Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[Tigg]

Yes, I returned first to practices of the faith about 8 years ago, and had a return of actual faith some months later.

Those years were the worst of my life… I don’t know if I’m still awake enough to answer your question coherently. When I first “came out” there were many people who rallied to help me come out and start living my new lifestyle. Many of those people were from my parish. **They were only too happy to demonstrate their tolerance through their support of me. It’s so deeply painful to look back on that turning point in my life. Those “friends” got their merit badge of tolerance at my expense. Rather than helping me cleave to Christ – to support me on the difficult path of finding my way through my feelings – they threw me to the wolves who were only too happy to have some fresh meat to devour.
**
Throughout those years of living as a lesbian, I was living what should have been a great and fulfilling life. I began my teaching career, i bought my first home, I found a woman who was willing to commit her life to me and I to her, I was a successful and admired performer, etc. But I was miserable.

I truly believed I was born that way and that I had no way out. I knew that I knew that knew that I was born that way. My performances included that theme often, as well as mocking the Church and scripture. There were always those around me who called me courageous and offered their tolerance and support. But I always had what I now call “virtue envy.” I envied those who were chaste and seeking holiness, those who were in a state of grace, those who lived a faith that I had abandoned…and I daydreamed about what I increasingly desired – a life and a faith that were in sync. Even though I was attending GLBT-friendly churches (e.g., Methodist), there was a lack of moral cohesion, a lack of moral completeness. I guess I just sensed that the churches I attended had doctrines that were cherry-picked to be comfortable to the church members. And again and again, I felt like I was being used as liberals’ proof of their tolerance – like they LOVED having a lesbian around to prove how enlightened and intelligent they were.

My relationships during those years were just a series of using and being used. Even my one long-term relationship (8 years) was absolutely dreadful in that regard. In spite of so many beautiful aspects of my life during that time – teaching, in particular – those were just really, really dark days. It took witnessing my father decline and eventually die after 6 weeks in the cardiac care unit to wake me up to my life.

My ssa did NOT stop at that point, and I was still insistent that I was born a lesbian. But I wasn’t shouting it anymore. It was a long time before the ssa disappeared, and a longer time before I realized I wasn’t experiencing ssa anymore. It didn’t happen overnight, and I didn’t do anything to make it happen. Somehow, without my really noticing it, something was changing in my attitudes and beliefs about myself and my life. Whatever had caused my ssa, had been healed

Way long answers to your very simple questions, sorry.

God bless you!

Gertie

Oh my goodness, it’s just such a long story… But my

Please share your story in every way you can. Your authentic conversion should be inspiration to everyone! Thank you for this beautiful post.

 

[Tigg]

Gertabelle,

Thank you for sharing your story. I have ceased to believe that people like you exist due to the secular propaganda on human sexuality. This just shows that things are not as fixed as they would like us to believe.

I am wondering about something. Do you think that it makes a difference when people try to help us stay close to Christ when we have embarked upon a journey that goes in an opposite direction? Looking back, do you think you would have made an effort to stick to what the faith teaches if you had genuine support in the church? From personal experience and witnessing so many people do the same thing I have come to believe that we tend to leave the church when the teachings go against our desires. This thread has shown just that: people talk about holiness, embracing the cross, trusting God - the real Catholic stuff - and the OP declares such talk is bad for her mental health and her relationship with God. I just wonder if we can actually help someone stay close to God without compromising on our faith and morals, or if only God can perform the miracle of softening the heart and pulling the person back.to the fold. Like what happened to you after years of being away.

You have actually hit upon something of a truly profound spiritual nature. This is always the battle we fight and no one is exempt from it. It is the crux of the true meaning for our existence - to deny our passions and “self” in order to live our lives as we were meant - and in union with Christ.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

You have actually hit upon something of a truly profound spiritual nature. This is always the battle we fight and no one is exempt from it. It is the crux of the true meaning for our existence - to deny our passions and “self” in order to live our lives as we were meant - and in union with Christ.

