Practising Catholic Gay Couple?

[LittleOne1]

It actually accurately describes my opinion above that our church is an organic institution open to revealed truths.

Actually that makes no sense that one infallible truth would later be overturned by another. That statement is a reflection on a deeper understanding of the truth that comes over time and is better understood- hence why things on Marian theology developed over time because its a reflection of truths present, but not fully understood. What is organic is the Church’s understanding of truth, not truth itself (Christ is done growing ). The matter on understanding homosexuality and the rightness of such acts has already be determined from the beginning of the Church to be disordered. If the Church could change its moral and theological as you are possibly suggesting would make us need to question who we could believe… Christ established the Church on a rock for the purpose so that it would not move and so we may have confidence that we may know the truth after Christ ascended to the Father.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think post 61 is well-articulated.

 

[Discerning2]

Actually that makes no sense that one infallible truth would later be overturned by another. That statement is a reflection on a deeper understanding of the truth that comes over time and is better understood- hence why things on Marian theology developed over time because its a reflection of truths present, but not fully understood. What is organic is the Church’s understanding of truth, not truth itself (Christ is done growing ). The matter on understanding homosexuality and the rightness of such acts has already be determined from the beginning of the Church to be disordered. If the Church could change its moral and theological as you are possibly suggesting would make us need to question who we could believe… Christ established the Church on a rock for the purpose so that it would not move and so we may have confidence that we may know the truth after Christ ascended to the Father.

What you say is correct. However, it doesn’t explain how the church has changed or why. This silliness about homosexuality has more to do with bias in culture that the church has failed to deal with maturely. Shall we dig up Galileo Galilei’s body & burn it at an auto de fe because you don’t believe the revealed truths in the church are correct? We now have, to my dismay, married priests. Doctrine on the deacons was just changed. Further, it is okay to say the church has made mistakes (within reason).

 

[JRKH]

I do recognize that earlier you said that, “A person certainly can be a practicing Catholic who struggles with homosexual tendencies while upholding Church teaching on the matter. (none of us are perfect and sinless)” However, there seems to be intense bias by the average Catholic, even Catholics who seem to take their faith seriously, against those who have samesex attraction. Because this is a bit of a personal issue for me (I experience samesex attraction) I would like to highlight the following:

CCC 1763: The term “passions” belongs to the Christian patrimony. Feelings or passions are emotions or movements of the sensitive appetite that incline us to act or not to act in regard to something felt or imagined to be good or evil.

CCC 1767: In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

Notice that it says passions are in themselves immoral. This includes erotic passions.

Also notice that it is said to be voluntary insofar as the will acts on those passions, or passively is ruled by them.

I think that this shows that the Church does not hold that the experience of samesex attraction is not in itself sinful (as many Catholics seem to assume).

Thank you. This is well stated.
I assume that you realize the church’s teaching that homosexual acts can never be condoned (I posted the relevent CCC passage earlier in this thread) and would not presume to teach otherwise. So the big difference is between “tendency” and “act”.

I think that the problem is that, in the use of the term “homosexual”, we don’t tend to distingiush between the person who is a “practicing” homosexual and one who is not a “practicing” homosexual. The person, such as yourself, who expreriences same sex attraction must fight this emotion as soon as they realize they are having it. In other words as soon as the reason is engaged. This is no different than a heterosexual who must not look “lustfully” at a person of the opposite sex who is not this/her spouse.

I do agree that many people both in church and out, have not yet overcome the negative “gut reaction” to someone who is outwardly effeminate (sp?) as we use to say. It is something we need to continue to work on.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I think it also needs to be remember that even those who do engage in homosexual acts despite their attempts to follow the teaching of the Church are no less Catholic. After all, we all sin and we all have our areas where temptation gets the best of us. That is why we have the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. Defeat only comes when one throws in the towel on the battle, justifies the sin and quits the struggle. Again, many Catholics have been there from time to time. Homosexuality as a lifestyle is no worse than many other areas of mortal sin we can fall prey to.

Also well put.

Peace
James

 

[BobObob]

I think it also needs to be remember that even those who do engage in homosexual acts despite their attempts to follow the teaching of the Church are no less Catholic. After all, we all sin and we all have our areas where temptation gets the best of us. That is why we have the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. Defeat only comes when one throws in the towel on the battle, justifies the sin and quits the struggle. Again, many Catholics have been there from time to time. Homosexuality as a lifestyle is no worse than many other areas of mortal sin we can fall prey to.

