Leaving the Catholic Church over sexual issues

[losh14]

Recently I spoke with three friends of my wife’s, all of whom say they’re considering leaving the Catholic Church - two of them said they were considering the Lutheran Church.

Their reasons?

One was in opposition to the Pope’s prohibition of condoms in Africa.
The other two disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as a sin. One of her friends told me “I can’t believe in a God who tells me I have to hate my friends”.

I responded that though there are things I disagree with or struggle with in the Church, I’m not willing to leave that Grace behind for the sake of making my friends happy, and asking whether the alternative (give everyone all the condoms they need) would make for a better world. And I admonished them in seeking that they should not try to find the love of God outside of the holiness of God - and that one must be perfect to enter Heaven. One of the friends said “Who’s perfect? Why would I want to believe in a God like that?”

To me, this is a misplaced mindset - putting 21st century liberal values before Christian beliefs. To them, my mindset is the old one and needs to be brought “up to date” with the progressive world around us. In other words - modernism.

How can we, in our conversations, overcome such barriers to Christ? I would argue that these issues are peripheral - especially for those of us who are not homosexuals - especially when compared with central doctrine of salvation. Indeed, should I reject Christ altogether because my friends are left out?

 

[06convert]

One was in opposition to the Pope’s prohibition of condoms in Africa.

This is a silly thing to be upset about. One of the ways AIDS is spread is by having sex. Condoms encourage people to have sex by giving them a sense of security. If you want to get rid of AIDS you teach abstinence, not a different way to have sex. Condoms don’t stop sex and when they fail (not if) the AIDS virus will continue to spread. On the contrary believing that Condoms are the way to fix this is the “old thinking”

The other two disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as a sin. One of her friends told me “I can’t believe in a God who tells me I have to hate my friends”.

God wants you to love everyone. Where did they get this?

I responded that though there are things I disagree with or struggle with in the Church, I’m not willing to leave that Grace behind for the sake of making my friends happy, and asking whether the alternative (give everyone all the condoms they need) would make for a better world. And I admonished them in seeking that they should not try to find the love of God outside of the holiness of God - and that one must be perfect to enter Heaven. One of the friends said “Who’s perfect? Why would I want to believe in a God like that?”

Nobody is perfect. . All the more reason to stay in the Church. If you die in a state of grace, God will purify you to perfection so that you may enter heaven. How do you die in a state of grace? Stay in the church, live the sacraments, Eucharist and Reconciliation. These will help you get to heaven. Only God can make us perfect. We won’t be perfect here on Earth. Perfection isn’t something God is holding us to. Keeping the Grace he has given us is something he’s holding us to.

To me, this is a misplaced mindset - putting 21st century liberal values before Christian beliefs. To them, my mindset is the old one and needs to be brought “up to date” with the progressive world around us. In other words - modernism.

Again, their mindset is the old one. The “I can do this on my own without the church” midset is old school. Just ask Martin Luther.

How can we, in our conversations, overcome such barriers to Christ? I would argue that these issues are peripheral - especially for those of us who are not homosexuals - especially when compared with central doctrine of salvation. Indeed, should I reject Christ altogether because my friends are left out?

Which barriers to Christ? There are no barriers only challenges. Evil is the main one. For some reason your friends seem to think that they have to choose God or their friends as if loving one is somehow incompatible with the other. God teaches us to love all people. You can love your friends even though they are homosexual. You can’t pretend that what they are doing is good and moral, but you don’t have to disown them because of it. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

[Dottiepo]

Sexual sin does seem to be the most difficult of all the sins. I would venture to say that it is because when sex is in it’s proper context, it mirrors (darkly) communion with God.

It seems what you said is the best you can do. The seeds are sown.

