Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[Boundless]

God should have consulted you first.

IMO, those who wish to overcome this sin need to look at it squarely and admit the truth about it. Those who have overcome, or are on the road to it, repent with a deep compunction that admits the true gravity of it all without making excuses (“but it’s not any worse than some of these other sins, etc”). A truly repentant person always includes himself, as St. Paul did, with those who were the worst of sinners…and this turns out to be their greatest joy, in the experience of God’s infinite mercy!

A truly remorseful person does not say “I’m sorry for my sins Lord, but look at so and so…my sins aren’t any worse than his, no siree!”

Ah, but I didn’t say it was NO worse than other sexual sins. It is, for a number of complicated reasons both having to do with its opposition to the Natural Order and Psychological effects. I said it was not as many orders of magnitude worse as YOU suggest. And I gave more thoughtful reasons for why that is than “Because I just don’t want to think so” unlike what you imply about me.

And as for your “a truly repentant person always includes himself…with the worst of sinners” I fully believe that, and believe me I DO consider myself no better than even the most grave sinner on your little list (have I not earlier said I wouldn’t even judge someone tempted to MURDER?!), but the question is, do YOU really believe your own words, or is that only true for people with SSA and those who fit on the “list of sins that cry out to Heaven for Vengeance”? Because it seems to me that your emphasis on the gradation of sins (even though there IS truth to that, I admit) would NOT encourage those who are lower on the scale to “include themselves with the worst of sinners.” It would encourage the very opposite attitude, “At least I’m not so-and-so. The Church teaches they’re worse than me, so there!” Not exactly deep compunction, is it?

So let’s recap: I and the other folks here who agree with me are not denying the gradations of sins, although sometimes we may think it’s being grossly exaggerated on this thread at times. We are not even denying that same sex activity is higher on the gradation of sins than a lot of others, including sexual sins.

We are saying that this is largely irrelevant when it comes to “hating the sin, and loving the sinner” which is what Pope Francis has done. There is a gradation of sins. Okay. I believe you. But unless you are on the higher level of that gradation, focusing on that can be a source of pride, a source of paranoia, judgmentalism, and avoidance of those who simply need to be loved. I would say, in fact, that the people who should most focus on that gradation are those who are truly convinced they are “chief among sinners” and who can continue to see their sins as being no better than anyone else’s even with the knowledge of the gradation. But anyone who considers himself “lower” on that gradation, for whom focus on that gradation would thus just be a temptation to say or believe “So and so’s sins and temptations are worse than mine!” does not benefit from such meditation, and in fact is being tempted to pride.

 

[fili_dei]

When taken in the full context, he’s exactly right. We don’t want to marginalize people with homosexual attraction. We don’t want to push them away because then they are captured by the enemy. We want to embrace them with the love of Christ. And while we cannot and should not condone their actions, we should not and must not make them feel like they are not children of God.

Agreed.

And that includes allowing them to be priests and serve in leadership capacities in the church. Having a homosexual attraction is no different than having a heterosexual attraction when one is called to be celibate.

Respectfully disagree - there is a big difference.

Being a priest involves giving up the prospect of marriage to a women and provide physical fruitfulness (children), instead marrying the church to provide spiritual fruitfulness. A gay man cannot make this sacrificial act, nor can gay man understand the masculine sign of in persona Christi to the feminine church. This was covered during Pope Benedict XVI papacy.

There are also practical issues - gay priests often carry into their ministry aspects of the gay sub-culture and that includes a minority focus and neglecting the broader church. There is the famous instance were a heterosexual priest felt isolated and when he raised the issue with his fellow gay priests, in place of facilitating inclusion, they resorted to accusations of homophobia.

Let’s get this clear: Homosexual attraction has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Nothing at all. Respectfully disagree - the problem with child sexual abuse in the church tends to be a homosexual predation i.e. pederasty problem as an analysis of the victim demographic would indicate.
The Bucket;11037347:

Francis affirmed the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts but called for greater forgiveness for people who stumble and fall. What’s wrong with that? He’s quite right to note that St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and the earthly Church even after denying he ever knew Christ. I daresay that’s a pretty big sin.

