorence.pdf

 

[Monkey1976]

You are right. I don’t quite understand the desire to distort history to fit into some predefined parameters of faith.

Perhaps you can explain to me how intentional distortion of the historic record serves truth? That one is quite puzzling. Would it not be better to try to understand history, and to reconcile that to faith, rather than to proclaim an article of faith, and then to distort history to match that faith?

We no longer live in a time in which such distortions go unnoticed. The means of refutation of false accounts of history are at everyones’ fingertips today.

Just to pick one example, why persist in the completely ludicrous notion that the Church has not changed its position over the centuries on money lending? The documentation is voluminous, and easily obtained. Why lie about this issue? Usury was a sin, and usually a crime, and was defined as exacting interest on the principal of a loan. There is no dispute about this.

Here is one of thousands of examples of sources, this one by the Renaissance Society, published by the University of Chicago Press: mifami.org/eLibrary/Renaissance_Economics/Gow-PopeEugeniusJewishMoneyFlorence.pdf

I see a lot about the laws of Florence and the Papal States, the mention of a Franciscan preaching a sermon against usury, and a quote from the Decretum attributed to St. Ambrose - that is, a quote from Canon Law. We’ve never said that Canon Law is unchangeable. You seem to be making a common mistake: Assuming that Canon Law is magisterial teaching. It isn’t. Now, for a Catholic, it is indeed a sin to knowingly break Canon Law, but it doesn’t mean that those laws are unchangeable.

 

[epan]

I see a lot about the laws of Florence and the Papal States, the mention of a Franciscan preaching a sermon against usury, and a quote from the Decretum attributed to St. Ambrose - that is, a quote from Canon Law. We’ve never said that Canon Law is unchangeable. You seem to be making a common mistake: Assuming that Canon Law is magisterial teaching. It isn’t. Now, for a Catholic, it is indeed a sin to knowingly break Canon Law, but it doesn’t mean that those laws are unchangeable.

But, if we cut through the technicalities of which is law, and which is magisterial, and so on… the facts remain on the table with respect to usury. Usury was defined as lending money at interest. Usury was a sin. Usury was a crime. Around 1450, at least, Papal licenses were sold to Jews to lend money, which was a sin. But who cares about the souls of Jews? In exchange for those licenses, the Vatican received a piece of the action in the form of payment from the lenders. These payments were a significant source of revenue for the Vatican, in the growing merchant economy.

So, please don’t tell me that Church Doctrine and Practices (which presumably rely on doctrine) has not changed. Such a claim strains the credulity of any student of history.

Now, I only gave one example. We can step through the centuries, and test each case ad nauseum. I neither have the time, nor the patience, nor the desire to bash anyone here. But let’s at least admit the truth, which is that church practices and teachings have changed radically over the centuries on some topics.

I understand that the Benedict primarily, and to a lesser extent JP2 were advocates of the concept of an unchanging doctrine. But facts are facts.

If change in the Church interests you as a topic, then read Judge Noonan’s book, or look up his essays. I can find the links if you need them. You may agree or disagree with his theses. If his writing interests you, then he provides extensive notes and bibliography to determine for yourself the credibility of his sources, and how he draws his conclusions. Dr. Noonan explores where doctrine and practices have changed, and may change, and where they will not or cannot.

 

[Monkey1976]

But, if we cut through the technicalities of which is law, and which is magisterial, and so on… the facts remain on the table with respect to usury. Usury was defined as lending money at interest. Usury was a sin. Usury was a crime. Around 1450, at least, Papal licenses were sold to Jews to lend money, which was a sin. But who cares about the souls of Jews? In exchange for those licenses, the Vatican received a piece of the action in the form of payment from the lenders. These payments were a significant source of revenue for the Vatican, in the growing merchant economy.

Usury was a sin because it was a crime. Not vice-versa. If I decide to drive through my neighborhood at 75mph when the posted limit is 25, I’ve committed a sin. If the posted limit is 75, then I have not.