 

[tbcrawford]

Everyone including your wife’s friends are entitled to their own opinion.HOWEVER
there is a difference between feeling "its wrong not to give condoms to third world"and leaving the church because of it.Surely we dont all have to agree with everything in the church to be part of it?
What im trying to say is i’d say its up to "the friends " to have their opinions but it shouldnt stop them worshipping and loving God.They have a political view about something good for them. I dont agree with every single thing but I love God and want to go to Mass as much as possible(daily virtually).I dont feel this interferes in any way with me being catholic(and loving it)or puts me at odds with church’s teachings/makes me a hypocrite.
I vote politically a certain way but i dont agree with every single policy/thing they stand for
I think they should talk to their priest or if you think its beyond that just tell them they have a right to their opinions and it shouldnt stop them attending Mass and worshipping God.After all they are not going physically to Africa to distribute condoms are they?
God Bless my friend and pray for them

 

[Scoobyshme]

The essence of sin is saying “No” to God. And what is at the center if sin? I. I want this, or I believe that, or I am not comfortable with such and such. I. **I **think the Church is wrong about this or wrong about that. (Usually because dull-minded people get indoctrinated by the humanistic, anti-Catholic national media, which is certainly controlled by Satan and his minions in our day.) We can never be at peace following our will. We can only find peace by following God’s will!

Your friends have decided to follow their will rather than God’s will. They have set themselves up as judge of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. They have fallen for the American viewpoint of equating self to God. Pray for them and offer sacrifice and penance. They are lost.

What you’re witnessing is a good example of what happens when people really don’t know and practice their Catholic faith. People in our society make the effort to get high school diplomas, college degrees, etc., but have a 2nd or 3rd grade education in the things of Christ. What sense does that make?! We only live about 100 years, at best, but we are in eternity forever!

 

[Palm_Tree]

The other two disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as a sin. One of her friends told me “I can’t believe in a God who tells me I have to hate my friends”. I responded that though there are things I disagree with or struggle with in the Church, I’m not willing to leave that Grace behind for the sake of making my friends happy…

I would argue that these issues are peripheral - especially for those of us who are not homosexuals - especially when compared with central doctrine of salvation. Indeed, should I reject Christ altogether because my friends are left out?

The Church doesn’t teach us to hate homosexuals, silly.

Homosexual practices is a grave sin against chastity same as sex outside of marriage, masturbation, and pornography.

*CCC 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices. *

Of those four, which are the most common in our society today? Sex-outside of marriage, masturbation, and pornography, right? Yes, they are so common that they have become much more acceptable in our culture then much less widespread grave sins such as homosexual practices, and it is much easier to hate sinners that engage in grave sins that aren’t as common in our culture as more common grave sins, which is why the Church goes out of it’s way to specifically tell us that:

*CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. **They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. *

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2358

 

[Palm_Tree]

This is a silly thing to be upset about. One of the ways AIDS is spread is by having sex. Condoms encourage people to have sex by giving them a sense of security. If you want to get rid of AIDS you teach abstinence, not a different way to have sex.

Exactly.

 

[AndyF]

losh14:

Standing firm with Mother Church is the position. They will require our resolve one day when they discover the deception. They will need an unchanging island of tranquility and peace in the tumultuous sea of secularism. So we need to make it receptive for that day when they come home.

You will note the position is not unlike what we find in the family unit. The child may be stubborn and angry not getting his way. The parents hold firm until one day he will return to find they were right all along.

There is an underlying dependents that exists even though it isn’t admitted. Remarkably, the well being of the Church is of interest even to other religions. It is no surprise that whenever the Pontiff speaks the world takes notice. Red carpets can be expected to be laid for Jesus’s Ambassador of Peace everywhere that he goes. There’s a global respect reserved for him that can’t be explained through merit alone. Religions who’s dogma are admittedly hostile to Catholicism put away their animosity and throw their doors open to him without hesitation, even to allow their sacred objects to be handled by him. And it is no wonder, official spokesman for the Holy Spirit, not even religious persuasion is a barrier for Him to get through to God’s people.

newdavent/Protestantism

“The hierarchy was never so united, never so devoted to the Pope. The Roman unity is successfully resisting the inroads of sects, of philosophies, of politics. Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by the secular power? We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling into religious indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred of Christianity is better than blank worldliness. But we do draw this conclusion: that after four centuries the Catholic principle of authority is still working out the salvation of the Church, whereas among Protestants the principle of Subjectivism is destroying what remains of their former faith and driving multitudes into religious indifference and estrangement from the supernatural.”

