Redeeming Qualities in Same-Sex Relationships

[Rau]

I don’t mean to sound rude. At all. But honestly, it wouldn’t be that hard.
A church can maintain that what the couple is doing/has done is wrong yet also be willing to accept aspects that have come up from the couple’s situation. Perhaps the couple has adopted children. The church should be able to embrace the self-sacrifice and responsibility embraced by the couple to give and share a life of love for the children.

What does that mean? “Embrace the self-sacrifice”? What does the Church not do that it should?

 

[Kurisu35712]

I disagree. Getting a couple to stop engaging in sexual acts could be a gradual goal. But by all means, goodness in the relationship should be promoted. Just because a sex act is deemed sinful by the Church does not mean that good fruits can [not, I presume] come from the shared love between two people.

Good fruits can come from the shared love between any number of people. The question is not whether friendship and mutual care and emotional connections are moral or not, because they are. But at the core of a homosexual couple’s relationship is an attraction based on immoral sexual desire, regardless of the other qualities present. The goodness of the relationship is not based on the homosexual relationship, it is based in the close friendship between the two people. That is what the Church would encourage. But if such a relationship cannot exist between the two without a sexual element being present, the relationship cannot continue because of the potential danger it puts the two in. I’m adding one of your responses to Corki as well, since it’s related.

I don’t mean to sound rude. At all. But honestly, it wouldn’t be that hard.
A church can maintain that what the couple is doing/has done is wrong yet also be willing to accept aspects that have come up from the couple’s situation. Perhaps the couple has adopted children. The church should be able to embrace the self-sacrifice and responsibility embraced by the couple to give and share a life of love for the children.

In maintaining that the couple has done wrong, the Church must discourage the situation from continuing, as it damages the souls of the two individuals. The primary concern of the Church is not to ensure that everyone is happy and emotionally content and emotionally fulfilled, its primary concern is the spiritual health of the souls entrusted to its care. In the hypothetical you presented, the Church would do all it can to ensure that the couple understands their responsibility to raise their adopted child without scandal. By this, their relationship *cannot *be a sexual one. Prudence would dictate that it also should not be a romantic one either.

It reads as though you want the Church to downplay the serious danger to the individuals having sex in favor of providing a supportive environment for their adopted child. To ignore the gravity of their sexual activity “for the good of the child” so to speak. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent, of course, but the Church cannot give importance to one over the other. If living as a couple, they have the responsibility to raise the child in the faith, that is Catholicism, which teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. The Church can accept the fruits of their friendship and mutual care for each other and for their adopted child. But it cannot compromise its position on the morality of their sexual situation due to this. They can care for their adopted child while still being in a state of mortal sin, but the Church’s primary concern here is to ensure that the two individuals are able to return to a state of grace.

 

[Rau]

…It reads as though you want the Church to downplay the serious danger to the individuals having sex in favor of providing a supportive environment for their adopted child. To ignore the gravity of their sexual activity “for the good of the child” so to speak. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent…

The thread title, and other posts, make clear the intent. Namely that the good acts of the persons in the relationship should be seen to “redeem” the relationship, such that it should attain acceptance.

 

[Rau]

…Such a person may be wanting to be involved in the Church and have a Christian life, yet he still may be deeply in love with his partner – or already civilly married – or has adopted children with his spouse. Etc. The local church, pastor, and others at this point could at least see how such a person could be incorporated into the Church…

As per post 336?

 

[Operalan]

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.

Anyway, to the point.

It would truly be sad and not very Christ-like if the Church rejected anyone who struggled to live a fully Christian life (as defined by the Catholic Church).

1. One should never read “tone” into posts on the internet. It leads to too many personal interpretations and bending another’s words to fit your own perception rather than how someone means the words.
2. Internet discussions are rarely all that fruitful and are often quite the opposite.
3. Since the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and has the teaching that dates back to its founding, the “definition” of these things does lie with the Catholic Church as authorized by Christ.

 

[Corki]

I don’t mean to sound rude. At all. But honestly, it wouldn’t be that hard.
A church can maintain that what the couple is doing/has done is wrong yet also be willing to accept aspects that have come up from the couple’s situation. Perhaps the couple has adopted children. The church should be able to embrace the self-sacrifice and responsibility embraced by the couple to give and share a life of love for the children.