Regarding throwing in the towel, many think that the “sin against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:30-32, that Christ said people would not be forgiven of, is lack of repentance. I would say that I subscribe to that view.

I assume that you realize the church’s teaching that homosexual acts can never be condoned

That assumption was accurate.

I think that the problem is that, in the use of the term “homosexual”, we don’t tend to distingiush between the person who is a “practicing” homosexual and one who is not a “practicing” homosexual. The person, such as yourself, who expreriences same sex attraction must fight this emotion as soon as they realize they are having it. In other words as soon as the reason is engaged. This is no different than a heterosexual who must not look “lustfully” at a person of the opposite sex who is not this/her spouse.

I would concur.

It may have to do with how the English language is used. A friend pointed out to me that in English we might say, “I AM heterosexual/homosexual”, while in German you would say, “I HAVE opposite-sex attraction/same-sex attraction.” The English use of words, at least in this case, can lead to confusion.

I do agree that many people both in church and out, have not yet overcome the negative “gut reaction” to someone who is outwardly effeminate (sp?) as we use to say. It is something we need to continue to work on.

Also, almost everyone (myself included) has a tendency to pay attention to the sliver in the other person’s eye rather than removing the beam from their own.

 

[RobbyS]

We have no right to judge. Jesus told us not to judge. God knows all things; “Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.”

People have the right to judge behavior as appropriate or in appropriate.

 

[PapaSquash]

Would that signify in any way in this situation>>

Sorry for the lack of response Mom. I’m wondering about anullment becasue if these men are still sacramentally married to other people, then, chastity aside, the question of them being “practicing Catholics” has to be answered in light of that pre-existing marriage vow.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Sorry for the lack of response Mom. I’m wondering about anullment becasue if these men are still sacramentally married to other people, then, chastity aside, the question of them being “practicing Catholics” has to be answered in light of that pre-existing marriage vow.

Well, aside from the fact that a previously annulled marriage would not legitimize a same sex relationship, I guess there could be the issue of desertion of the spouse. And of course chastity-if that is indeed an issue. I’m still befuddled by the whole thing.
But I think the responses concerning speaking to a priest in that parish/diocese would be wise.I really hope my relative will take an opportunity to do that soon.It sounds like an obvious first step.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Oh come on.
dignityusa.org/

Where is the “dignity” in being an unrepentet sinner?

 

[Dirk_Skene]

The link was to a site “Dignity” that appears to be counter to Church teaching on issues of homosexuality & women’s ordination…

There is another group, “Courage”. Last I checked they DO encourage Church teaching. Sort of like AA for homosexuals. Too bad our freind that posted that filthy dignity link did not post the courage link instead.

 

[LittleOne1]

What you say is correct. However, it doesn’t explain how the church has changed or why. This silliness about homosexuality has more to do with bias in culture that the church has failed to deal with maturely. Shall we dig up Galileo Galilei’s body & burn it at an auto de fe because you don’t believe the revealed truths in the church are correct? We now have, to my dismay, married priests. Doctrine on the deacons was just changed. Further, it is okay to say the church has made mistakes (within reason).

I am not sure what you mean by bias in culture that the church has failed to deal with maturely. As far as Galileo is concerned, that did not deal with some infallible truth (theological and moral truths are not the same as scientific truths) and was dealt with in a fallible tribunal (the issue of homosexuality has been dealt with in infallible areas). You should also know that at the time several scientists including Brahe and Lord Bacon did not ascribe to his theories and some of his theories including the idea that tides are formed by the earth’s axis were flawed even though he was right about the heliocentric theory in the end. When it comes to matters as properness of sexual actions, this delves into morality and indeed the Church has been given power and authroity to teach the truth’s of Christ on these matters. Yes the Church has sinners and makes mistakes in regards to actions such as in some of the ways it handled Galileo, but not in regards to its teachings on morals and theology (science itself does not guide these fully). These truths are unchanging and what was said as proper and true in infallible teachings of the Church for the last 2000 years will be the same for the next 2000 years and Christ did not expect us to figure these things out once science figured it out (or science is the final prophet).

 

[Newbie2]

Come on folks this is pretty basic stuff here.

Basic stuff that if one is living a “sinful lifestyle” that they no longer are Catholic? I must have missed this in the CCC. Please enlighten me as to how one gives up their Catholicity when they are enslaved by sin.

