Practicing gay catholics shouldn't receive communion

[Rabbitthekitten]

But what are you learning? Have you questioned your own thinking that is contrary to Church teachings? I think you started out in this thread stating you think there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships and think you are somehow doing a great service to get others to think against the teachings of the Church. You are sadly misguided if you think that is a good thing.

But why?

 

[PatriceA]

No one is going to ‘turn gay’ and behave likewise due to anything I say. But I take your point.

You can’t say that with 100% absolute certainty. You just may be that last “push” to get a naive teenager reading this thread to think there is nothing wrong in engaging in sexual relationships with their same sex friend. You never know just who is reading your words that sinful relationships are normal.

 

[Mark121359]

But what are you learning? Have you questioned your own thinking that is contrary to Church teachings? I think you started out in this thread stating you think there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships and think you are somehow doing a great service to get others to think against the teachings of the Church. You are sadly misguided if you think that is a good thing.

You beat me to it! And I completely agree with all of the above.

 

[PatriceA]

But why?

Avoiding the question AGAIN. Have you been challenged in your thinking?

 

[90Domer]

See previous post. I’m not trolling, I’m just trying to get people thinking. I don’t mean to offend. It was an honest mistake.

My apologies. I tend to get suspicious when new posters come on a Catholic forum looking to argue or convince faithful that they are closed-minded or unloving. What you will find in here are people who have thorough knowledge of Church teachings and choose to follow Christ’s teachings as revealed throughout 2000+ years of inspired wisdom.

To demonstrate to you that I am not unfamiliar with this subject. My BIL is leads an openly homosexual life. He had a partner I loved deeply (sadly, they parted ways), but at no time did either I or my husband change our beliefs on SSM. And we always gently tried to encourage our relative to come back to the Church. However, when other Catholic (by baptism) insisted that we fully accept all lifestyle choices of my BIL, we would comply. As I said at that time, “I have one shot at getting to Heaven, and I cannot afford to get it wrong. Following 2000 years of inspired wisdom by people way smarter than me is the very best way for me to get there.”

Note, I do not insist that others follow my road. I frame it as something I espouse for myself, and I hope to lead by example. And yes, these family members don’t like my choices. It makes them question their own choices…and hopefully in a good way. So, please know that I have thought carefully about this subject for a long time and pray often for those who have much more difficult crosses than I have.

 

[Bookcat]

Ok, look at it another way. Imagine a gay man in a loving relationship. Devout Catholic but in a relationship with another man. He has sexual relations but confesses them every Saturday, then is free of sin for communion on Sunday. Technically, as far as I’m aware, this person can take the Eucharist no problem?

Actually no.

1. One must repent – really repent. “Every Saturday” may indicate a lack of repentance or a lack of firm purpose of amendment and avoiding of the near occasion of sin. Certainly if there is a plan for such or no repentance.

One is not free to receive Holy Communion when one has not repented.

One cannot go to confession with an intent not to change that grave sin.

1. A “Homosexual relationship” is* already* a departure. One cannot be in a “Homosexual relationship” such is already disordered.

Persons with same sex attractions need to live chaste lives. And struggle with their particular difficulty just as others struggle with theirs. They are beloved by God as are others – and all need to live according to the truth regarding human sexuality and relationships. As do we all.

A man who is married and who finds himself very attracted to another woman --needs to not “date” that other woman. And needs to avoid the near occasion of sin of adultery.

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

Avoiding the question AGAIN. Have you been challenged in your thinking?

No no no. All I’m saying is that you need to think outside of the Catholic box on occasion, look at my reply to Erlembald. They got my point, it’s not a case avoiding anything. It’s a case of taking responsibility for your faith. I don’t think anyone who just accepts what they are told is doing the right thing. That’s the point I am trying to make.

 

[TomD123]

If they are in a loving relationship I don’t see the problem. Many won’t agree, but that is their prerogative. I just can’t accept that love is sinful.

I said it above, but I’ll say it again because you didn’t respond. Love isn’t sinful. Unnatural sex is sinful.
True Christian love is desiring what is best for the other. Unnatural sex is not best for the other. Not spiritually, not temporally.

