Practicing gay catholics shouldn't receive communion

[PatriceA]

Some people on this site are hard work. Look, everyone who is against homosexual practices is not a bigot? I think that’s possibly not true. There are at least two posters on here who have posted quite frankly ignorant posts. I’m not saying everyone is, I’m saying that some are. I’m not trying to change people’s view, I’m trying to foster debate. I’m trying to get people to look at why they hold their beliefs and whether it is because they truly believe them or because they are expected to believe them. To engage with Catholicism and look at different points of view, not agree with them, just to understand them.

Hard work? That’s not very charitable.

Why do you hold your beliefs on practicing homosexuals? Why do you no agree with the Catholic Church but call yourself a Catholic? How do you reconcile that?

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

Hard work? That’s not very charitable.

Because you are understanding me. I give up. I’m going.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I imagine like all threads -the question came to mind and got asked.

All sorts of things get asked here.

People bring up that fact that a divorced and “remarried” person cannot receive too…or those who support abortion etc etc…

Just one among many.

Homosexual subjects have been recently popping up more frequently in the current culture --hence this came to mind.

Simply not something to call a “shield of homosexual bigotry” …just as one would not be calling the others “a shield for “attempted” remarriage bigotry” etc.

It is simple enough to say that one in a state of sin should not receive, and should repent and confess before receiving. Asked, answered, done.

I worry that such lasersharp focus on homosexual acts obscures the simple truth above.

 

[PatriceA]

Because you are understanding me. I give up. I’m going.

I am understanding you, but that’s not the same as agreeing with you.

And again you avoided my questions. You want a debate and challenge other Catholics, but it seems you don’t want the same treatment.

 

[Bookcat]

It is simple enough to say that one in a state of sin should not receive, and should repent and confess before receiving. Asked, answered, done.

I worry that such lasersharp focus on homosexual acts obscures the simple truth above.

All sorts of things get asked in all sorts of ways.

The person wanted to bring that up --just like others wanted to bring up contraception or invalid marriages etc etc etc

They are subjects.

 

[90Domer]

That’s just offensive. I think Brendan has got it bang on. I think there is a certain element who uses religion as a shield for homophobic bigotry.

So basically you are calling me a homophobic bigot for believing and stating the Church’s position in this. Well, I will let God be the judge of that when I die.

 

[Brendan_64]

All grave sins are included under that reality that one may not approach Holy Communion.

Be it homosexual acts or hetrosexual acts or bank robbery

Spot on.

The Church is certainly not homophobic, and it welcomes homosexuals, just as it welcomes heterosexuals. Heterosexual couples in a sexual relationship are as much barred from receiving Communion as homosexual couples are. The priest will not decline to give Communion as it is not for him to determine who is, or who is not, in a state of unrepented mortal sin, although if any person receives Communion in a state of grave sin, then that is another grave sin they have committed and they are putting their soul in great danger by doing soul.

There are however homophobic people with our Church (as there is in all walks of life) who use the fact that the Church regards sex outside of marriage as a mortal sin, to focus in on homosexuals and single them out as being particularly immoral, while at the same time treating heterosexuals who have sex outside marriage as not being nearly in the same league with regards to their sin. I do hope that by the example Pope Francis we will see a more welcoming approach towards sinners of all sorts. His washing and kissing of the feet of AIDs victims, his praying with prostitutes etc. should set an example for us all.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is simple enough to say that one in a state of sin should not receive, and should repent and confess before receiving. Asked, answered, done.

I worry that such lasersharp focus on homosexual acts obscures the simple truth above.

However being in a state of unrepented venial sin does not bar someone from receiving Communion.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

However being in a state of unrepented venial sin does not bar someone from receiving Communion.

Yes, thank you for the clarification. (Though ideally one is repentant of venial sins)

 

[90Domer]

Spot on.

The Church is certainly not homophobic, and it welcomes homosexuals, just as it welcomes heterosexuals. Heterosexual couples in a sexual relationship are as much barred from receiving Communion as homosexual couples are. The priest will not decline to give Communion as it is not for him to determine who is, or who is not, in a state of unrepented mortal sin, although if any person receives Communion in a state of grave sin, then that is another grave sin they have committed and they are putting their soul in great danger by doing soul.

There are however homophobic people with our Church (as there is in all walks of life) who use the fact that the Church regards sex outside of marriage as a mortal sin, to focus in on homosexuals and single them out as being particularly immoral, while at the same time treating heterosexuals who have sex outside marriage as not being nearly in the same league with regards to their sin. I do hope that by the example Pope Francis we will see a more welcoming approach towards sinners of all sorts. His washing and kissing of the feet of AIDs victims, his praying with prostitutes etc. should set an example for us all.

