San Diego bishop calls for a practical ‘apology’ to L.G.B.T. Catholics

[KSU]

From the OP article:

QUOTE In the past, [Bishop McElroy] argues, diocesan and parish leaders have struggled with two tendencies regarding L.G.B.T. people: “whether you had to sacrifice fidelity to the teaching of the church or sacrifice effective outreach to the L.G.B.T. community.”

“My own view,” the bishop said, “is that much of the destructive attitude of many Catholics to the gay and lesbian community is motivated by a failure to comprehend the totality of the church’s teaching on homosexuality.”

That teaching includes the conviction that “moral sexual activity only takes place within the context of marriage between a man and a woman.”

But “that’s not a teaching which applies just to gay men,” Bishop McElroy said. “It is teaching across the board and there is massive failure on that.” END QUOTE

First, the author of the article says that the Bishop no longer sees a need to struggle with two old tendencies regarding L.G.B.T. people: whether to sacrifice fidelity to the teaching of the Church or sacrifice effective outreach to the L.G.B.T. community.

Second, according to the author, the Bishop believes such struggle is no longer necessary because there is a failure on the part of non-L.G.B.T. Catholics to comprehend the totality of the church’s teaching on homosexuality, and a massive failure across the board regarding the teaching that moral sexual activity can occur only within the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

I’m lost. What does the first statement have to do with the second? And why is the aforesaid struggle no longer extant, i.e., how does one provide effective outreach without, in all charity and honesty, discussing applicable Church teaching? It is precisely that teaching that drives the L.G.B.T away. Is a priest, therefore, supposed to ignore that teaching during his accompaniment?

 

[crai7]

The pope’s call for Christians to offer an apology to gay and lesbian people was also carefully welcomed this week by Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego. “I think it opens up a very helpful pathway to dialogue and hopefully healing,” he said. Pope Francis, Bishop McElroy said, brings to this dialogue with L.G.B.T. Catholics who feel marginalized by or alienated from the church a “renewed and deepened focus on the questions of accompaniment and the mercy of God for all of us.”

“We all walk together in a life of virtue and discipleship,” Bishop McElroy said, “and all of us fail at times.”

He adds: “We have to begin to incorporate that mercy into the depths of our hearts and souls in ways that are going to be uncomfortable for us…. We all need to be shown mercy; it is something that binds us together, not differentiates us.”

“What we need to project in the life of the church is ‘You are part of us and we are part of you.’ [L.G.B.T. Catholics] are part of our families.”

That is not going to be an easy process, he acknowledged. It is one that will require preparation and “a lot of discussion and accompaniment and reflection in the church.” Bishop McElroy emphasized that he does not mean that reflection and accompaniment should be limited to L.G.B.T. Catholics. He said all members of the Catholic community who will be struggling with the idea of apology and welcoming gay and lesbian Catholics will similarly require accompaniment and reflection.

americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/digging-deep-mercy-we-all-need

Is that after a true, contrite confession and penance that LGBT may enter - or are there also counselling/treatment pre-requisites?

 

[zz912]

I disagree that I am misrepresenting anything. But I do agree that the Church teaches that all are saved through the Church. But, as I said, the Church itself does not purport to fully understand this mystical mechanism. They are saved through the Church, but not necessarily as formally part of the Church. In other words, they can be saved through the Church without ever joining the Church. We refer to this as having received a “Baptism of Desire,” because we believe that those people would have sought or desired baptism, had they understood that baptism was required. So they get a mystical or spiritual baptism, but do no necessarily receive a baptism of either water or blood.

But regardless of their particular situation in life, all people, saved or not, Christian or not, justified or not, are properly referred to as “Children of God.”

This is incorrect. They are saved through the Church by being joined to it in a way we don’t understand. Maybe at a fraction of a second before final death, or just as they are dying, they are joined to the Church and receive their baptism, but they ARE joined to the Church. You can’t be saved through the Church and remain outside of Her.

And you can call all people “children of God” since He is the Father and Creator of all, but the full understanding of becoming adopted children of God is only through baptism.