AndyF

 

[losh14]

Thanks for the support here.

I had a few more thoughts - I should have posited Benedict’s outreach to the Muslim world as well as his support of resolutions to protect immigrants and refugees.

And I’ve often wondered why people in rich nations are so adamant about GLBT issues. Viewed in perspective of the entire world, GLBT issues have a very small impact compared with the problems that refugees and the poor face, as well as those who live in nations where more basic civil rights (life, liberty, justice) are denied. It almost seems selfish to say that you’d reject an organization that does so much corporal as well as spiritual good because that organization is in opposition to same-sex marriages.

Forgive me if this is too much of a tangent, but I’m deeply concerned with where my generation and the generation to follow seem to be placing their priorities. I know generations are, well, general, but to follow the opinion polls and policy moves, we’re now including among civil rights the right to an abortion and the right to free sexual license (note that the two are often correlated). As Scoobyshme said, the I is the most damning letter because it distorts the focus away from God and to the individual. Abortion is selfish (and mortally so), just as is sexual licentiousness because it demands that nothing - not even morality - should stand in the way of personal pleasure. I’ve even started to see this in some of the non-denom churches around here. They somehow manage to convey God’s love and God’s holiness in such a way that the believer is the center, not the believed in. They may be leading their flocks to Christ, but it’s a Jesus that’s almost too personal, almost less of a deity than of a rationalizer. “I’m baptized, it doesn’t matter what I do because Calvary covers my sins” etc.

How do you tell a basic human right from one that is a convenient and popular one? Give it the ultimate test - are you willing to give your life in defense of our country so that poor children can receive education, health care and food? Probably you are. Are you willing to give your life in defense of our country so people can have sex with whomever they want whenever they mutually agree it’s a good idea? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & peace!

I admonished them in seeking that they should not try to find the love of God outside of the holiness of God - and that one must be perfect to enter Heaven. One of the friends said “Who’s perfect? Why would I want to believe in a God like that?”

To me, this is a misplaced mindset - putting 21st century liberal values before Christian beliefs. To them, my mindset is the old one and needs to be brought “up to date” with the progressive world around us. In other words - modernism.

Forgive me, losh14, but your admonition borders on meaninglessness for a couple reasons: 1) you imply that there is a place where the holiness of God is not–this implication is untrue; 2) you imply that there is a subordination of God’s love to God’s perfection–this implication is also false, God’s perfection comes from God’s love, it is not the other way round; 3) perfection is not the requirement of entry to heaven, at least not one we can achieve on our own merits–moreover, we will never be perfect as God is perfect unless we first lose our creatureliness, but this loss would deprive us of our being and destroy us utterly.

Additionally, I have found in these boards that when an argument is characterized as being “My Traditional Mindset v. Their Modernist Heresy” the argument is usually about something else–my churchmanship is better than yours, my faith is stronger than yours, my struggle is more important than yours, my politics are better than yours, my Trent is better than your Vatican II, my concept is better than yours, etc. The result is often the same–either divisiveness or condescension. In any case, charity is forgotten (though it’s often paid lip service).

For what it’s worth, I think the Pope’s position on condoms in Africa is shameful and appalling. And Rome’s views on homosexuality are confusing because, followed to their logical conclusion with regard to original sin, they lead to a protestant understanding of human nature that most protestants these days would even find difficult to accept.

That having been said, and for what it’s worth, I can’t say I fully agree with your wife’s friends’ decision to jump ship. I would guess that there’s something more going on here than disagreement with these positions.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[KingAlfred]

Recently I spoke with three friends of my wife’s, all of whom say they’re considering leaving the Catholic Church - two of them said they were considering the Lutheran Church.

Their reasons?

One was in opposition to the Pope’s prohibition of condoms in Africa.
The other two disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as a sin. One of her friends told me “I can’t believe in a God who tells me I have to hate my friends”.