And since I am sure that I am one of the bigots referred to here, I want to clarify something I was taught. I was taught that homosexual sex was one of the sins that “cry out to Heaven” because of its nature. I do not recall reading that about any form of heterosexual sex. And I totally agree that any sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. However, I will not be scared away from speaking the truth by being labeled a bigot. I have crafty in-laws who tried that years ago and failed.

 

[erlembald]

… I’m not trying to change people’s view, I’m trying to foster debate. I’m trying to get people to look at why they hold their beliefs and whether it is because they truly believe them or because they are expected to believe them. To engage with Catholicism and look at different points of view, not agree with them, just to understand them.

I for my part know exactly why I hold that belief, and I’m pretty sure most of the traditional Catholics here do so, too: I read St. Thomas Aquinas teachings on natural law (resp. secondary literature) and I read some of Blessed John Paul the Great’s teachings on the Theology of the Body. I know where the Church’s teaching comes from and I believe it. To elaborate on both topics would go beyond the constraints of this forum, so I honestly urge you to read on both subjects.
I know also about other, different views on human sexuality (I am a psychologist), and they simply are neither sensible nor convincing imho. In a cosmos devoid of a God, the atheistic view on sexuality would arguably have some merits, but once you accept the fact that there **is **a God, it simply doesn’t hold water.

So there you have it!

But have **you **yourself ever questioned your own views?!
Do you know the merits and more importantly deficits of your own view (materialistic, biologistic, etc.)…or dare I say ideology? I’m asking you this in all seriosity and goodwill!

 

[Brendan_64]

And since I am sure that I am one of the bigots referred to here,

Not by me you’re not.

Let me make it clear that I am in no way implying that anyone who has posted on this thread is a homophobe or bigot of any kind. I am just making the general point that such people do exist within our Church (as they exist in all walks of life) and we need to be careful to avoid focussing on certain things in such a way that it might make such people think that their homophobic views are in some way legitimate and backed by Church teaching (which of course they aren’t).

I certainly was not implying that you, or anyone else on here is a homophobic bigot.

 

[90Domer]

Because you are understanding me. I give up. I’m going.

Rabbit,

You seem to be bolting every time tough questions are asked of you. Either that or you’re frustrated that you do not have more willing takers on your desire to freely think or ponder the nature of the Church’s stance on SS intercourse. I agree with another poster in that most people here have either been challenged or thought about this issue for a long time. I don’t think you are looking for an honest debate insomuch as you are pushing an agenda of your own. So I ask, what do you really want from us?

 

[Bookcat]

Are there different kinds of gravely disordered actions? Yes. And are some more grave than others? Yes.

Abortion can be said to be worse all things being equal to murder of an adult. Murder of ones parents can be said to be worse than murder of various other kinds of persons.

But all are reasons why an unrepentant-unconfessed person ought not approach Holy Communion.

 

[90Domer]

Not by me you’re not.

Let me make it clear that I am in no way implying that anyone who has posted on this thread is a homophobe or bigot of any kind. I am just making the general point that such people do exist within our Church (as they exist in all walks of life) and we need to be careful to avoid focussing on certain things in such a way that it might make such people think that their homophobic views are in some way legitimate and backed by Church teaching (which of course they aren’t).

I certainly was not implying that you, or anyone else on here is a homophobic bigot.

Thank you for the kind reply. Honestly, I have been called worse by in-laws for just reiterating (and following) what the Church teaches. So I am very sensitive to the notion that following orthodox Catholicism automatically makes me a bigot. If you would like to see what I have been up against, in-laws are heavily involved in an organization known as Fortunate Families. Their views have become quite militant as the years have gone on.

Personally, I hate talking about SSM outside of Catholic forums. But I need to say, I do not like when newcomers arrive trying to convince Catholics of the errors of their thinking, especially if the person self-identifies as Catholic. I have seen too much scandal by my family members for a lifetime, and I would rather see less than more of that.

God bless and have a good week!

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

But I need to say, I do not like when newcomers arrive trying to convince Catholics of the errors of their thinking, especially if the person self-identifies as Catholic./QUOTE]

I’ve been Catholic all my life. Because you have been on this forum longer than me does not make you any more, or less, Catholic than me.

 

[90Domer]

Are there different kinds of gravely disordered actions? Yes. And are some more grave than others? Yes.

Abortion can be said to be worse all things being equal to murder of an adult. Murder of ones parents can be said to be worse than murder of various other kinds of persons.

But all are reasons why an unrepentant-unconfessed person ought not approach Holy Communion.