Like how the earth is 6000 years old and is orbited by the sun. People used to burned at the stake for suggesting such things. It is now accepted by the church. Things change. Even within the church.

These are scientific issues, not directly related to revelation. I don’t recall the Church formally teaching either of these things. As for the first, I haven’t heard the Church say that at all. As for the second, it was complex but no Magisterial statement was ever issued on the topic.

more sex obsessed than the Catholic Church.

I addressed this in my previous post as well, but you keep repeating the accusation. I think when someone disagrees with the Church on sex they often go to the “sex obsessed” accusation. The Church saying that sex has to be ordered to new life is in no way sex obsessed…

if you questions things, you learn why they are there. If you look at anything, be it physics, Catholicism or anything else, it’s easy to just accept what you are told and not learn from it. If you ask questions, even probing, maybe offensive to some people, you learn. Imagine a world with no journalists. Politicians could do what they wanted. Because no one would report it. It’s the same with faith, if we didn’t continually question it, imagine if some evil crept in somehow. If people just offered blind obedience then think of he damage it could cause. Look at the reformation, the Papacy at the time was ill behaved, the Borgias and their incest and Nepotism. It caused half of Western Europe to leave the church. If you don’t question leaders in any field they become complacent. Maybe you don’t agree with what I’m saying but I’m not doing it ‘for a laugh’. There is a purpose behind it.

We should question our faith…if what you mean is seek to understand why the Church teaches something. Also, we should look at the objections and their counter arguments. This helps us build the faith. But we should never doubt the faith.
Besides, a comparison with other fields isn’t the same. Like in your physics example: There is no certainty that a present theory is correct until it is questioned and tested and debated. With Catholicism, Christ (God) gave the Church infallibility. Hence, questioning is lack of faith in other words, if we doubt the Church, we doubt God’s word. We should doubt the studies of physicists (or anyone else) even if we are one of them. We should not doubt God because He is all truth…hence faith is a virtue.

Finally, pointing out corruption or questioning the lifestyle of clerics (as in your example) is not the same as questioning the faith at all.

 

[PatriceA]

Ok, look at it another way. Imagine a gay man in a loving relationship. Devout Catholic but in a relationship with another man. He has sexual relations but confesses them every Saturday, then is free of sin for communion on Sunday. Technically, as far as I’m aware, this person can take the Eucharist no problem? But it circumvents church teaching. Is this wrong? Or is it better not to ‘cheat the system’ and live how God made him?

Like Bookcat said, this way of going to reconciliation can actually make the confession invalid. If one has no intention of changing their particular sin but thinks just by confessing it at first chance they can receive the Eucharist, their confession can be invalid and they are not absolved. The scenario you presented is actually abusing the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

Actually no.

1. One must repent – really repent. “Every Saturday” may indicate a lack of repentance or a lack of firm purpose of amendment and avoiding of the near occasion of sin.

One is not free to receive Holy Communion when one has not repented.

1. A “Homosexual relationship” is* already* a departure. One cannot be in a “Homosexual relationship” such is already disordered.

Persons with same sex attractions need to live chaste lives. And struggle with their particular difficulty just as other struggle with theirs. They are beloved by God as are others – and all need to live according to the truth regarding human sexuality and relationships.

But then you get the situation with Cardinal Keith O’Brian. They are gay, they can’t help it, but it drives them crazy. I’ve never heard such homophobic shouting. But it turns out he had his demons. Now, imagine it wasn’t considered such a grave sin. You’d have a good man still in a position to do a good job. He wouldn’t have offended anyone with his outbursts, he wouldn’t have been judged by other Catholics and could have maybe been happier in life

 

[PatriceA]

No no no. All I’m saying is that you need to think outside of the Catholic box on occasion, look at my reply to Erlembald. They got my point, it’s not a case avoiding anything. It’s a case of taking responsibility for your faith. I don’t think anyone who just accepts what they are told is doing the right thing. That’s the point I am trying to make.