Only if the soul has recognised the sin and sought forgiveness and reparation

 

[fili_dei]

Being a priest involves giving up the prospect of marriage to a women and provide physical fruitfulness (children), instead marrying the church to provide spiritual fruitfulness. A gay man cannot make this sacrificial act, nor can gay man understand the masculine sign of in persona Christi to the feminine church. This was covered during Pope Benedict XVI papacy.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

 

[opus101]

Ah, but I didn’t say it was NO worse than other sexual sins. It is, for a number of complicated reasons both having to do with its opposition to the Natural Order and Psychological effects. I said it was not as many orders of magnitude worse as YOU suggest. And I gave more thoughtful reasons for why that is than “Because I just don’t want to think so” unlike what you imply about me.

Objectively speaking, it is much worse. *Subjectively *speaking, only God knows the level of culpability of each soul.

So let’s recap: I and the other folks here who agree with me are not denying the gradations of sins, although sometimes we may think it’s being grossly exaggerated on this thread at times. We are not even denying that same sex activity is higher on the gradation of sins than a lot of others, including sexual sins.

This will ring obviously untrue to anyone who has been reading this thread. Although you yourself have admitted to varying degrees of gravity, others have represented a more Protestant moral theology. I think the problem is ignorance of the difference between objective offences against God and subjective culpability.

We are saying that this is largely irrelevant when it comes to “hating the sin, and loving the sinner” which is what Pope Francis has done. There is a gradation of sins. Okay. I believe you. But unless you are on the higher level of that gradation, focusing on that can be a source of pride, a source of paranoia, judgmentalism, and avoidance of those who simply need to be loved. I would say, in fact, that the people who should most focus on that gradation are those who are truly convinced they are “chief among sinners” and who can continue to see their sins as being no better than anyone else’s even with the knowledge of the gradation. But anyone who considers himself “lower” on that gradation, for whom focus on that gradation would thus just be a temptation to say or believe “So and so’s sins and temptations are worse than mine!” does not benefit from such meditation, and in fact is being tempted to pride.

Like with some of the others, there is truly a bit of defensive paranoia here. No one has judged anyone else’s personal culpability, nor has anyone placed themselves or anyone else “higher” or “lower” on a “gradation”. And this is the problem here! Whenever anyone attempts to speak objectively about moral theology, others confuse the statements with subjective judgements of individuals.

Look, the real problem here is that many people (just look through this thread for evidence) now have the mistaken idea that homosexuality is just another sexual sin, and as long as one does not practice it, one can go around searching for public support by airing the fact that one struggles with it. The *objective *gravity of the sin is no longer acknowledged. This might not be the case with you personally, but it is quite evident that this is the personal view of many. You keep trying to include others with your own views, saying “'we” feel this way, all “we’re” saying is… etc.

The current idea that one needs to air this tendency outside of the avenues provided presents a number of problems:

1. It draws attention to a particular sin that is not healthy for others, particularly young people, to be unnecessarily exposed to (unless they have similar struggles or are properly trained in moral theology and psychology).
2. It causes others (who are by and large catechized poorly) to have mistaken ideas about moral theology, and they equate these struggles with things such as a propensity to eat too much chocolate. “Hey, Bud, I’m with you! I was really tempted last night when I saw that McDonald’s had a sale on hot fudge sundaes.”
3. Because of the above, it may tempt others to entertain the same thing because, seeing that the SSA man is a “nice guy”, church going, humble enough to admit his problems, etc., it must not be such a bad thing after all. What’s the harm in dabbling now and then with such a sin…after all, when I fall I’ll get lots of sympathy and attention and everyone will applaud my public confession.
4. It can cause humiliation for family members, especially if the person in question is married, or worse yet , married with children Remember, the only place where you can be confident that no one will repeat what you say is in the confessional.
5. It puts a burden on others that they are not equipped to deal with. No one knows how to react to such admissions except to say that they cannot judge your soul and that they love you and will pray for you.
6. It puts the person in question in a needy position where he is the center of ongoing attention, as it seems that he has a need to perpetuate this problem throughout life and make it everybody else’s problem too. Rather than have done with it, putting away the past, not looking back, but running on toward the goal, it may seem that the person wants to perpetually wallow, discuss and emphasize his “special” problem. Even though the temptations may continue, there is no reason that anyone would need to pay attention to them or inflate their importance. We all suffer temptations, and it’s a lifetime deal.
7. Rather than the Pope’s sentiment (“Who am I to judge gay people?”), it sends a variety of messages to others. For some, it is perceived as a nullifier of the Church’s wisdom in discerning roles for the faithful (“Since so-and-so is such a nice religious guy, I think it’s wrong of the Church to say he doesn’t have a priestly vocation just because he has SSA”). It causes others to misinterpret the Pope and authentic teaching by seemingly downplaying the gravity of the problem and its attendant psychological and relational difficulties.