So, please don’t tell me that Church Doctrine and Practices (which presumably rely on doctrine) has not changed. Such a claim strains the credulity of any student of history.

Ahh - I see the problem here. Church dogma is eternal and unchanging. Doctrine (such as priests being unmarried in the Roman Rite) and practices (such as the wearing of veils by women at Mass) have certainly changed.

Now, I only gave one example. We can step through the centuries, and test each case ad nauseum. I neither have the time, nor the patience, nor the desire to bash anyone here. But let’s at least admit the truth, which is that church practices and teachings have changed radically over the centuries on some topics.

On topics like clerical continence, usury, the language of the Mass, yes. Because such things are not divinely revealed dogma.

I understand that the Benedict primarily, and to a lesser extent JP2 were advocates of the concept of an unchanging doctrine. But facts are facts.

And the fact is that you have misunderstood what is doctrine and what is dogmatic teaching.

If change in the Church interests you as a topic, then read Judge Noonan’s book, or look up his essays. I can find the links if you need them. You may agree or disagree with his theses. If his writing interests you, then he provides extensive notes and bibliography to determine for yourself the credibility of his sources, and how he draws his conclusions. Dr. Noonan explores where doctrine and practices have changed, and may change, and where they will not or cannot.

I would suggest that you take a look at this response to Dr. Noonan. Dr. Kaveny goes into the differences I’ve sketched out above in far more depth than I could.

 

[Catolico65]

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.

That is not the definition of a relationship, that is a greeting.

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

Actually Jesus clearly established that the women was an adulterer:

“You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!”

In the case of the money changers, he saw them sinning right in front of him.

I’m glad you recognize that what you said was wrong.

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.

When Jesus tells the young man “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money** to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” It is because he knows the rich young man loves material goods more than anything else, which is a sin.

Regarding the treatment of homosexuals, in my 25 years dealing with persons with this issue it is rare for them to acknowledge what they are doing is wrong. Furthermore, many who were Christians seem to be convinced that the message of the Gospel is that we are all sinners so there is no point in talking about right and wrong. In fact this is the same theme in current thread about trangenderism.**

 

[Tarpeian]

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.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree.

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.

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.

“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.”

After the age of reason wouldn’t Natural Law reveal to us that murder is wrong? Adultery?

Merry Christmas to all
Tarpeian

 

[Tarpeian]

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?

I think where you are confused like many, you don’t know how to distinguish between The Church and members within The Church. There is no other “legitimate” christian church. In fact Benedict XVI opined on this subject in 2007.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/154889?eng=y

“Does the Catholic Church wish to survive?” This always makes me smile

Merry Christ/Mass
Tarpeian

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That is not the definition of a relationship, that is a greeting.

No, it’s not. If I walk up to an AIDS patient and ask if he will help me – a university professor – grade my papers, I am not simply greeting him. I am honoring him, and inviting him to a form of intimacy with me.

Actually Jesus clearly established that the women was an adulterer:

“You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!”

When I said “prostitute”, I was not referring to the woman at the well; she was not a prostitute. I was talking about the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not tell that woman she was sinning.

I’m glad you recognize that what you said was wrong.

If what I said was wrong, I’d be happy to recognize it. But I don’t think you’re following my point here. In the case of the moneychangers, Jesus does not accuse them of a sin they have committed elsewhere; he stops them from committing a sin right in front of him.

Maybe the distinction I’m making is a bit nit-picky, but I feel like it matters. Jesus certainly didn’t have a habit of walking up to people and telling them their sins.

When Jesus tells the young man “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money** to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” It is because he knows the rich young man loves material goods more than anything else, which is a sin.**

I never claimed Jesus didn’t know about people’s sins, and use that knowledge to convert them. But that is a far cry from directly indicating their sins to them on first acquaintance.

Regarding the treatment of homosexuals, in my 25 years dealing with persons with this issue it is rare for them to acknowledge what they are doing is wrong.

This is because the chaste homosexuals/bisexuals are in hiding. You’d be surprised how common we are.