How is that any different than what the parishes do now?

The tone of many of these discussions is a lot like the old “when did you stop beating your wife” deflection. The Church ALREADY accepts individuals who are in irregular situations including homosexual couples, divorced and remarried couples, couples living together, etc. and bends over backwards to integrate their children into the parish.

 

[Corki]

I feel like the pastoral approach would be similar to how one would address a divorce and remarried couple (who don’t qualify for an annulment). I don’t know the actual method of the approach but it’s a similar situation.

Well, in every parish I have lived, that’s the same approach taken. There are some ways in which these individuals (remarried or in same-sex couples) cannot participate, but there are many, many more in which they can. The goal is always to be working toward full participation.

 

[pnewton]

As a gay man, my life probably would be miserable if I was Catholic and trying to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But I have a same-sex partner I’ve been with in a committed, monogamous relationship for more than 17 years and we are both active members of a Lutheran church (ELCA) which is welcoming and inclusive for LGBT people like us. So, yeah, my partner and I are quite happy.

I think the problem though is that the poster who started this has a keen understanding that there is a God, and that there is such a thing as objective truth. Without getting into the apologetics of the situation, choosing welcoming over truth is putting the cart before the horse. So if we take as a given that a person believes that the Catholic Church is the one that Jesus actually started as his Bride on Earth, what in the heck is a guy in his situation supposed to do. Unfortunately, it is a lot easier to say what is wrong than what is right.

And here’s the rub. You are proposing that a homosexual couple who do not have sex still cannot pursue a relationship. At the end of the day, the Church’s teaching and pastoral goals result in homosexual persons leading extremely lonely lives. Where is their place in the church? They cannot become priests and they cannot have families: They cannot even live with someone they love, EVEN IF they promise not to have sex.

I can say one thing, little consolation that it is. You are not alone. There are also those that are validly married and civilly divorced in the exact same situation. I know we Catholics have reacted more against homosexuality than other similar situation because of the current Supreme Court ruling, but we should all recognize that homosexual sin is not unique. Because it is an easy sin for heterosexuals to avoid, it is also an easy on for us to preach against. This is not right, but it is true.

The original poster has rightly pointed out that we are all less than perfect. The article from CMLGP stated its goal as:

to follow a prudent pastoral course, accepting people where they are in their discipleship with Jesus Christ, their membership in the Church, and challenging them to live out fully the call of Christ and the teachings of the Church,

In light of the readings this day, we need to remember all that a shepherd (as in pastoral) encompasses.

1. Leading the sheep away from the pit.
2. Loving the sheep to the point of death.
3. Allowing the sheep to follow along. Jesus leads his sheep. He doesn’t drag them. He will, as needed, carry them.

I think if we can picture in our mind homosexuality with our own sin (or sins) that we have yet to put behind us for good, we might understand that some of our statements are not realistic.

So, I thought of one good thing in this type of relationship. Overcoming the temptation to commit homosexual sin will requite one to be united with the suffering of Christ, and reliant every day on his grace.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, in every parish I have lived, that’s the same approach taken. There are some ways in which these individuals (remarried or in same-sex couples) cannot participate, but there are many, many more in which they can. The goal is always to be working toward full participation.

But you have to acknowledge the ever evolving nature of the Churchs relationship with sinners and the Sacraments. I remember a time when unwed parents and interfaith couples were married in the sacristy rather than at the altar for example. Or when anointing of the sick was only allowed to those on their deathbed. Our understanding of the sacraments as a medicine for the sick rather than a reward for the good, is an ongoing process.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In this post, churches as in the local churches.

I understand. “churchs” = Parishes.

Remember that Parishes answer to the local bishop and he answers to Rome. There is not much “democracy” in the Catholic church.

 

[Smack]

I didn’t word that well. Those two options I meant were ones you were asserting. My solution was the latter paragraph: churches can maintain the traditional teaching while also being more open and understanding.