 

[opus101]

continued…

1. Even with groups encouraged by the Church, such as Courage, the leaders are priests who are trained to facilitate the discussion and provide authentic support as far as Church teaching goes. The average Catholic is not as equipped to deal with this problem There’s more to it than meets the eye/ear.
2. Part of the succes of 12 steps groups has to do with anonymity - hence, the name “Alcoholics Anonymous”. Another part of the success is due to the support from those who suffer similar problems. Neither aspect is likely to be present with other individuals.

 

[clem456]

If you insist on asking a technical moral theology question, then the answer to that moral theology question is Yes. Fix has explained this, as have I. You learn those kinds of distinctions in a fuller catechesis than the sloppy one that has tended to be available in the recent past.

Sloppy is not a term we should throw at the bishops, priests, pastoral associates, religious educators, RCIA leaders, who present the catechism to the faithful. There is nothing sloppy about the catechism or the programs that are in place.Person’s opinions do not trump what the Church actually teaches us and wants us to teach others through it’s catechetical programs and pastoral approach to these issues.
Why do you think the catechism does not present a difference in gravity between homo and hetero sexual sin? -It is not doctrine- is one good answer, despite St Thomas’ comparison of the actual sins. One theologian’s opinion, no matter how well considered, does not necessarily make doctrine or dogma, and does not determine the best pastoral approach to an issue in the present day. The closest thing you see to this comparison in the catechism is the statement about sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. And the catechism specifically states, this is a “tradition”. Nowhere does the catechism say that homos sex is worse than disordered hetero sins. The catechism specifically uses the word disorder in regard to lust in general, speaks truthfully about the disordered nature of hetero sins, as well as homosexuality. This is what the Church wishes to be taught, obviously, and is the way the Pope speaks about it. "Who am I to judge." Indeed, who are we, that we believe we should speak in excessively condemnatory ways the Pope, the bishops, the Church, do not?
When you ask a question with an actual definitive answer, however, one should not be upset at the answer, because there are such answers in Catholic theology, as categories. Most of these threads end up challenging the theology, and then the questioner becoming offended that there’s an actual answer.

**Most offenses are of charity, not of being incorrect on technicalities. Usually it’s people asserting things in areas they are not fully qualified in, and obstinately holding to them. I am as guilty as the next guy. **

Also, for practical purposes, the poster InSearchofGrace has done quite a bit of research on the exceptionally binding qualities of homosexual relationships which can make them quite difficult to extricate oneself from. Therefore, the Church would be neglectful not to be concerned about homosexual behavior as merely “no different” from any other sexual sin. It is not “no different,” both from a moral standpoint and from its psychological power.

That’s not being asserted. What’s being asserted is that despite the specific physical acts, grave is grave, disordered is disordered, separation from God is separation. One cannot condemn a homosexual more easily because they commit sodomy, as opposed to one who cheats on his spouse with vaginal intercourse. The pastoral approach the Pope demonstrates, which the thread is about, emphasizes the commonality we all have in the “theology of sin” (his words). We are not to condemn our brother, God is perfectly capable of that.
The Church, as the living organism of Christ, is in the business of liberating and healing, which is not accomplished by trivializing moral danger and psychological enslavement.

**It has been repeated ad-nauseum in this thread…I have not seen one post that trivialized moral danger or enslavement to sin. That’s a misrepresentation of what has been said. **

 

[fix]

Objectively speaking, it is much worse. *Subjectively *speaking, only God knows the level of culpability of each soul.

This will ring obviously untrue to anyone who has been reading this thread. Although you yourself have admitted to varying degrees of gravity, others have represented a more Protestant moral theology. I think the problem is ignorance of the difference between objective offences against God and subjective culpability.

Like with some of the others, there is truly a bit of defensive paranoia here. No one has judged anyone else’s personal culpability, nor has anyone placed themselves or anyone else “higher” or “lower” on a “gradation”. And this is the problem here! Whenever anyone attempts to speak objectively about moral theology, others confuse the statements with subjective judgements of individuals.

Look, the real problem here is that many people (just look through this thread for evidence) now have the mistaken idea that homosexuality is just another sexual sin, and as long as one does not practice it, one can go around searching for public support by airing the fact that one struggles with it. The *objective *gravity of the sin is no longer acknowledged. This might not be the case with you personally, but it is quite evident that this is the personal view of many. You keep trying to include others with your own views, saying “'we” feel this way, all “we’re” saying is… etc.