If a person freely belongs to a specific organization that person, by virtue of claiming membership, is claiming acceptance of the teachings, the rules, the regulations of that organization. The Catholic Church is just such an organization. No one is forced to be or remain Catholic
The Catholic Church teaches that Homosexual acts are sinful. Therefore those who wish to be members of this Church need to accept this teaching.

Those people who dispute this teaching and do so publicly by defying the church’s teachings on the acceptability of homosexual acts should not be calling themselves Catholic.

Doctrine/Dogma or personal opinion?

If Catholics do feel that the church should review its teachings then there are channels for that within the Church. But until the teaching is changed, then, as the catachism says, Homosexual Acts can never be accepted or condoned.

This is not intended as a slam on anyones intentions worthiness or beliefs. But if you wish to claim to be Catholic then BE catholic, If not then please do not misrepresent Catholicism to others.

I agree, but if such folks want to stay Catholic, they only become “Un-Catholic” by choice or by excommunication, no?

As a note here: I was away from the Church for many years. In all of theat time I never presented myself as a practicing Catholic nor did I express my views as acceptably catholic. I had the courtesy, when I was away from the church, to respect the Church and Her teachings.

Peace
James

I think it also needs to be remember that even those who do engage in homosexual acts despite their attempts to follow the teaching of the Church are no less Catholic. After all, we all sin and we all have our areas where temptation gets the best of us. That is why we have the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. Defeat only comes when one throws in the towel on the battle, justifies the sin and quits the struggle. Again, many Catholics have been there from time to time. Homosexuality as a lifestyle is no worse than many other areas of mortal sin we can fall prey to.

I think this is a much better way of looking at the issue.

 

[OraLabora]

I think this is a much better way of looking at the issue.

Indeed, one must on one hand consider the doctrine of truth the Church rightly tries to uphold, and on the other hand, pastoral care for the sinners who fail to meet the standard. If the Church does the former without the latter, then we are no better than the Pharisees who condemned Jesus.

All of us, in some area of our lives or other, fail to live up to the lofty standard expected of us.

Why the need to single out homosexuals? Because many of them try to justify their sins? We all are inclined to do that for our sins whatever they are.

 

[Feanor2]

Cracker Mom,

Don’t you have anything better to do at church than ponder the morality of others?

 

[pnewton]

Cracker Mom,

Don’t you have anything better to do at church than ponder the morality of others?

She asked a legitimate question. That is one of the purposes of this site: to ask questions. In the original post, it is not Craker Mom who questions the morality of others, but the couple themselves who described themselves as a life partner. It is not pondering the morality of others to do everything we can to prevent scandal in the Church, when we have been subjected to so much scandal already.

 

[Feanor2]

I guess I tend to think about my own morality and am not really focussed on others’. If this couple or whatever they are are confused or simply don’t care about what the Church teaches then that is their deal- and, perhaps, the deal of their priest.

Seems like a busy-body.

 

[maggiemay2u]

I think it also needs to be remember that even those who do engage in homosexual acts despite their attempts to follow the teaching of the Church are no less Catholic. After all, we all sin and we all have our areas where temptation gets the best of us. That is why we have the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. Defeat only comes when one throws in the towel on the battle, justifies the sin and quits the struggle. Again, many Catholics have been there from time to time. Homosexuality as a lifestyle is no worse than many other areas of mortal sin we can fall prey to.

As long as the behavior is not along the lines of sin Sunday-Friday, go to confession on Saturday, then repeat the process, with full knowledge/ consent the process will be repeated, and is part of true contrition, as well as that “firm purpose of amendment”, then I’m with ya. In my “progressive” catholic days, I was quite adept at this type of morally corrupting manipulation of the sacrament. It’s the same twisted formulation of conscience that lets a Kennedy vote to reject partial birth abortion bans, and the same prideful logic that attempts to bend the law of God into accepting that which God has condemned, regardless of sexual orientation.

I only mention this because of the moral cover I think some may some will read into your words…

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Cracker Mom,

Don’t you have anything better to do at church than ponder the morality of others?

Yes, I do. This situation is not occurring in my parish, but in a relative’s.
I’m pondering this at home.

 

[LittleOne1]

I think you have some good answers CrackerMom. My suggestion would be for everyone to move on before the thread spirals into a “tit-for-tat” uncharitable discussion.