 

[TMC]

I disagree that I am misrepresenting anything. But I do agree that the Church teaches that all are saved through the Church. But, as I said, the Church itself does not purport to fully understand this mystical mechanism. They are saved through the Church, but not necessarily as formally part of the Church. In other words, they can be saved through the Church without ever joining the Church. We refer to this as having received a “Baptism of Desire,” because we believe that those people would have sought or desired baptism, had they understood that baptism was required. So they get a mystical or spiritual baptism, but do no necessarily receive a baptism of either water or blood.

But regardless of their particular situation in life, all people, saved or not, Christian or not, justified or not, are properly referred to as “Children of God.”

This is incorrect. They are saved through the Church by being joined to it in a way we don’t understand. Maybe at a fraction of a second before final death, or just as they are dying, they are joined to the Church and receive their baptism, but they ARE joined to the Church. You can’t be saved through the Church and remain outside of Her.

And you can call all people “children of God” since He is the Father and Creator of all, but the full understanding of becoming adopted children of God is only through baptism.

Perhaps that should say “formally joining the Church.” I think this is really semantics at this point. People who never joined the Church during their life can still be saved. The Church teaches that such salvation comes through the Church in a way we do not fully understand. They are joined to the Church in that way, yes.

 

[JosieN]

Perhaps that should say “formally joining the Church.” I think this is really semantics at this point. People who never joined the Church during their life can still be saved. The Church teaches that such salvation comes through the Church in a way we do not fully understand. They are joined to the Church in that way, yes.

What this means I believe is that only if they did not have the opportunity to learn the Gospel, or join the Church before their death they are saved. They are not saved if they reject Church teachings unless they are ignorant of it. They cannot be saved because they are not in agreement with some of the teaching in it. To say “the Church teaches that such salvation comes through the Church in a way we do not fully understand” is for those who through no fault of their own cannot be joined to the Church, it does not include those who reject Church teachings. Only God knows how to judge their situation if it is no fault of their own, We cannot assume their salvation… That is why the Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I believe this means the Gospel must be preached to them, and they must accept the teachings of the Gospel and the Church. If they reject the teachings, they are not saved. I believe this is why the Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize.

Did we not agree on this yesterday when you replied “The Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I agree with that.”

Here is my original post and your reply.

Originally Posted by JosieN

I did not say I had a better grasp on anything, I said I believe in the one true God, and in His Son Jesus Christ who brings us salvation. Anyone who knows this and rejects it and is not ignorant will not be saved. That includes other religions who have knowledge of the Gospel but chose to believe in false teachings. If they are ignorant of the Gospel, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize them. Can we agree on that?

Your reply

The Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I agree with that.

 

[JosieN]

I’m lost. What does the first statement have to do with the second? And why is the aforesaid struggle no longer extant, i.e., how does one provide effective outreach without, in all charity and honesty, discussing applicable Church teaching? It is precisely that teaching that drives the L.G.B.T away. Is a priest, therefore, supposed to ignore that teaching during his accompaniment?

The Church Catechism says that if they are ignorant of the Gospel, the Church has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize them. I would say that means you should not ignore that teaching. It would be dishonest in my opinion not to preach the whole Gospel.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, **the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

**

 

[KSU]

Originally posted by KSU

First, the author of the [OP] article says that the Bishop no longer sees a need to struggle with two old tendencies regarding L.G.B.T. people: whether to sacrifice fidelity to the teaching of the Church or sacrifice effective outreach to the L.G.B.T. community.