Furthermore, many who were Christians seem to be convinced that the message of the Gospel is that we are all sinners so there is no point in talking about right and wrong. In fact this is the same theme in current thread about trangenderism.

I agree that this is a problem. Such an attitude is incompatible with the gospel.

Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“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.”

After the age of reason wouldn’t Natural Law reveal to us that murder is wrong? Adultery?

This is a mistaken understanding of natural law. Just because the law is written on our hearts does not mean that we have learned how to read it. We do not suddenly have conscious knowledge of right and wrong at the age of reason.

Merry Christmas to all
Tarpeian

Merry Christmas to you!

 

[Catolico65]

No, it’s not. If I walk up to an AIDS patient and ask if he will help me – a university professor – grade my papers, I am not simply greeting him. I am honoring him, and inviting him to a form of intimacy with me.

Your definition of establishing a relationship is unique. For the rest of us a greeting is normal before starting a conversation.

When I said “prostitute”, I was not referring to the woman at the well; she was not a prostitute. I was talking about the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not tell that woman she was sinning.

Repetition does not make a claim valid.

Jesus clearly told the women at the well that the man she had now was not her husband, thus accusing her of adultery, and also told the women that was to be stoned to “go and SIN no more”, this recognizing that her adultery was a sin.

If what I said was wrong, I’d be happy to recognize it. But I don’t think you’re following my point here. In the case of the moneychangers, Jesus does not accuse them of a sin they have committed elsewhere; he stops them from committing a sin right in front of him.

It is very simple, Jesus cleared the temple of the money changers who were changing money and told the people they were robbers.

Maybe the distinction I’m making is a bit nit-picky, but I feel like it matters. Jesus certainly didn’t have a habit of walking up to people and telling them their sins.

What I believe you have is this false notion that Jesus had a way of establishing a relationship before talking about sin nor much less pointing out individuals sin but that is not what is clearly spelled out in the Gospel. You are therefore purposely misinterpretating Scripture to fit your preferred interpretation.

I never claimed Jesus didn’t know about people’s sins, and use that knowledge to convert them. But that is a far cry from directly indicating their sins to them on first acquaintance.

Jesus did in fact point out people’s sins before “getting to know them”, the Gospels are clear.

Furthermore, if “your” method of spreading the Gospel were actually true almost nobody would have to get offended and almost everyone would get saved. This is in direct contrast to reality that Jesus and the disciples and many saints were killed.

My advice to you is to understand that we need to spread the Gospel whether people like it or not

This is because the chaste homosexuals/bisexuals are in hiding. You’d be surprised how common we are.

You would actually be surprised how few you are and how this condition is anything but static.

Furthermore, I have some advice as a person who was sexually abused as a child and who suffered from homosexual thoughts, arrogance regarding recognizing personal sins and the inability to repent is the only thing stopping you from progressing and leaving unnatural thoughts behind. I say this because your attitude regarding how Jesus approaches sin is common among the many homosexuals I have discussed the Bible with. This comes from a guilty conscience and the only way to get rid of this is to repent. Not to worry I am worse than you because I have committed mortal sins and hurt many people and sometimes still do(in my mind) yet Jesus always takes me back so there is hope.

Merry Christmas and God bless.

 

[dominikus]

I’m a definite believer yes they should. Lets be honest the popularity of the church is declining at an alarming rate. And we need to get people excited about coming again and not chastise any walk of life we deem unfit.

Ps. I’m straight and catholic

So what is your view?

- the church is declining at an alarming rate

That’s simply not true, perhaps for the Anglican Church, yes.

- get people excited about coming again

We are all God’s children. HOWEVER, there’s a catch.

When gay people commit to indecency, it is an expression of selfishness and mostly combined with dishonesty, hatred and deception.

This sort of people, is not what the Catholic Church wants or needs.

In short, Heretics need to be excommunicated from Communion and Clergy.

 

[epan]

Usury was a sin because it was a crime. Not vice-versa. If I decide to drive through my neighborhood at 75mph when the posted limit is 25, I’ve committed a sin. If the posted limit is 75, then I have not.