The current idea that one needs to air this tendency outside of the avenues provided presents a number of problems:

1. It draws attention to a particular sin that is not healthy for others, particularly young people, to be unnecessarily exposed to (unless they have similar struggles or are properly trained in moral theology and psychology).
2. It causes others (who are by and large catechized poorly) to have mistaken ideas about moral theology, and they equate these struggles with things such as a propensity to eat too much chocolate. “Hey, Bud, I’m with you! I was really tempted last night when I saw that McDonald’s had a sale on hot fudge sundaes.”
3. Because of the above, it may tempt others to entertain the same thing because, seeing that the SSA man is a “nice guy”, church going, humble enough to admit his problems, etc., it must not be such a bad thing after all. What’s the harm in dabbling now and then with such a sin…after all, when I fall I’ll get lots of sympathy and attention and everyone will applaud my public confession.
4. It can cause humiliation for family members, especially if the person in question is married, or worse yet , married with children Remember, the only place where you can be confident that no one will repeat what you say is in the confessional.
5. It puts a burden on others that they are not equipped to deal with. No one knows how to react to such admissions except to say that they cannot judge your soul and that they love you and will pray for you.
6. It puts the person in question in a needy position where he is the center of ongoing attention, as it seems that he has a need to perpetuate this problem throughout life and make it everybody else’s problem too. Rather than have done with it, putting away the past, not looking back, but running on toward the goal, it may seem that the person wants to perpetually wallow, discuss and emphasize his “special” problem. Even though the temptations may continue, there is no reason that anyone would need to pay attention to them or inflate their importance. We all suffer temptations, and it’s a lifetime deal.
7. Rather than the Pope’s sentiment (“Who am I to judge gay people?”), it sends a variety of messages to others. For some, it is perceived as a nullifier of the Church’s wisdom in discerning roles for the faithful (“Since so-and-so is such a nice religious guy, I think it’s wrong of the Church to say he doesn’t have a priestly vocation just because he has SSA”). It causes others to misinterpret the Pope and authentic teaching by seemingly downplaying the gravity of the problem and its attendant psychological and relational difficulties.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[fix]

**It has been repeated ad-nauseum in this thread…I have not seen one post that trivialized moral danger or enslavement to sin. That’s a misrepresentation of what has been said. **

The CCC is not a moral theology text. The rejection of St. Thomas is based on what exactly?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It causes others (who are by and large catechized poorly) to have mistaken ideas about moral theology…

Well, I think this is the central objection. And I agree that, in most churches, this misunderstanding might flourish. But this is not a problem with the person who is open about his struggles; this is a problem with the church. In a church that is functioning properly, moral theology would be taught solidly, and there could be no such mistakes.

In an ecumenical community I am a part of, I have seen a person who has been open with the adults in the community about his past difficulties with adultery. The community teaching on morality is extremely clear. And what people have seen is this: since this fellow has become transparent about his difficulties with sexual temptation and sin, he has been completely transformed. And other people are receiving healing, because they recognize that there is grace to expose their sins and temptations to the light.

Is this case not relevantly similar?

Of course, I agree that all sorts of prudence would be necessary. I don’t think this should be done lightly, and I generally think that being open with an entire church (or community) is unnecessary and potentially unwise. But more openness can be a good idea.

Part of the succes of 12 steps groups has to do with anonymity - hence, the name “Alcoholics Anonymous”. Another part of the success is due to the support from those who suffer similar problems. Neither aspect is likely to be present with other individuals.

LOTS of men in the church have similar problems. Not problems with homosexuality, perhaps, but problems with sexual sin, living as a man in the modern world, and interpersonal relationships.

As for groups like Courage, a good number of men with SSA don’t go within a mile of those groups. It would put them into face-to-face contact with people who pose a near occasion of sin.

 

[Boundless]

Objectively speaking, it is much worse.

I have explained both that I agree it’s objectively worse, and why on the other hand I don’t believe it’s as many orders of magnitude worse as you seem to have concluded. But you’re entitled to your opinion, based upon your own interpretation of scripture, your interpretation of “the sin of Sodom” and what the Church seems, to you, to be teaching. I’m obviously not going to change that. I do agree that it’s a worse sin, in several ways. Do I put it, objectively, with murder? No; and that’s because the sin of Sodom seems, upon my honest inspection of those scriptures, to include more than JUST the fact that these men were gay but that they were gay/bisexual rapists as well.