Second, according to the author, the Bishop believes such struggle is no longer necessary because there is a failure on the part of non-L.G.B.T. Catholics to comprehend the totality of the church’s teaching on homosexuality, and a massive failure across the board regarding the teaching that moral sexual activity can occur only within the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

I’m lost. What does the first statement have to do with the second? And why is the aforesaid struggle no longer extant, i.e., how does one provide effective outreach without, in all charity and honesty, discussing applicable Church teaching? It is precisely that teaching that drives the L.G.B.T away. Is a priest, therefore, supposed to ignore that teaching during his accompaniment?​

The Church Catechism says that if they are ignorant of the Gospel, the Church has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize them. I would say that means you should not ignore that teaching. It would be dishonest in my opinion not to preach the whole Gospel.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, **the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

**

That’s why one of the two things I don’t understand about the OP article is how it can be that the old struggle with two tendencies regarding L.G.B.T. people (“whether you had to sacrifice fidelity to the teaching of the church or sacrifice effective outreach to the L.G.B.T. community”) no longer exists.

It’s possible that the journalist didn’t fully relate or understand what the Bishop meant, or that I’m misreading the article.

 

[Padres1969]

The Church Catechism says that if they are ignorant of the Gospel, the Church has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize them. I would say that means you should not ignore that teaching.** It would be dishonest in my opinion not to preach the whole Gospel.
**
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, **the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

**

So here’s a question that has raised for me. If one is poorly catechized and/or not preached the whole gospel and as a result “reject” it, being that they were taught poorly or incompletely. What do you reckon is the end result for them?

 

[JosieN]

So here’s a question that has raised for me. If one is poorly catechized and/or not preached the whole gospel and as a result “reject” it, being that they were taught poorly or incompletely. What do you reckon is the end result for them?

I think the end result is for God’s judgement, not ours. I feel the responsibility of the Church is to do it’s best to bring everyone the truth. The truth will not harm anyone, it brings peace and salvation, and a closeness to Jesus Christ and God’s love. Why is everyone so afraid of speaking the truth? Is this not what we are called to do?

 

[TMC]

What this means I believe is that only if they did not have the opportunity to learn the Gospel, or join the Church before their death they are saved. They are not saved if they reject Church teachings unless they are ignorant of it. They cannot be saved because they are not in agreement with some of the teaching in it. To say “the Church teaches that such salvation comes through the Church in a way we do not fully understand” is for those who through no fault of their own cannot be joined to the Church, it does not include those who reject Church teachings. Only God knows how to judge their situation if it is no fault of their own, We cannot assume their salvation… That is why the Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I believe this means the Gospel must be preached to them, and they must accept the teachings of the Gospel and the Church. If they reject the teachings, they are not saved. I believe this is why the Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize.

Did we not agree on this yesterday when you replied “The Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I agree with that.”

Here is my original post and your reply.

Originally Posted by JosieN

I did not say I had a better grasp on anything, I said I believe in the one true God, and in His Son Jesus Christ who brings us salvation. Anyone who knows this and rejects it and is not ignorant will not be saved. That includes other religions who have knowledge of the Gospel but chose to believe in false teachings. If they are ignorant of the Gospel, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize them. Can we agree on that?

Your reply

The Church teaches that it has the obligation to evangelize, I agree with that.

I am not sure if we agree or not. Here is my understanding.

A non-Catholic or non-Christian need not have never heard of Christ or His Church. What is required is that the non-Catholic not understand that belonging to the Church is necessary. That is why the Catechism says (in 1260) “It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” So a Jewish person who live in the US absolutely knows about Christ and His Church, but does not join the Church because he does not understand that doing so is necessary. This person can be saved, because one can suppose he would have desired Baptism if he had known it was necessary.

 

[JosieN]

Originally posted by KSU

That’s why one of the two things I don’t understand about the OP article is how it can be that the old struggle with two tendencies regarding L.G.B.T. people (“whether you had to sacrifice fidelity to the teaching of the church or sacrifice effective outreach to the L.G.B.T. community”) no longer exists.

It’s possible that the journalist didn’t fully relate or understand what the Bishop meant, or that I’m misreading the article.

I do not understand it either, clearly the teachings cannot be changed. I feel we must do our best to understand and tell the truth. Here are some quotes from the Catechism that may help us to understand what to do about this strange contradiction.