Ahh - I see the problem here. Church dogma is eternal and unchanging. Doctrine (such as priests being unmarried in the Roman Rite) and practices (such as the wearing of veils by women at Mass) have certainly changed.

On topics like clerical continence, usury, the language of the Mass, yes. Because such things are not divinely revealed dogma.

And the fact is that you have misunderstood what is doctrine and what is dogmatic teaching.

I would suggest that you take a look at this response to Dr. Noonan. Dr. Kaveny goes into the differences I’ve sketched out above in far more depth than I could.

So, your point is that the Pope himself is a rogue who need not conform to Catholic doctrine. He is just some Joe who can do what he likes, but when the job calls for it, he should put on his fancy hat and make an infallible declaration.

My take on leadership is somewhat different than the Catholic view. I propose the if the Pope is acting in a particular way in a public capacity, then he is expressing Church Doctrine.

I don’t really care if a priest named Benedict sets up house with a priest named George. That is their own private business.

But, in my naivete, I expect a leader acting in his capacity as a leader to adhere to strict standards. I suppose that is the US Marine in me.

As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church promotes the most rigid standards for its adherents, while it embraces the most lax standards for its leaders. I don’t understand how that works. A priest who molests a child is impugned from prosecution. WTF, but that is the essence of Catholicism.

The simple fact remains, in spite of the dirt thrown into the air, that the Catholic Church once considered lending money to be a sin. However, if one wanted to lend money, one (who was not a Catholic) could receive permission from a pope to lend money. However, in order to lend money, one would pay the pope a commission on every loan.

 

[Blacksword]

No they heard those words among their parents or by other practicing Catholic adults in public. Most Catholics who use horribly derogatory terms still have the decency not to do them where their pastor could hear them. That doesn’t mean they don’t say them at home. And it’s not just words, it’s the entire culture. Parents railing at home about how evil gay people are (which isn’t Catholic teaching; only the sin is evil, not the person), parents using derogatory terms, parents saying that gay people only do what they do because they “hate God,” kicking gay children out of their homes, etc. are just some of the ways gay kids get turned off from religion at an early age. Is this more common in Protestant religions? Absolutely. Does this happen in Catholic households? Not as many, but yes. This needs to immediately stop; we need to question the parenting (both Catholic and non-Catholic) before we keep throwing the blame onto the “secular media” or “gay activists” or whatever scapegoat people want to use. The LGBT community would have absolutely zero power if parents did their jobs, INCLUDING providing an inclusive, loving home that is firm in morals but lacking in hatred.

I know I’m late in this discussion but I saw this post and just had to reply, in particular to the last sentence here. Thank you so much for this: that sentence is the essence of what all parents need to do. As a father of two, that struck me deeply as what I’m trying to do for my kids. Thank you for such a succinct, simple message.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is always interesting to me when talking of the woman caught in adultery that people are so quick to point out that Jesus forgives her but then seem to miss altogether the fact that he gave her a command about her sin. “Go, and sin no more” At some point, the Church and her members have to be able to say that to any sinner. Even a homosexual.

 

[dominikus]

It is always interesting to me when talking of the woman caught in adultery that people are so quick to point out that Jesus forgives her but then seem to miss altogether the fact that he gave her a command about her sin. “Go, and sin no more” At some point, the Church and her members have to be able to say that to any sinner. Even a homosexual.

It’s also always interesting to me, to see, how willing they are to renounce the Devil and love God. It’s not that the church didn’t do anything. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church is the biggest charity on Earth, yet, everyone is vomitting at their doorstep and calling names by the people in reference to the discussion.

And, the Catholic Church does say that to sinners - what you put in question - they say “go and sin no more”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is always interesting to me when talking of the woman caught in adultery that people are so quick to point out that Jesus forgives her but then seem to miss altogether the fact that he gave her a command about her sin. “Go, and sin no more” At some point, the Church and her members have to be able to say that to any sinner. Even a homosexual.