I responded that though there are things I disagree with or struggle with in the Church, I’m not willing to leave that Grace behind for the sake of making my friends happy, and asking whether the alternative (give everyone all the condoms they need) would make for a better world. And I admonished them in seeking that they should not try to find the love of God outside of the holiness of God - and that one must be perfect to enter Heaven. One of the friends said “Who’s perfect? Why would I want to believe in a God like that?”

To me, this is a misplaced mindset - putting 21st century liberal values before Christian beliefs. To them, my mindset is the old one and needs to be brought “up to date” with the progressive world around us. In other words - modernism.

How can we, in our conversations, overcome such barriers to Christ? I would argue that these issues are peripheral - especially for those of us who are not homosexuals - especially when compared with central doctrine of salvation. Indeed, should I reject Christ altogether because my friends are left out?

Your friends aren’t using Reason to sort out these problems. I’m not an apologist or school-trained theologian, but I like to think a lot about my religion and its mission to Mankind. I would counter their thinking by asking them a few questions. For example, how could the Church possibly say ‘yes’ to condom-use, anywhere? That would violate its Doctrine of Life, and greenlight sexual irresponsibility on a global scale. It simply can’t do that. The fundamental answer to unwanted pregnancies and STDs must remain abstinence, from an official perspective, despite Man’s innate weakness in controlling his sexual impulses.

Also, what kind of society would we have, not only in the West, but really anywhere, if marriage included a same-sex version? The social order as we’ve always known it wouldn’t exist. There are innumerable reasons for this, of course, but one of the most cogent is that homosexuality doesn’t allow for procreation. On a personal note, I know someone who was raised by two lesbians, and she is one pathetically mal-adjusted person. CATHOLIC TEACHING IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF HUMAN SOCIETY. It really is, if one is honest about it, and is gifted with sufficient presence of mind. Indeed, it’s hard to live Catholicism, but it’s what’s best for us all, in the final analysis. Life isn’t easy.

 

[prodigalson12]

The pope must state elements which are in alignment with the bible and the church itself, this is and always should be the formal official stance. If it were deviated in any way, he would be in error. I do have some crazy thoughts along certain elements would be best left unsaid along an official front, that we all know better then to have someone point out the truth for us when it’s clearly there right in front of us from the beginning.

It’s the why element that you struggle with, it’s also the context which is being largely lost. Aids is used as a form of terror in Africa, women are being raped intentionally infected with it and the perpetrators regardless of the churches stance would not bother with condoms so it’s a rather mute issue. Now if you are having sex within the proper context “marriage”, you then are forced to face a slew of issues that arrise from it and in the case of marriage, abstinence is not declared as mandatory, in fact, just the opposite, yet not out of hand, or to the point where it itself has transformed from an expression of beauty to merely an expression of lust.

Personally I do not need to be spoon fed, apparently your friends do and when they don’t like to eat their carrots along with their meal, like a child they will stomp their feet at the matter.

Along homosexuals, always know, to hate the sin and love the sinner is what counts, I struggle with this element in regards to how so many of them have infiltrated the church and attained positions of power within it and too often people turn a blind eye on the matter, not seeing things many of us clearly do.

It’s ok to have differences with what is going on as of late with it, it’s even better to try for reform of sorts by leading through example of which I strive to do myself in my own way. I don’t abandon it, I uphold it, yet I do not remain silent within the eye of truth that is not being shown to all.

The bottom line regardless, no outside protestant church can ever replace the Catholic church, your friends may wander away, but if they see things for how they really are, they would realize where their true home is at.

Along the progressive nature of the church in these “modern” times. We may think our times are “modern” yet it’s the same old story, same problems, same everything, different numbers attached to the time line and there is no need for the church to have to progress and “keep up with them” in the first place at all. This is my bone of contention and the reason I draw more closely to tradition rather then the radical changes which may be under the cloak of reform, or being progressive, the same truths as before should apply directly into todays times, well, unless God has some how changed, of which we all know he has not.