I do appreciate, either way, the clarification that you don’t believe that people who commit or are tempted by this sin are worse people than other sinners, incurring greater judgment than other sinners.

This might not be the case with you personally, but it is quite evident that this is the personal view of many. You keep trying to include others with your own views, saying “'we” feel this way, all “we’re” saying is… etc.

Perhaps I’ve overstated myself when I’ve implied/said that no one here has been saying what you claim they have. My apologies. But there are others on this thread who are saying the same thing I’m saying. The “we” I’ve been using is appropriate. Perhaps you’re reading them differently than I am, though, and we’ll not be able to come to an agreement on that if this is so.

It causes others (who are by and large catechized poorly) to have mistaken ideas about moral theology, and they equate these struggles with things such as a propensity to eat too much chocolate. “Hey, Bud, I’m with you! I was really tempted last night when I saw that McDonald’s had a sale on hot fudge sundaes.”

I see that Prodigal_Son has responded to this objection, and I agree with what he has said about it.

Because of the above, it may tempt others to entertain the same thing because, seeing that the SSA man is a “nice guy”, church going, humble enough to admit his problems, etc., it must not be such a bad thing after all.

In this you have actually highlighted the very problem with which I take issue: IF there’s a risk that people being more open about this will cause problems because people will see that a man with SSA can be a “nice guy”, etc., then this means–in order for this concern to have any validity at all–that with less openness most people will assume that NOBODY who suffers with this could be a “nice guy, church going, etc.” It leads them to demonize the people who suffer with it. The risks you mention are real. But I’m not sure that keeping everyone in the dark, where we’re actually HOPING they’ll think all people who struggle with this are “foreign,” “not nice,” etc. (because again, unless that’s what we’re hoping, your concerns would make no sense), is the answer. There are risks involved in genuinely loving the sinner. There are risks involved in admitting that sinners are human too. That doesn’t mean that we should keep their humanity, their potential, under wraps for fear that recognizing it might lead us into sin.

The problem is that you’re trying to avoid one lie (the lie that acting on SSA would be no big deal) but you’re trying to avoid it by leaving another lie unchallenged (this logic specifically requires one to let people go on believing the lie that a man with SSA could not be a great, nice, church going guy, that he is some sort of foreign bogeyman, etc.–because believing otherwise is essentially the very thing, at the core of this point, that you are saying is too big a risk). Better catechesis and spiritual conditioning is the answer, not keeping people in the dark that some of their most respected and cherished friends and fellow parishioners do in fact bear this cross.

It can cause humiliation for family members, especially if the person in question is married, or worse yet , married with children

This is a problem within our imperfect Christian culture, quite frankly. It only causes humiliation precisely because everyone just agrees that it’s a horrible taboo, that someone who deals with this is gross or filthy. The entire point of my objection is that this sort of culture is not healthy, not in line with a gracious Savior Who said “Let he without sin cast the first stone,” and this needs to change. If we are the sort of culture where a man who is known to have SSA will have his wife and children ostracized and humiliated, or where they are so ingrained to be ashamed of him that they will be humiliated, then we are not seeing sinners through the eyes of love. That’s precisely the problem many of us think needs to be overcome. And it’s not going to happen by just accepting the status quo.

 

[Boundless]

continued…

It puts a burden on others that they are not equipped to deal with. No one knows how to react to such admissions except to say that they cannot judge your soul and that they love you and will pray for you.

And what more do you think that a person with SSA is expecting of those to whom we entrust this information? Many of us only want exactly that, to know that we are not being judged, that we are still loved, even when our struggles are known. In other words, the very thing that you’ve just said most people are “only” equipped to do is the only thing I, for one, would be seeking from those I care about. But to say: “Oh, I love you no matter what, my Christian brother” rings hollow if the brother in question is left feeling like you probably wouldn’t still love him if you knew what his struggles were, which is only confirmed whenever it’s implied that it would be an utterly horrible thing if you were to find out someone struggled with this.

It puts the person in question in a needy position where he is the center of ongoing attention, as it seems that he has a need to perpetuate this problem throughout life and make it everybody else’s problem too. Rather than have done with it, putting away the past, not looking back, but running on toward the goal, it may seem that the person wants to perpetually wallow, discuss and emphasize his “special” problem. Even though the temptations may continue, there is no reason that anyone would need to pay attention to them or inflate their importance. We all suffer temptations, and it’s a lifetime deal.

