The tone of several users on here is making me feel a bit queasy. I do not think this thread is a meaningful means of dialogue and understanding the other, as there seems to be people on one side unwilling to really listen to the other.
Accepting people were they are at means moving forward them, no matter what. The end goal may be to uphold traditional Catholic values, but that does not mean the churches cannot accept and embrace individuals at their current walk in the Christian life, especially when they wish to be part of the Church.
What do you mean, specifically, when you state “accept and embrace”?
More parishes could be like St. Matthew’s Catholic Church in Long Beach, CA and have a Pride Mass every year. That would really let gay people know that they are truly welcome
cmlgp.org/comunidad-pride-mass-2014/
Please do not take this the wrong way but “Pride Mass,” as in what? What does the Pride part mean? And where does the “grudgingly include them” idea come from? No one checks your sexual orientation as you walk in the doors to Church, so who is “grudging”?More parishes could be like St. Matthew’s Catholic Church in Long Beach, CA and have a Pride Mass every year. That would really let gay people know that they are truly welcome
cmlgp.org/comunidad-pride-mass-2014/
As you might notice, they “happily include” gay people, not grudgingly include them.
I guess I’ll give a crack at this. One thing that would be nice is I didn’t have to treat my SSA as this dirty little secret that I just have to deal with on my own mentality. Based on conversations I’ve had, I fear that some people in my church if they found out, would treat me worse (as in view me with suspicion, doubt my committent to church teaching, and view me like some Trojan horse threat to the Church). It kind of makes me sometimes feel like I’m only welcome as long in the corner and quiet.
But if a gay man goes into many Catholic churches and people figure out that he’s gay (maybe he has a T-shirt that says “God Loves Everyone, Gay and Straight Alike”), would everyone be friendly and shake his hand and say how welcome he is?
You’d have to ask the people at St. Matthew’s or other parishes in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that participate in its Catholic Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Persons. I have no idea what they do aside from put rainbow colors around the altar (see the picture in the link).
I’ve found people unwilling to listen to disagreement in every argument. This topic, specifically, is always hard to understand for people on either side. For the most part, I’ve noticed the responses are a lot more civil than you’d find elsewhere.
The re-definition of Marriage disrupts the traditional definition of Marriage, obviously.
I agree. The issue of SSA is such a taboo topic, it’s difficult to find, for lack of a better term, acceptance despite even living a chaste life. The mere reality of SSA makes some people uncomfortable enough to, whether they realize it or not, project their discomfort. It does affect the way Catholics who struggle with it feel, even if they never let you know it’s something they deal with.
This as well. I feel like part of the reason there are so many lapsed Catholics is due in particular to bad catechesis and a lack of supportive ministry for people who deal with what you mentioned. There are youth ministries and marriage ministries nearly everywhere, but services specifically for single people are not widespread.
I feel like if the US as a whole wasn’t so polarized towards either side of the issue, this would be less of a problem. But, as it stands, we’re seemingly always pushed to declare our allegiance to one side of everything. You’re either for capitalism or communism, theocracy or secular state, total war or complete pacifism, feminism or sexism, so on and so forth. As a result, there is rarely a sense of moderation in any issue that comes up. At least in the media. I’ve found actual people to be generally more moderate than anything, but if you look at the news, everyone is one extreme or another, or else they’re somehow to weak to stand for their points. I’ll end my rant there though, as I’m starting to feel as though I’m getting off topic.
For a church that adheres to the traditional view of homosexuality as sinful, this could mean a number of things:
I don’t think it is entirely an unwillingness to listen to the other. I see it more as a tacit rejection of basic Catholicism and an attempt to change doctrine, teachings and laws of the Church to accommodate people involved in a disordered lifestyle who have no intention of embracing our religious teachings and expect a dispensation.
Here we agree. And I assure you that the Catholic Church has never and will not reject anyone who struggles to live a fully Christian life (as defined by the Catholic Church)
I find this confusing. In this and other posts you have used the word “Church” which I assume means the Catholic Church. You also use the word “churches” which I assume to mean other denominations.
Move forward to where (“no matter what”)? What terms do those persons set for participation in the Church? “No matter what” would seem to offer considerable lattitude. To where did Thor’s church move? It was to determine there is no wrong in SSM, and that is central (IMHO) to why Thor participated in that Church.
The symbolism of the rainbow is interesting. It can convey a good meaning, yet it is also associated with demands for SSM. I recall some years ago when several persons (self-admitted activists) draped themselves in the rainbow colors and then approached the priest for communion. What is the Priest to do in the face of such an overt statement?
First 3 bullets are excellent. They build an understanding of the person and include elements of ministering. What is the objective of the last point? It sounds like the intent is to look for reasons to promote the continuation of the sexual relationship.