 

[Louie1983]

Recently I spoke with three friends of my wife’s, all of whom say they’re considering leaving the Catholic Church - two of them said they were considering the Lutheran Church.

Their reasons?

One was in opposition to the Pope’s prohibition of condoms in Africa.
The other two disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as a sin. One of her friends told me “I can’t believe in a God who tells me I have to hate my friends”.

I responded that though there are things I disagree with or struggle with in the Church, I’m not willing to leave that Grace behind for the sake of making my friends happy, and asking whether the alternative (give everyone all the condoms they need) would make for a better world. And I admonished them in seeking that they should not try to find the love of God outside of the holiness of God - and that one must be perfect to enter Heaven. One of the friends said “Who’s perfect? Why would I want to believe in a God like that?”

To me, this is a misplaced mindset - putting 21st century liberal values before Christian beliefs. To them, my mindset is the old one and needs to be brought “up to date” with the progressive world around us. In other words - modernism.

How can we, in our conversations, overcome such barriers to Christ? I would argue that these issues are peripheral - especially for those of us who are not homosexuals - especially when compared with central doctrine of salvation. Indeed, should I reject Christ altogether because my friends are left out?

Sad, very sad. There is a massive lack of knowledge of the faith here. One example is that catholics do hate homosexuals, Nonsense! No where does the church teach to hate homosexuals or anyone for that matter!

This is typical of people of who have fallen into the “get with the times” trap, they don’t realise that “the times” may not be correct!

 

[phoenix3212]

Sad, very sad. There is a massive lack of knowledge of the faith here. One example is that catholics do hate homosexuals, Nonsense! No where does the church teach to hate homosexuals or anyone for that matter!

This is typical of people of who have fallen into the “get with the times” trap, they don’t realise that “the times” may not be correct!

Agreed. As G.K. Chesterton once noted, “The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.”

 

[losh14]

Forgive me, losh14, but your admonition borders on meaninglessness for a couple reasons: 1) you imply that there is a place where the holiness of God is not–this implication is untrue; 2) you imply that there is a subordination of God’s love to God’s perfection–this implication is also false, God’s perfection comes from God’s love, it is not the other way round; 3) perfection is not the requirement of entry to heaven, at least not one we can achieve on our own merits–moreover, we will never be perfect as God is perfect unless we first lose our creatureliness, but this loss would deprive us of our being and destroy us utterly.

Grace and peace, Mark. No offense taken, and your comments are thought-provoking.
What I mean by separating the love of God from the holiness of God is in human understanding of God, not in describing God Himself. You’re quite correct that you cannot render God’s Love apart from His Holiness, although we have the freedom to reject both by remaining in sin in denial of Christ’s call to repentance. Does the Holiness of God remain present in the heart of an unrepentant sinner who is not ignorant of God’s love?

I would not subordinate one to the other - they are coequal and one can not be evidenced without the presence of the other.

I felt that this was what these friends were trying to do - see God in terms of loving all His creation (as he does indeed love all of us) which would require of course loving their gay friends regardless of their actions, but not see God in terms of His constant call away from sin and towards repentance, which explains (I thought) why they rejected the Church’s teaching that homosexual activity is sinful.

I did not mean to imply that God’s love is subordinated to God’s perfection - and I’m honestly not quite sure where you see this expressed in my post. But I can only read as I wrote, so I’ll restate. We cannot attempt to see God as loving without seeing Him as Holy, otherwise we appeal to an incomplete picture of Him. Likewise, we cannot see Him as Holy without seeing Him as Love. He is Father, not only Judge, not only Friend. Indeed, God embraces the sinner upon repentance, but what is God’s response to the sinner who says, “Lord, forgive me, but don’t make me leave my sin behind”?

Your point is well taken with regard to the admonition to be perfect - taken from Mt 5:48, which probably means more in discussing faith with an OSAS Christian than with Catholics who do not practice their faith (one of these is already attending a Lutheran church, the others have stopped attending altogether). No, none of us will see perfection in this lifetime, not outside of a special and unique Grace. I should have said, perhaps, that they should not be seeking a church that allows them to reject teachings they do not like, but rather to seek to live in accord with the teachings of the Church.