I’ve said this myself in other conversations, Hoosier. Once again, you guys are looking for an enemy. I’m not your enemy. I don’t defend people’s sins.

I’m concerned with evangelism. To convict people of their sins, right away, is not good evangelism. That’s like a car salesman telling someone the price before they show him the car!

There is plenty of time to convict people of their sins. But if we alienate them first, we’ll never have the opportunity.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Catolico65,

You are convinced that I am a liberal Christian trying to justify homosexuality. That’s just not true. But since you don’t believe me, I’m not sure it’s beneficial to either of us to continue this conversation.

I have been trying to make points that do not fit neatly into the conservative cultural position on homosexuality (which is prone to Pharisaism) or the liberal cultural position on homosexuality (which is prone to rationalizing sinful behavior). You misinterpret my position, whether intentionally or unintentionally, I don’t know.

Jesus did in fact point out people’s sins before “getting to know them”, the Gospels are clear.

You have not established this.

Furthermore, if “your” method of spreading the Gospel were actually true almost nobody would have to get offended and almost everyone would get saved. This is in direct contrast to reality that Jesus and the disciples and many saints were killed.

When I have a friend, and I tell her that she is sinning grievously by living with her girlfriend, this would not offend her?

I have no problem with offending people. I have a problem with offending people presumptuously. I do not think that punching someone in the face is a good start to a relationship.

You would actually be surprised how few you are and how this condition is anything but static.

Nice. The people who are completely healed of it are just in hiding. Right.

I don’t deny that healing is possible. But I don’t see why on earth you would try to insist on how uncommon a chaste gay or bisexual person is.

Anyone with eyes can see that it is not easy to change one’s sexual attractions. I’m not talking about passing attractions, attached to pleasure experienced. I imagine that boys abused by men or other boys might have a passing attraction to the pleasure experienced by such behavior. But that’s not at all the history of somebody like me. I never experienced any pleasure from a homosexual encounter, but I became obsessed with men as a teenager anyway. And it’s not something I can shake easily, even though I have time after time surrendered it to the Lord.

Perhaps you are using your own experience as a template, and not realizing that other people have completely different experiences?

Blessings,
Prodigal

 

[dominikus]

Catolico65,
Anyone with eyes can see that it is not easy to change one’s sexual attractions.
Prodigal

It is to say: It is if practised or not.
Herein lies the distinction.

But they do want to practise homosexuality flesh to flesh and mistake not just love with lust, but also love to the opposite sex within rightful marriage to adultery and same-sex.

To summerise: it’s not about CHANGING, it’s about to refrain from adultery and same sex practise.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’ve said this myself in other conversations, Hoosier. Once again, you guys are looking for an enemy. I’m not your enemy. I don’t defend people’s sins.

I’m concerned with evangelism. To convict people of their sins, right away, is not good evangelism. That’s like a car salesman telling someone the price before they show him the car!

There is plenty of time to convict people of their sins. But if we alienate them first, we’ll never have the opportunity.

So then when? When do we help people out of possible damnation? The fact is it will never be a great time to tell someone they are sinning. But When do you think we should do it? After six months? Five years? 10 years of not only engaging in damnable behavior but committing sacrilege by recieving the Eucharist unworthily? See, it is real easy to say gee I don’t want to go against the Church. But I don’t want to offend. During the times in history when the Church grew and produced Holy saints the Church was not really concerned with “welcoming feelings” It was however concerned for souls. When the Church was born, when it was in infancy, when each convert could mean the growth or death of Christianity, that was when the letters of Paul were written. That was when death was expected upon conversion. That was when the call to repentance was heeded with a real urgency. An urgency that exists just as much if not more today.

You keep going round and round on this thread but I am struggling with finding out what exactly it is you are trying to say. Is your position that the Church needs to be more welcoming to gays? Signifying a problem with the way homosexuality is being approached from the pulpit. Because, in any parish I have attended it is never even discussed. Which seems to me to be the opposite of what you think the problem is.