2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. the harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."280 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."281

Clearly we are taught to accept the sexual identity God gave us. We are also taught that God created us as men and women, as such we are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. Why would anyone teach otherwise? It is possible that there was a misunderstanding or that the journalist added their own interpretation to what was spoken. This to me is a type of deceiving and falsehood that we all must avoid.

 

[graciew]

I think the end result is for God’s judgement, not ours. I feel the responsibility of the Church is to do it’s best to bring everyone the truth. The truth will not harm anyone, it brings peace and salvation, and a closeness to Jesus Christ and God’s love. Why is everyone so afraid of speaking the truth? Is this not what we are called to do?

Do you realize that the Gospel is to be lived?

It is not as if the Truth comes from outer space,so as to speak just by reading a book as any another one.

There are persons who live the Gospel, do good without fully realizing how beautifully they are doing so. Without even knowing how to read,or even being able to speak clearly in their own language…
And how much we can learn from so many persons.
Start by recognizing each other s humanity,and the yearning for healing and mercy too.

We can start small…
Doing good,we will meet there.

From the bottom of my heart,and to tell you the truth,I do not even recognize this style of tormenting and condemning as Catholic.And this playing a cd over and over with the same phrase…Knocking down Pope,Magisterium,a priest. …as if you could.
This is just not Catholic. Sincerely… Nor tradition nor anything…

 

[JosieN]

I am not sure if we agree or not. Here is my understanding.

A non-Catholic or non-Christian need not have never heard of Christ or His Church. What is required is that the non-Catholic not understand that belonging to the Church is necessary. That is why the Catechism says (in 1260) “It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” So a Jewish person who live in the US absolutely knows about Christ and His Church, but does not join the Church because he does not understand that doing so is necessary. This person can be saved, because one can suppose he would have desired Baptism if he had known it was necessary.

So what should we do? Should we all just walk around with our eyes closed, and say “they were not properly instructed”? This not what Jesus taught his apostles to do. They were to go out into the world and teach the gospel, and baptize, and bring conversion to the people of the world.

When you take this one small part ( “It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”) and read into it something that goes against all other teachings, could it be that you are reading something into it that is not it’s true meaning? And don’t you think it is best to let God be the judge in a situation where the Jewish person wanted to be Catholic and be baptized, but misunderstood the baptizing/conversion requirements? The person’s desire is in his/her heart and soul. I believe only God can understand ones heart and it’s true intentions, so only God can be the judge. Our job is to teach the them the truth, because that is what Jesus taught us to do.

 

[JosieN]

From the bottom of my heart,and to tell you the truth,I do not even recognize this style of tormenting and condemning as Catholic.And this playing a cd over and over with the same phrase…Knocking down Pope,Magisterium,a priest. …as if you could.
This is just not Catholic. Sincerely… Nor tradition nor anything…

If I have knocked down anyone I am truly sorry. I will do my best to choose my words more carefully in the future.

 

[graciew]

If I have knocked down anyone I am truly sorry. I will do my best to choose my words more carefully in the future.

Not to me.
At best,I can extend the invitation once again to roll up our sleeves,and keep on sweeping…with our hearts.

 

[TMC]

So what should we do? Should we all just walk around with our eyes closed, and say “they were not properly instructed”? This not what Jesus taught his apostles to do. They were to go out into the world and teach the gospel, and baptize, and bring conversion to the people of the world.

When you take this one small part ( “It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”) and read into it something that goes against all other teachings, could it be that you are reading something into it that is not it’s true meaning? And don’t you think it is best to let God be the judge in a situation where the Jewish person wanted to be Catholic and be baptized, but misunderstood the baptizing/conversion requirements? The person’s desire is in his/her heart and soul. I believe only God can understand ones heart and it’s true intentions, so only God can be the judge. Our job is to teach the them the truth, because that is what Jesus taught us to do.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Where have I advocated not teaching truth? The Church has a duty to minister to all. How to do that can be reasonably debated, which I think is the main point of this thread. This discussion between us began on the topic of whether all persons are Children of God. I have simply maintained that all are, and that all may be saved.