Perhaps you truly have a whole different worldview than I do, not only about SSA. Because the gravity of the sin would have no relevance to this point of yours, if it stands true: Truly, if you’re right, then it would be best for every Christian, outside of the confessional, to never ever talk about any of their moral weaknesses or temptations. I know, I know, that “homosexual activity is more grave” but even granting that, it’s a Red Herring as far as this point is concerned: Gravity makes not one wit of difference if this is true.

If sharing your failures and temptations with others, so that they may affirm that they love you even with all your brokenness, is putting yourself “in the center of ongoing attention” and “perpetuating your problem and making it everybody else’s problem too” then this does indeed apply just as much to the least grave sins as it does to the gravest of them all. The gravity should simply have no bearing. If you are advocating a Christian culture where no one is ever frank or open about their weaknesses, then I grant that you have some consistency here; I disagree with you (the Scriptures do say “Confess your faults to one another” and it doesn’t make it clear that this is only in the context of Sacramental confession, but in the context of Christian brotherhood and healing), but I do grant that you’re consistent. But it would be most inconsistent of you to single out only those “graver” sins that for whatever reason make us more uncomfortable than other sins do.

Rather than the Pope’s sentiment (“Who am I to judge gay people?”), it sends a variety of messages to others. For some, it is perceived as a nullifier of the Church’s wisdom in discerning roles for the faithful (“Since so-and-so is such a nice religious guy, I think it’s wrong of the Church to say he doesn’t have a priestly vocation just because he has SSA”). It causes others to misinterpret the Pope and authentic teaching by seemingly downplaying the gravity of the problem and its attendant psychological and relational difficulties.

I think my response to your #3 is again relevant here. These risks are there, but the answer is in deeper and clearer catechesis. The answer is not in refusing to do anything to break down the barriers to communication and authenticity. We cannot just say “Well, it’s better to have people mistakenly judging that guy with SSA as not being potentially very nice and religious than it is to have them mistakenly underestimate homosexuality’s gravity” because that’s just trading one lie for another.

 

[clem456]

Yes, it is a worse sin. Those who say it isn’t evidently have not given much time to studying catholic moral theology, nor the writings of catholic fathers, saints and doctors. Clearly, No one here can say that any specific gay fornicator is headed for a worse level of punishment in Hell than any specific heterosexual adulterer, if they both die unrepentant, because personal culpability depends on much more than the objective gravity of the sin in question. No one can even say if any of them will end up in hell at all! Yet, as far as I can tell, no one here disputes this. Personal culpability depends a whole lot on the personal freedom involved, the willfulness of that person in defying God’s rule over this world and more particularly, over him or herself as a creature of God, a rule which expresses itself in his design for the World that includes man. —The strength of the temptation, for example, the knowledge and understanding of the gravity of the sin in that person for another, all these affect willfulness and therefore culpability in any sin whatsoever, however objectively grave that sin may be in itself. This is exactly the judgment we are forbidden from making against others, and it is precisely the judgment that the Pope is refusing to make in his statements. It pretends to know people’s deepest intentions, level of understanding, force of temptations and other influences that may not even be within the grasp of that person suffering, let alone other people. Things like opportunities for escape or lack thereof, interior weaknesses of that person or the weaknesses of the flesh which we are here referring to by the label ‘dis-orders’, a lot of these things can fundamentally affect personal culpability or personal guilt, even where the action is objectively abhorrent.

Also, for those who deny this gradation among the grave sins, do you consider fornicating with your brother or sister to be equivalent to fornicating with your neighbour? After all, per this logic, both are mortal sin, so who cares, right? How about zoophilia/copulating with animals? Is it an equivalent sin to gay sex? Both are mortal sin, and therefore both must be equal, right? How about abortion and adultery? Aren’t both mortal sin? And isn’t that all that really matters in discussing differences in gravity of sins? Not so. There are differences in gravity among classes of sins, and there are differences in gravity within each of those classes of sin.

**Of course there are.
But we have been comparing two specific types of similar sin differentiated by sexual orientation, comparing the disordered nature of them, and talking about the gravity of them both. And talking about the approach the Church does take to them, through the words of the Pope, bishops, catechism. And whether or not we as Catholics should be telling our homosexual brothers and sisters they are sinning worse than we are.

Notice in John 8 that the teachers and Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman caught in a sin that evidently the rest of them have not committed. A serious sin that they believe she should be condemned for. Jesus does not ask this community “who among you have committed greater sins than this woman?”. No he says this:

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

 

[saveusfromhell]

Let’s get this clear: Homosexual attraction has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Nothing at all.

have you any evidence to back this claim. because the opposite seems to be true, priests having sex with teenage boys.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sloppy is not a term we should throw at the bishops, priests, pastoral associates, religious educators, RCIA leaders, who present the catechism to the faithful.