So you haven’t been challenged at all in your thinking but you want all of us to be challenged by your point of view. Seems a bit unfair and a one-side conversation. Haven’t you considered that perhaps myself and the others that are challenging your point of view that homosexual relationships should be accepted have thoroughly researched the issue and our thinking and accepted that the Church is correct on this matter? Or are you the only one that is allowed to think for yourself?

 

[Bookcat]

Actually no.

1. One must repent – really repent. “Every Saturday” may indicate a lack of repentance or a lack of firm purpose of amendment and avoiding of the near occasion of sin. Certainly if there is a plan for such or no repentance.

One is not free to receive Holy Communion when one has not repented.

One cannot go to confession with an intent not to change that grave sin.

1. A “Homosexual relationship” is* already* a departure. One cannot be in a “Homosexual relationship” such is already disordered.

Persons with same sex attractions need to live chaste lives. And struggle with their particular difficulty just as others struggle with theirs. They are beloved by God as are others – and all need to live according to the truth regarding human sexuality and relationships. As do we all.

A man who is married and who finds himself very attracted to another woman --needs to not “date” that other woman. And needs to avoid the near occasion of sin of adultery.

Or one can fill in the blank with any un-repented grave sin or seriously disordered way of living…

One cannot simply goto confession without the firm purpose of amendment and then receive Holy Communion.

We all need to “repent and believe the Gospel!” and as Jesus says in todays Gospel –
“go and sin no more”.

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

Like Bookcat said, this way of going to reconciliation can actually make the confession invalid. If one has no intention of changing their particular sin but thinks just by confessing it at first chance they can receive the Eucharist, their confession can be invalid and they are not absolved. The scenario you presented is actually abusing the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

What if the person was weak. They truly repented but was unable to refrain? Does that make them any less acceptable to accept the Eucharist?

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

So you haven’t been challenged at all in your thinking but you want all of us to be challenged by your point of view. Seems a bit unfair and a one-side conversation. Haven’t you considered that perhaps myself and the others that are challenging your point of view that homosexual relationships should be accepted have thoroughly researched the issue and our thinking and accepted that the Church is correct on this matter? Or are you the only one that is allowed to think for yourself?

All I’m saying is you do not understand my point of view. I’m not critising yours, so please don’t think that.

 

[Bookcat]

What if the person was weak. They truly repented but was unable to refrain? Does that make them any less acceptable to accept the Eucharist?

They need to take the needful steps to avoid the near occasions of sin…

If someone had a job say murdering people – he can not just goto confession every week --he needs to leave that job…

That goes for other things to…beyond such an extreme unusual example

---

And as noted “a homosexual relationship” is already a departure.

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

They need to take the needful steps to avoid the near occasions of sin…

And as noted “a homosexual relationship” is already a departure.

If someone had a job say murdering people – he can not just goto confession every week --he needs to leave that job…

Yes, but the difference is that murdering people causes direct harm to others. Being in a gay relationship doesn’t.

 

[PatriceA]

All I’m saying is you do not understand my point of view. I’m not critising yours, so please don’t think that.

Still didn’t answer of the questions directly. Have you been challenged in your line of thinking by any of the opposing points of view in this thread?

I do understand your point of view that you want others to think that homosexual relationships should be considered normal and not sinful. I just don’t agree with it.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, but the difference is that murdering people causes direct harm to others. Being in a gay relationship doesn’t.

Yes each other.

Risking their very salvation …

and gravely harming society.

 

[PatriceA]

Yes, but the difference is that murdering people causes direct harm to others. Being in a gay relationship doesn’t.

Accept the souls of the two people involved in the relationship. But who cares about that, right, as long as its not hurting anyone else.

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

Still didn’t answer of the questions directly. Have you been challenged in your line of thinking by any of the opposing points of view in this thread?

I do understand your point of view that you want others to think that homosexual relationships should be considered normal and not sinful. I just don’t agree with it.

I’ve not been challenged because there has been no real arguments. Just ‘it’s a sin, the church says so’. But why?