 

[JosieN]

I am not sure what you mean by this. Where have I advocated not teaching truth? The Church has a duty to minister to all. How to do that can be reasonably debated, which I think is the main point of this thread. This discussion between us began on the topic of whether all persons are Children of God. I have simply maintained that all are, and that all may be saved.

I do not think I said you were not teaching the truth. It is a matter of what we believe the truth is and how we interpret it. I think that is how we disagreed. I believe we become adopted children of God when we are baptized as that is what I believe Jesus taught us, and you believe we are all children of God, and baptism is not necessary. I think you said that if there is a desire to be baptized that is sufficient, and I said that only God can know if that is true or not, as God knows what is in our hearts. I said we are taught to bring the Gospel and the teachings to all. If they reject it, then they are not children of God, because clearly they do not accept the teachings of the Gospel and God’s word. If one is ignorant and does not know the teaching through no fault of their own, well that is different, and also where God becomes the judge, as only God knows what is in their heart. That goes for a conversion at death also. God can forgive them as only He knows what is in the person’s heart. These things you put forward are not sure things and cannot be seen as other ways we are saved, conversion is still the best way to go. All may be saved by Jesus Christ through His sacrifice on the Cross, but that does not mean we do not need to preach the truth about sin and baptism, etc. The surest way to salvation and becoming an adopted child of God is through conversion to Christianity and to the Catholic faith. Does that make sense to you?

 

[TMC]

I do not think I said you were not teaching the truth. It is a matter of what we believe the truth is and how we interpret it. I think that is how we disagreed. I believe we become adopted children of God when we are baptized as that is what I believe Jesus taught us, and you believe we are all children of God, and baptism is not necessary. I think you said that if there is a desire to be baptized that is sufficient, and I said that only God can know if that is true or not, as God knows what is in our hearts. I said we are taught to bring the Gospel and the teachings to all. If they reject it, then they are not children of God, because clearly they do not accept the teachings of the Gospel and God’s word. If one is ignorant and does not know the teaching through no fault of their own, well that is different, and also where God becomes the judge, as only God knows what is in their heart. That goes for a conversion at death also. God can forgive them as only He knows what is in the person’s heart. These things you put forward are not sure things and cannot be seen as other ways we are saved, conversion is still the best way to go. All may be saved by Jesus Christ through His sacrifice on the Cross, but that does not mean we do not need to preach the truth about sin and baptism, etc. The surest way to salvation and becoming an adopted child of God is through conversion to Christianity and to the Catholic faith. Does that make sense to you?

That does make sense to me. But let me be clear, I have never said what I believe. I have confined my comments to what the Church teaches. I agree that all may be saved, but we cannot not know who is saved and who is not. The Church teaches that, as well. My own beliefs on this topic are somewhat heterodox, as they are on some other topics, also.

 

[JosieN]

That does make sense to me. But let me be clear, I have never said what I believe. I have confined my comments to what the Church teaches. I agree that all may be saved, but we cannot not know who is saved and who is not. The Church teaches that, as well. My own beliefs on this topic are somewhat heterodox, as they are on some other topics, also.

I think most will understand that we all do our best to answer questions, give opinions, etc. while commenting on the topics truthfully. I usually try to find a Bible quote or a quote from the Catechism to back up what I believe is the correct teaching, but sometimes I may not have time to do a proper search. I apologize for that. Also, if I give an opinion, I try to state that it is an opinion, but I may not always remember to state that. Hopefully we can learn from each other and move on in our journey with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ guiding us along the way.

 

[TMC]

I think most will understand that we all do our best to answer questions, give opinions, etc. while commenting on the topics truthfully. I usually try to find a Bible quote or a quote from the Catechism to back up what I believe is the correct teaching, but sometimes I may not have time to do a proper search. I apologize for that. Also, if I give an opinion, I try to state that it is an opinion, but I may not always remember to state that. Hopefully we can learn from each other and move on in our journey with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ guiding us along the way.

I share that hope. I also realize that my replies and comments can get a little sharp, my apologies for that.