The hierarchy, including Rome, have used equivalent terms in discussing the state of catechesis in the Church. No need to “correct” me when Rome does not.

There is nothing sloppy about the catechism or the programs that are in place.

Many of the catechetical programs in place are in fact filled with error (sloppy being a gentler term). Again, this is affirmed and reaffirmed by many local clergy and the hierarchy itself. What you might not know is that these programs are not uniform, not by any means. The fact that the Church has a standard Catechism in no way means that (a) that standard catechism is understood, by those assigned to teach it; (b) that catecheism (or an authentic derivation) is even being used; very often something else entirely has been substituted; (c) there is oversight for what is being taught, who is teaching it, and how that is being taught. Oversight varies from parish to parish and diocese to diocese, in consistency, content, and regularity, resulting in the heterodoxy that is abundant within the laity (supposedly, over 50%) and the even more pronounced lack of information about their own Church. None of these observations originated with me; they have been noticed by many in the Church, in positions of authority. Apparently you haven’t heard about them, but they do exist nevertheless. Further, the expertise and preparation of the RCIA directors varies markedly by location. Many are recent converts to Catholicism with scant training, through no fault of their own. However, the fact that such were appointed over the far more qualified persons in most dioceses is definitely a problem for the Church. Many CAF members (converts) have spoken about the various degrees of knowledge, or lack thereof, by their own RCIA director/leader.

Why do you think the catechism does not present a difference in gravity between homo and hetero sexual sin?

Because the Catechism is a tiny abridgement of the full doctrine of the Church. It is by no means comprehensive, but merely fundamental or basic.

[It is not doctrine- is one good answer, despite St Thomas’ comparison of the actual sins. One theologian’s opinion, no matter how well considered, does not necessarily make doctrine or dogma, and does not determine the best pastoral approach to an issue in the present day.

I’m not sure why you continue to represent to us that supposedly STA is the “only” theologian whose theology contains that Truth. That is one of the many errors you have repeated. It most certainly is doctirne, but again, not necessarily formally taught in standard catechesis. Many on CAF had more refined catechesis from non-modernistic, orthodox sources, and those kinds of distinctions are taught, and such are repeated by those who studied at the Angelicum in Rome (Colin Donovan being only one of many who have noted such distinctions publicly).

One cannot condemn a homosexual more easily because they commit sodomy, as opposed to one who cheats on his spouse with vaginal intercourse.

The sinner is not condemned. The sin is, and is not equivalent to adultery, which is also grave, and both such sinners need to repent, as do I (guilty of other sins).

Have a nice day, clem.
[/quote]

 

[opus101]

continued…
And what more do you think that a person with SSA is expecting of those to whom we entrust this information? Many of us only want exactly that, to know that we are not being judged, that we are still loved, even when our struggles are known.

I realize this, but I am still wondering what you want people to do about this! There is no way you can know how another person will respond, and they can’t be forced to respond as you would like. So what is it that you are getting at? Is this just your ranting or complaining about something you have no control over? Is it just the voicing of a wish?
We all wish to gain sympathy and support for our troubles, and often we do not. There is nothing that can be done about that except to legislate kindness and expect everyone to comply, like it or not.

Perhaps you truly have a whole different worldview than I do, not only about SSA. Because the gravity of the sin would have no relevance to this point of yours, if it stands true: Truly, if you’re right, then it would be best for every Christian, outside of the confessional, to never ever talk about any of their moral weaknesses or temptations. I know, I know, that “homosexual activity is more grave” but even granting that, it’s a Red Herring as far as this point is concerned: Gravity makes not one wit of difference if this is true.

I respectfully disagree, and think you are quite mistaken. This has nothing to do with judgementalism (as a private message just informed me), I am not referring to your sins, anyone else’s, or my own. This topic needs to be dealt with objectively, and you are making it difficult because you keep referring to yourself, and not speaking about the problem itself,as such. There is constant reference to “I” and the non-existent “we”, which makes others appear to be making specific, personal or group “judgements”. In the future, to have a fair discussion, it is not necessary to bring yourself into it. There are many ways to do that, one of them being the use of the “third person”.

nd temptations with others, so that they may affirm that they love you even with all your brokenness, is putting yourself “in the center of ongoing attention” and “perpetuating your problem and making it everybody else’s problem too” then this does indeed apply just as much to the least grave sins as it does to the gravest of them all. The gravity should simply have no bearing.