I think priests need to preach more on this very subject. My parents’ pastor always talks about the importance of Confession. He told a neat story yesterday when he was announcing the Lenten Penance Service. He said if you ever meet an angel and a priest, be sure to stop by the priest first, because he is the one who can absolve you of your sins (he said it more eloquently).

 

[Brendan_64]

I’ve been Catholic all my life. Because you have been on this forum longer than me does not make you any more, or less, Catholic than me.

I don’t think he was implying that. I think he was implying that your views are not in line with the teachings of our Church, and he would have a point in implying that. As Catholics we are bound to a religious submission of both mind and will with regard to ALL the teachings of our Church (whether that teaching be fallible or infallible). As Catholics we are not free to “think outside the Catholic box”. We accept all the teachings of our Church through the Magisterium, and within that we also accept the infallibility of our Pope on issues of faith and morals. The Church can alter it’s own position on fallible teachings, but we are bound to those teachings until such time as our Church alters its position. If the teaching is infallible then the Church is not free to deviate from that teaching.

Being a Catholic involves submission to the teachings of the Magisterium. We are simply not free to follow our own personal logic on such matters. If we find it difficult to accept some of the teachings of our Church then we are still bound to submit to these teachings and to strive to believe in them more fully.

For Catholics, arguments over issues should of Church teachings, ought to be based around an argument of whether or not certain positions form part of the teachings of the Church or not. Arguments based on points that are clearly not part of our Church’s teaching are not Catholic arguments. I have a very good friend who is gay and in a gay relationship, he’s a decent, kind man and a good friend, but that will not affect how I would argue regarding this issue.

In today’s world where individualism and free thought are held up as virtues in themselves, the requirement the Catholic Church makes of it’s members in this regard may not be popular and may appear ‘out of touch’, but that is the reality of what our Church requires of ALL it’s members.

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

I don’t think he was implying that. I think he was implying that your views are not in line with the teachings of our Church, and he would have a point in implying that. As Catholics we are bound to a religious submission of both mind and will with regard to ALL the teachings of our Church (whether that teaching be fallible or infallible). As Catholics we are not free to “think outside the Catholic box”. We accept all the teachings of our Church through the Magisterium, and within that we also accept the infallibility of our Pope on issues of faith and morals. The Church can alter it’s own position on fallible teachings, but we are bound to those teachings until such time as our Church alters its position. If the teaching is infallible then the Church is not free to deviate from that teaching.

Being a Catholic involves submission to the teachings of the Magisterium. We are simply not free to follow our own personal logic on such matters. If we find it difficult to accept some of the teachings of our Church then we are still bound to submit to these teachings and to strive to believe in them more fully.

For Catholics, arguments over issues should of Church teachings, ought to be based around an argument of whether or not certain positions form part of the teachings of the Church or not. Arguments based on points that are clearly not part of our Church’s teaching are not Catholic arguments. I have a very good friend who is gay and in a gay relationship, he’s a decent, kind man and a good friend, but that will not affect how I would argue regarding this issue.

In today’s world where individualism and free thought are held up as virtues in themselves, the requirement the Catholic Church makes of it’s members in this regard may not be popular and may appear ‘out of touch’, but that is the reality of what our Church requires of ALL it’s members.

That just sounds Orwellian to me.

 

[90Domer]

I don’t think he was implying that. I think he was implying that your views are not in line with the teachings of our Church, and he would have a point in implying that. As Catholics we are bound to a religious submission of both mind and will with regard to ALL the teachings of our Church (whether that teaching be fallible or infallible). As Catholics we are not free to “think outside the Catholic box”. We accept all the teachings of our Church through the Magisterium, and within that we also accept the infallibility of our Pope on issues of faith and morals. The Church can alter it’s own position on fallible teachings, but we are bound to those teachings until such time as our Church alters its position. If the teaching is infallible then the Church is not free to deviate from that teaching.

Being a Catholic involves submission to the teachings of the Magisterium. We are simply not free to follow our own personal logic on such matters. If we find it difficult to accept some of the teachings of our Church then we are still bound to submit to these teachings and to strive to believe in them more fully.

For Catholics, arguments over issues should of Church teachings, ought to be based around an argument of whether or not certain positions form part of the teachings of the Church or not. Arguments based on points that are clearly not part of our Church’s teaching are not Catholic arguments. I have a very good friend who is gay and in a gay relationship, he’s a decent, kind man and a good friend, but that will not affect how I would argue regarding this issue.

In today’s world where individualism and free thought are held up as virtues in themselves, the requirement the Catholic Church makes of it’s members in this regard may not be popular and may appear ‘out of touch’, but that is the reality of what our Church requires of ALL it’s members.

Actually, I’m a she, but I don’t mind…

Anyhow, thank you for the back-up because in no way was I trying to place my Catholicism above Rabbit’s.