Additionally, I have found in these boards that when an argument is characterized as being “My Traditional Mindset v. Their Modernist Heresy” the argument is usually about something else

Did I really come off as Traditionalist Catholic? They’d call me Novus Ordo I hope these friends did not see me as being condescending when I was in disagreement with them. Part of it is pointing out what the Catholic Church does and does not teach and asking on points where Faith and culture clash which ideology one chooses to embrace. Let me remove the label of Modernism and opine that it is an error to place the values of one’s culture above the values of one’s faith. Where my culture says that sexual license among mature adults should be limited only by mutual consent, my faith says that we are called to relate to one another with greater dignity as creatures in the image of God. I was not attempting to assert myself above them, indeed I am a sinner as well, but I would be gravely mistaken to allow them to think licentiousness is compatible with Church teaching.

For what it’s worth, I think the Pope’s position on condoms in Africa is shameful and appalling.

I’d agree with you if I didn’t think that the industrialized world’s abandonment of Africa is even more appalling. The legacy of the destruction and pillaging wrought by colonization is ceaseless conflict, social collapse and chronic privation. Europe’s imperial aspirations created a Malthusian nightmare, and I don’t condemn the Pope for refusing to bend the rules that Catholics in industrialized nations are asked to follow.

And Rome’s views on homosexuality are confusing because, followed to their logical conclusion with regard to original sin, they lead to a protestant understanding of human nature that most protestants these days would even find difficult to accept.

I don’t follow you here. You’ll have to explain.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark. No offense taken,

Thank God! Lately I’ve been feeling a bit grumpy and more than slightly acerbic. So I’m glad I didn’t offend.

Does the Holiness of God remain present in the heart of an unrepentant sinner who is not ignorant of God’s love?

I would tend to say yes, it does remain: as conscience, as the possibility of grace rendered fruitless by sin, as a seed of judgment–that is, it remains because if it were absent, we would cease to be, but insofar as it remains in a heart that will not give it room to grow, it is a consuming, jealous fire.

Let me remove the label of Modernism and opine that it is an error to place the values of one’s culture above the values of one’s faith.

Agreed–and I’d add that it is an error to place the values of one’s faith above the value of love. Which is not to say that there is conflict between those values. Only that should such a conflict arise, love is to be preferred. “Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is Love.”

I’d agree with you if I didn’t think that the industrialized world’s abandonment of Africa is even more appalling. The legacy of the destruction and pillaging wrought by colonization is ceaseless conflict, social collapse and chronic privation. Europe’s imperial aspirations created a Malthusian nightmare, and I don’t condemn the Pope for refusing to bend the rules that Catholics in industrialized nations are asked to follow.

You’re absolutely right–what the industrialized world has done to Africa is grossly appalling. And I understand the Pope’s position with regard to condoms and Catholic morality, but it seems that this situation is about more than rules, but about life and death. Despite what many Roman Catholics and others believe regarding condom use, it does help prevent HIV infection. And if the goal is to reduce HIV infection, it seems immoral not to use condoms in the fight. If the goal is to make people abide by Roman sexual morality, then I suppose denying condoms is in concert with that goal. But it seems to me that more people could be persuaded to eventually abide by Roman sexual morality if more people did not die of AIDS.

I don’t follow you here. You’ll have to explain.

It can get a little involved. The core of it revolves around whether or not Original Sin is a wound to nature or if it has destroyed nature. Catholic teaching posits that nature is wounded but not destroyed, whereas classical Protestant thinking seems to be that nature was destroyed and must be removed, replaced, or covered over. The Catholic position says that we are capable of receiving grace to heal the wound. The implication for desire is that it is wounded, but not totally incapable of producing good fruit. If homosexuality is an objective disorder, it follows that it is so because either it is a special case of Original Sin which has completely obliterated the goodness of desire, in which case it is incapable of bearing good fruit, or that it is a subset of heterosexual desire, in which case permanent change of sexuality could be produced consistently, reliably, and without violence or coercion.