I’m sorry you think so. And again, you know well that there are many legitimate avenues for this to be done for people with SSA.

n culture where no one is ever frank or open about their weaknesses, then I grant that you have some consistency here; I disagree with you (the Scriptures do say “Confess your faults to one another” and it doesn’t make it clear that this is only in the context of Sacramental confession, but in the context of Christian brotherhood and healing), but I do grant that you’re consistent. But it would be most inconsistent of you to single out only those “graver” sins that for whatever reason make us more uncomfortable than other sins do.

You know well that I’ve not advocated a culture where no one is ever frank or open about their weaknesses. One of the big issues here is the well-being of others, most importantly, children (the forgotten and most vulnerable people involved). You also know well that there are many avenues to pursue to find your fix of sympathy, and that every parish has many people who will affirm their love for you. So what exactly is it that you want here? There are many venues for you to follow what you have proposed above: support groups, spiritual direction, confession, the help of Catholic psychologists, close friends, adult prayer groups…

 

[opus101]

Pope Francis has given us confirmation of the fact that we cannot judge individuals. He has also, at the same time, declared that he is “a son of the Church” in regard to doctrine on this issue. His comments say nothing about making SSA the cause celebre of parish life.

While they say something about attitudes, they say nothing about how the issue is to be dealt with in a parish family setting.

The way things are brought “to the light” is through confession, support groups, spiritual direction, psychological help and close friendships. ALL people need to be considered here, not just the person who currently suffers this condition.

Saint Paul did indeed warn against this. There are some things we should not mention out of charity to others.

If we all think of others first, then the SSA person will have his needs met by our affirming love, while at the same time being considerate of others.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Pope Francis has given us confirmation of the fact that we cannot judge individuals. He has also, at the same time, declared that he is “a son of the Church” in regard to doctrine on this issue. **His comments say nothing about making SSA the cause celebre of parish life. **

You keep criticizing Boundless for portraying your position falsely, and then you say this? Where exactly did Boundless advocate making SSA a cause celebre?

By the way, if Boundless does say “we”, I count myself as part of that “we.”

Saint Paul did indeed warn against this. There are some things we should not mention out of charity to others.

Chapter and verse? Are you talking about the “not everything builds up the body” passage?

 

[One_point]

Mr. Clem, Catholicism has no doctrine of sola scriptura, not about the Bible or the catechism. It is a strange thought to make an argument that if you can’t read something explicitly in the catechism, it must not be a teaching of the faith, even if you read it among the fathers or doctors without contradictions. No book contains in full the entire Tradition we have received from our fathers. Based on some of the comments here, I think many would be shocked at some of the things the fathers had to say on this. Particularly St. John Chrysostom, or st. Augustine. By the way, st. Thomas himself relies on the authority of the fathers in his own teachings in the Summa, he did not just dream it up from the blue one fine evening somewhere in the 13th century. On the contrary, it’s some 21st century Catholics who imagine they have just discovered some wisdom that those who went before us somehow missed! Perhaps the world isn’t the authority Catholics should be allowing to shape their minds on matters like the gravity of sin? simply because current culture says that there’s no difference between homosexual desires and heterosexual ones doesn’t mean that this is true, nor that this is the first time Christians are confronted with such questions so that we can just come up with fresh 21st century answers that are only suitable to a particular cultural mindset of the 21st century and not the timeless truth and reality of mankind.

 

[opus101]

You keep criticizing Boundless for portraying your position falsely, and then you say this? Where exactly did Boundless advocate making SSA a cause celebre?

I never said that Boundless said this! This thread is not about Boundless or yourself. It is about issues related to the OP.

By the way, if Boundless does say “we”, I count myself as part of that “we.”

Well good for you for drawing attention to yourself on this point. Now may we get back to the issue at hand, which is not aimed at specific people?

Chapter and verse? Are you talking about the “not everything builds up the body” passage?

Ephesians 5:3…“Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ephesians 5:3…“Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones.”

Perhaps I am fonder of its cousin, below, which strikes a positive note and is relevant to absolutely every one of us, no matter what our private sins:

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.


We should remember that Church life is an opportunity to share what we need from each other, from what we have in common – which far exceeds what separates us. The resources, as you have noted, are indeed there; but our struggles with our private demons are not necessarily appropriate material for airing and sharing.