Perhaps we should define our terms. In my eyes, the church has been MORE than “understanding.” I have seen more understanding/tolerance than has ever been seen before. My guess is that your definition of “understanding” is more like outright acceptance/blessing. God’s Word is very clear; there’s not even a doubt about what He thinks on the matter. So in my eyes the church has been very “understanding” and yet in your eyes, we won’t be “understanding” until we force our people to not only “understand,” but BLESS something that God calls an abomination.

So, you may have more luck getting PETA to be more “open and understanding” to accepting game hunters into their ranks. I’m sure you could find some PETA members that might cave into that if you bully them enough.

 

[Corki]

But you have to acknowledge the ever evolving nature of the Churchs relationship with sinners and the Sacraments. I remember a time when unwed parents and interfaith couples were married in the sacristy rather than at the altar for example. Or when anointing of the sick was only allowed to those on their deathbed. Our understanding of the sacraments as a medicine for the sick rather than a reward for the good, is an ongoing process.

Yes, there is an evolving understanding of the Sacraments and also of the complex nature of sin.

But the examples you gave have nothing to do with that. They are simply examples of changes in canon law and disciplines regarding the reception of Sacraments. Neither of those has to do with sin or the Church’s relationship to sinners. Couples contracting a mixed marriage (my parents were one of those couples) did not marry in a different form because their marriage was sinful; it was because the Church had a different **discipline **regarding how it handled exceptions to the general rule that Catholics marry Catholics.

The Church does not teach that the Sacraments, as a group, are medicine for the sick. That is a description that specifically applies to the Sacraments of Healing (confession and the anointing of the sick) and is not applicable to the other five Sacraments, those of initiation and of service.

 

[Smack]

It would truly be sad and not very Christ-like if the Church rejected anyone who struggled to live a fully Christian life (as defined by the Catholic Church).

Please forgive me if my tone sounded disrespectful; it was not my intention (note my inserted smiley face). In the walk of Christianity it’s not easy to be gay, nor alcoholic, nor a pedophile, nor a gossip, etc, but we are called to die to ourselves and take up the cross. In Romans after it states that homosexuality (and a host of other sins) is wrong, it then goes on to say, “but you all were once like this, but now you’re not.” To me that says that there was not just an attitude change, but an identity change. And as I stated earlier, no one is forcing the gay community to join the Holy Catholic Church. It just seems really ridiculous that one would insert themselves into an institution that they don’t agree with and then try to change all of the guidelines. Make your own church, or find one that doesn’t really stand upon the Word (like the Unitarians, for instance- they don’t care what you do, as long as you attend). But please stop trying to change the Catholic Church. They stand upon the Word, and you can’t change the Word. If they do, they won’t be supported any longer by the real believers.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, there is an evolving understanding of the Sacraments and also of the complex nature of sin.

But the examples you gave have nothing to do with that. They are simply examples of changes in canon law and disciplines regarding the reception of Sacraments. Neither of those has to do with sin or the Church’s relationship to sinners. Couples contracting a mixed marriage (my parents were one of those couples) did not marry in a different form because their marriage was sinful; it was because the Church had a different **discipline **regarding how it handled exceptions to the general rule that Catholics marry Catholics.

The Church does not teach that the Sacraments, as a group, are medicine for the sick. That is a description that specifically applies to the Sacraments of Healing (confession and the anointing of the sick) and is not applicable to the other five Sacraments, those of initiation and of service.

Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium, has expressed a more broad understanding of the Sacraments than the rigid separate catagories you’ve written.

1. The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open. One concrete sign of such openness is that our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door. There are other doors that should not be closed either. Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself “the door”: baptism. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.[51] These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html

There will always be scope for evolving in our understanding of the nature of the Sacraments and here Pope Francis demonstrates the traditional process of constant openness to growth. Afterall, the Church is here to lead people to God. It’s her divine commission. If there was no room for further understanding of Gods will for us, the Church would not need a living character. It could just be a stone cold library of ancient documents gathering dust.