The proof for subset of heterosexuality theory is lacking, and the idea that sin has completely destroyed the goodness of desire is contrary to Catholic teaching, and contrary to lived experience which shows that human flourishing has come from homosexual relationships. It follows that homosexuality must be its own thing, like heterosexuality, and that it is not objectively disordered.

That’s it in a nutshell! James Alison is the fellow who articulates this critique much better than I. He’s a student of Rene Girard’s work, whom I also admire, and whose take on the efficacy and purpose of the crucifixion is really startling and wonderful.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[losh14]

I think I see our disagreement is primarily in reference to the mental frames of our discussion.

When I speak of Holiness, I speak of that sanctification that comes with obedience - the proper response of the soul to the Grace of God, indeed the imitation of Him who alone is Holy. I think you took my assertion as that Grace itself would abandon the sinner, which I would not posit. No, the Grace remains, but it does not sanctify because it is being refused. I think you and I would agree, then, that sanctifying grace (sorry to go back to 8th grade catechism) does not leave, but rather becomes ineffective because of our refusal to surrender to it. That’s the question I never quite got answered in 8th grade - does sin chase away grace, or does it merely render it ineffective. I suppose since Grace is an external factor (gift from God) whether it leaves altogether or simply ceases to influence is a moot point.

I like your thought of a “jealous, consuming fire”. Indeed our God is a jealous God, and we only know jealousy where there is a passionate love.

Thank you for explaining your position on homosexuality as it relates to Original Sin. I think we’d take different approaches to understanding it, but your point is well-taken.

I’ve been thinking for about 10 minutes about what I want to say next, and I don’t think it’s possible to continue without launching into something I didn’t intend with this topic. My initial question was on evanglization, and now our tangent has become on homosexuality and the nature of sin itself. Yes, I am also trying to avoid the inevitable debate on whether homosexuality is choice or whether it is innate to the person, because there’s no way to satisfy the debate rhetorically.

I will say that I don’t take Original Sin to be responsible for disposing a person towards a particular sin, but rather towards all sin in general. Original Sin gives rebelliousness because it distorts our proper order - ultimately, placing ourselves or something other before God in importance. So Original Sin wounds in both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

[jawats]

You’re absolutely right–what the industrialized world has done to Africa is grossly appalling. And I understand the Pope’s position with regard to condoms and Catholic morality, but it seems that this situation is about more than rules, but about life and death. Despite what many Roman Catholics and others believe regarding condom use, it does help prevent HIV infection. And if the goal is to reduce HIV infection, it seems immoral not to use condoms in the fight. If the goal is to make people abide by Roman sexual morality, then I suppose denying condoms is in concert with that goal. But it seems to me that more people could be persuaded to eventually abide by Roman sexual morality if more people did not die of AIDS.

It seems to me there are two ways to answer this. One is simply to note that circumstances do not usually change the inherent nature of an act. Therefore, the Church could not support condom use as a solution to AIDS even if the condoms DID work (see below).

Moreover, if you prefer the pragmatic argument, I refer you to this article in the Washington Post, indicating the agreement with an AIDS researcher there with the Pope’s stance:

*We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and – along with contraception – female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa’s generalized epidemics – nowhere else.

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations’ AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called “Reassessing HIV Prevention” 10 AIDS experts concluded that “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”*

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

When I speak of Holiness, I speak of that sanctification that comes with obedience - the proper response of the soul to the Grace of God, indeed the imitation of Him who alone is Holy. I think you took my assertion as that Grace itself would abandon the sinner, which I would not posit. No, the Grace remains, but it does not sanctify because it is being refused. I think you and I would agree, then, that sanctifying grace (sorry to go back to 8th grade catechism) does not leave, but rather becomes ineffective because of our refusal to surrender to it. That’s the question I never quite got answered in 8th grade - does sin chase away grace, or does it merely render it ineffective. I suppose since Grace is an external factor (gift from God) whether it leaves altogether or simply ceases to influence is a moot point.