So I ask you when is a good time to help someone out of the danger of eternal damnation? At what point do we as a Church need to be more welcoming and why is it that this particular sinner needs some sort of special hand holding to get them into the CHurch?

You have brought up twice on this thread that you are a university professor. I’m not sure how relevant that is other than the fact that you are probably enjoying some time off from classes. We all have our perspectives and credentials. But it would seem to me, if I and others are struggling with your roundabout way of saying two things that seem to be opposites that perhaps some students are as well. It is the nature of Ethics, philosophy, and moral thinkers to forgo the Truth for the relative. And the grey area is probably desired in those fields. But in the field of the saints, there is no grey area, there is only Truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So then when? When do we help people out of possible damnation? The fact is it will never be a great time to tell someone they are sinning. But When do you think we should do it? After six months? Five years? 10 years of not only engaging in damnable behavior but committing sacrilege by recieving the Eucharist unworthily? See, it is real easy to say gee I don’t want to go against the Church. But I don’t want to offend. During the times in history when the Church grew and produced Holy saints the Church was not really concerned with “welcoming feelings” It was however concerned for souls. When the Church was born, when it was in infancy, when each convert could mean the growth or death of Christianity, that was when the letters of Paul were written. That was when death was expected upon conversion. That was when the call to repentance was heeded with a real urgency. An urgency that exists just as much if not more today.

I don’t think any sinner should be told about their sin right away, so I’m consistent there. We have to first accept the person, and then – only after this person knows that we accept them and grant them profound dignity – then we can talk to them about what particular sins they are cherishing. This could take six months, or it could take five minutes. It depends on how open the person being evangelized is.

During the times in history when the Church grew and produced Holy saints the Church was not really concerned with ‘welcoming feelings’. It was however concerned for souls.

I don’t see how you could read Paul’s letters and not realize that he was vitally concerned with the feelings of those he wrote to. The same with the speeches in Acts. When Paul spoke in Athens, he could have said that the Athenians were a bunch of arrogant sodomites interested in witchcraft – for this was true! But instead, Paul said that he came to reveal to them the unknown God which they already worshipped.

Paul was disarming. He was a clever witness. He did not pound you over the head with Christianity, like it was a brick.

You keep going round and round on this thread but I am struggling with finding out what exactly it is you are trying to say. Is your position that the Church needs to be more welcoming to gays? Signifying a problem with the way homosexuality is being approached from the pulpit. Because, in any parish I have attended it is never even discussed. Which seems to me to be the opposite of what you think the problem is

.

I think we are too *quiet *about these things from the pulpit. We ought to speak loudly about the sin of sodomy, and why it is a sin – of course, clarifying that we love those who are trapped in this sin. I have no problem with public proclamations. I have a problem with walking up to a person and accusing them, without having a prior, reasonably close, relationship.

So I ask you when is a good time to help someone out of the danger of eternal damnation? At what point do we as a Church need to be more welcoming and why is it that this particular sinner needs some sort of special hand holding to get them into the CHurch?

It’s called “playing the long game”. A straightforward accusation will make people turn around and go back to their sin. A nuanced approach will be much more likely to save souls.

You have brought up twice on this thread that you are a university professor. I’m not sure how relevant that is other than the fact that you are probably enjoying some time off from classes. We all have our perspectives and credentials.

The context in which I brought this up was not to tout my own credentials. My views about ethics and evangelism are not somehow better than anyone else’s, simply because I teach college. :dts:

But it would seem to me, if I and others are struggling with your roundabout way of saying two things that seem to be opposites that perhaps some students are as well. It is the nature of Ethics, philosophy, and moral thinkers to forgo the Truth for the relative. And the grey area is probably desired in those fields. But in the field of the saints, there is no grey area, there is only Truth.

This is rather insulting. The nature of philosophy and ethics to forgo Truth? Was it the nature of Thomas Aquinas to forgo truth? Was it the nature of Thomas More? You’re painting with a really broad brush.

Even academics care about truth. Not all of them, but not an insignificant number.