 

[Corki]

Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium, has expressed a more broad understanding of the Sacraments than the rigid separate catagories you’ve written.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html

There will always be scope for evolving in our understanding of the nature of the Sacraments and here Pope Francis demonstrates the traditional process of constant openness to growth. Afterall, the Church is here to lead people to God. It’s her divine commission. If there was no room for further understanding of Gods will for us, the Church would not need a living character. It could just be a stone cold library of ancient documents gathering dust.

This is starting to go off-topic from the OP but I think I see what you are saying. The Sacrament of the Eucharist has many effects. The primary effect is the grace that flows from receiving the real presence of Christ, body/blood/soul/divinity. A secondary effect is the remission of venial sins. The Pope’s statement seems to be reminding us of that secondary effect. But he is not stating (nor could he) that one may licitly receive Communion in a state of mortal sin nor that this is a substitute for the forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

It doesn’t seem that the Pope is broadening the understanding of the Sacrament but rather reminding us that there are many facets.

 

[Edward_H]

Same sex relationships are essentially infertile (not what is called ‘accidentally’ infertile).

No…their very essence is infertile

Their reproductive systems are deliberately “dis-abled” - configured as they are in a same sex couple - cannot be “perfected”. They are forever “imperfect”. And God didn’t invent reproduction to have us deliberately imperfect it.

We were called to “perfect” God’s creation, even in us. To perfect our virtues, our love, etc.

This is of course characteristically different from an infertile man-woman sexual marriage.

 

[1990Domer]

The Church would find many “redeeming qualities” in a chaste same sex friendship, regardless of whether the people involved are same sex or other sex attracted.

There are no redeeming qualities in sinful actions, be their participants same sex or other sex attracted. A man and woman living together outside marriage in a sexual relationship and two same sex people living together in a sexual relationship are all living in disordered situations, and no those situations do not have "redeeming qualities’.

What redeems them is rising ABOVE these sexual matters, whatever they are, and living in conformity with Christ.

Spot.On

 

[Colorad007]

But you have to acknowledge the ever evolving nature of the Churchs relationship with sinners and the Sacraments. I remember a time when unwed parents and interfaith couples were married in the sacristy rather than at the altar for example. Or when anointing of the sick was only allowed to those on their deathbed. Our understanding of the sacraments as a medicine for the sick rather than a reward for the good, is an ongoing process.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The basic Pauline teaching on the worthy reception of Communion is very much primary in the Church’s sacramental theology.

 

[jeannetherese]

Is there a catechetical reference for sacraments as rewards for the good?
I’m not sure that such a description holds up well when one thinks about the individual sacraments.

 

[1990Domer]

For a church that adheres to the traditional view of homosexuality as sinful, this could mean a number of things:

• Better understand what a person is going through
• Appreciate the difficulties present in the person’s conscience and understanding of the Church’s teaching
• Make known Christ’s love and understanding
• Evaluate what is good in the situation; for example, see what good can come out of the relationship

I have read through a lot of this thread and many similar posts. Without trying to derail the thread, I really need to get this off my chest. Gay people seem to seek so much attention (in the "you don’t understand me kind of way), I feel they crowd out other group with legitimate needs to be understood. I am specifically speaking here about people on the autism spectrum.

I have watched far too much bullying in the fastest growing developmental disability. And yes, the bullying leads to severe depression and suicide. The isolation is also intense…and I would argue even more intense than being gay to the extreme social deficit that these kids have. Often, the cannot even make friends with kids with the same disability because of their lack of social skills. At least the gay community can support one another at the very least.

Trust me, I am fighting a similar battle with the RCC because of their reluctance to accept children on the autism spectrum. In the rare cases they do, the teachers do not understand these kids and make it worse. And yes, I advocate, other parents I know advocate, Autism Speaks advocate…but so much more education needs to be done.

My apologies for being uncharitable, but gay people don’t realize how good they have it compared to kids on the autism spectrum. I am trying to interject some different prespective into this thread. Finally, I will not respond to people who try to set up tricky counter arguments. I have close family members who are gay, and I know many, many others. I also have a son on the autism spectrum whose life has truly been made hell due to reasons that he cannot control, he cannot hide, etc. There are no “safe zones” for autistic kids. Trust me, my kid and another on the spectrum needed that safe zone desperately.

Thank you for reading and considering a far different perspective.