I think I agree with you almost completely, here, and I think where we might disagree has to do with how we understand what obedience means. But I agree with you about Grace. I think, though, that it’s not so much a moot point–I think it continues to subsist in a person–like the imprint that baptism makes in our soul. That imprint doesn’t leave, but is obscured or effaced through sin. Confession, the Eucharist, and the means of grace God has given to his church help to remove the accumulated dross of sin and reveal the true character of the baptismal seal.

I’ve been thinking for about 10 minutes about what I want to say next, and I don’t think it’s possible to continue without launching into something I didn’t intend with this topic. My initial question was on evanglization, and now our tangent has become on homosexuality and the nature of sin itself. Yes, I am also trying to avoid the inevitable debate on whether homosexuality is choice or whether it is innate to the person, because there’s no way to satisfy the debate rhetorically.

Oh no! I don’t want to derail you. There are already too many posts on homosexuality as it is–which, on the one hand, is a testament to what I see as the Church’s commitment to struggle with her understanding of homosexuality, but on the other represents a bit of overkill. But, be that as it may…

Re: the question of evangelizing your wife’s friends, I would make a couple suggestions that’ll probably be redundant as you’re aware of them already.

1–Listen to them. Don’t dismiss what they say out of hand. If they are thinking of leaving the Church or of going to another communion, it is likely because of a broken heart–the idea that the Church has not lived up to the good which they expected of it to which they feel it has been called. A broken heart is very dear to God.

2–Refrain from quoting doctrine. This will turn them right off. They are looking for a Church which will respond to them, not quote at them. Part of their dis-satisfaction with Rome may be that they believe its moral teachings do not respond to or engage with the world at all, amounting only to endlessly quoted rules, maxims, and dogmas. The best thing would be to get them to understand that rules, maxims and dogmas are there to form us–that is, they are there for us to wrestle with. Without the struggle, we remained unformed. Obedience (to come full circle for a moment!) is not a matter of just doing, but a matter of listening and responding. Sometimes the correct response is, indeed, a wrestling match!

3–Encourage them to understand that there is the Church and there is the church. There is the Bride of Christ, the Lady of the Apocalypse arrayed with stars (an image of which is Our Lady), the Restored and Renewed Creation, and there is the bureaucracy of fallible human beings who struggle with the truth, with man-made systems, with convention, with politics–and in the midst of it all, try, imperfectly, to articulate the teaching of the Spirit. We should try not to confuse the two too often, but should seek to aspire to the one, and forgive the other when necessary. Otherwise, we may find ourselves incredibly disillusioned.

4–Talk to them about the Eucharist, about what it means. Not in a way of warning, such as the common, “but no one else has a valid eucharist” which speaks of a jesuitical way of looking at the world informed by legalism and technicalities which makes the Church look inhuman and monstrous. Speak of the Eucharist as the Body of Christ–which is not just the body, blood soul and Divinity of Jesus, but is the community gathered around the table. “We who are many are one body, because we all share one bread, one cup.” Those who partake of the mysteries without discerning the body do so at their own peril. What does this mean? That if we do not partake of the mysteries conscious of our ties of love and charity to the sinner kneeling next to us, then we cut ourselves off from the body and from the Lord who, in the sacrament, is pointing to that sinner next to us with whom we disagree and saying, “That’s me, too! That’s me, too!” If they are struggling with their faith or with the magesterium, the thing they need most is the Eucharist! It may not eleviate the struggle, but it will teach them how it is they should struggle with dignity and in charity with those with whom they disagree.

Anyway, my two cents! I hope I haven’t overstepped my bounds, here.

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Not to detract from the topic a bit, but…

Recently I spoke with three friends of my wife’s, all of whom say they’re considering leaving the Catholic Church - two of them said they were considering the Lutheran Church.

Their reasons?

One was in opposition to the Pope’s prohibition of condoms in Africa.
The other two disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as a sin. One of her friends told me “I can’t believe in a God who tells me I have to hate my friends”.

That says something about the Lutheran Church of today, given that Martin Luther, despite being the anti-Roman Catholic that he was, would most likely disagree with their reasons for leaving