I’m glad you agree. I tried to express the same idea when I responded earlier to the OP, because the question is much bigger than sexual temptations and at what point it becomes sinful. We live in a fallen world, we struggle with sin and are all in some way disordered, and suffering is inevitable in these circumstances. I believe that the only way to really deal with it is to accept this reality of our brokenness and sin and cling to Christ. But it doesn’t help that the secular world says there is no such thing as sin and that we are fine the way we are. That is a very tempting but false message that many Christians have fallen for, so we must pray for wisdom and clarity.

 

[Ender]

However “she” has insisted that “she” was correct, when, in fact, “she” was incorrect. She has indeed changed moral teachings on hindsight. So, how is one to distinguish when she is actually correct, or only claiming to be correct?

epan:

No. I ask a sincere question. It is a matter of historic record that the Church has been wrong, at times.

I realize this question isn’t directly on topic but it is relevant to the issue. What the church teaches about homosexuality is clear but (like her teaching on contraception) the question persists: is she right? If your assertions are valid then there is no particular reason to believe the church got this one right either. Your examples, however, don’t make your point.

I think the question of slavery shows this quite clearly. You cited a papal bull issued by Nicholas I where the right to press Saracens into “perpetual servitude” was granted, but that was not a doctrine of the church. It was the granting of a privilege in a particular instance and no more became church teaching than the fact that some popes kept mistresses meant she changed her doctrine on chastity. Popes are not infallible and, as individuals, have frequently erred, but that fact says nothing whatever about whether her doctrines are wrong.

So, when one considers Church doctrine today, how is one to determine whether it is true or false, except by personal introspection?

Her teaching on homosexuality has been constant and persistent throughout her entire history; it is not based on the comments of one or two popes over 2000 years. Her doctrines are more soundly based than this.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. *(Fr. John Hardon)
Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If your assertions are valid then there is no particular reason to believe the church got this one right either.

No, that’s not right at all. For suppose you have a wonderfully wise grandfather who you know is much more wise than you are. Your grandfather believes that X action is wrong, and has reasons he can explain in detail about why he believes X is wrong. You, however, want to do X – or you have friends who want to do X – or it is popular to say that X is right. So you consider your grandfather’s past.

(This is a somewhat bizarre course of action to start with, but whatever.)

It turns out that, once or twice, Grandpa has changed his view (even ever-so-slightly) on a moral issue – though he has kept the same view on far more issues. Do these changes in Grandpa’s view give you “no particular reason” to believe that he is right about the wrongness of X? Of course not! Grandpa’s right about most things, and wiser than you are. Why not trust Grandpa?

Infallibility has NOTHING to do with any particular moral teaching. A person can accept the teaching and its reasons while rejecting infallibility. Moreover, as John Henry Newman said, emphasis on infallibility is a TERRIBLE evangelistic strategy. You cannot convince people you are right by putting your hands over your ears and saying everyone else is – by definition! – wrong.

 

[Tigg]

Infallibility has NOTHING to do with any particular moral teaching.

Say WHAT? So why follow any teaching of Christ if perhaps you think He (and by extension, His Church) is in error.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Say WHAT? So why follow any teaching of Christ if perhaps you think He (and by extension, His Church) is in error.

Because the teaching is correct, of course.

If the Church always spoke clearly, and it was always clear WHO the Church was, then Jesus would not have warned us about false prophets. The fact that He did warn us seems to indicate that He wants us to discern these things for ourselves. For my part, I have discerned that the Catholic Church carries on Jesus’s mission, so I would not depart from Church teaching unless it became quite clear that the Church (or the thing that calls itself the Church) had ceased doing so.

Question for you: If you came to believe the Church was not infallible, would you suddenly stop thinking things like stealing, murder, and fornication are wrong?

(Please note: nowhere in this post do I deny the infallibility of the Church on matters of faith and morals).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Huh. In my experience, shame only causes a person to **hide **their sins, not stop doing them. Guilt has a positive role, but shame doesn’t.

Maybe we can be motivated to do good because we don’t want to be ashamed? That would make sense to me.

Shame follows guilt and turns us back to God. If we are guilty without shame, we keep right on with the sinning for all we’re worth. Gay pride marches and so forth. Disgustingly shameless. That is why reminding each other of our sins (while at the same time remembering that we might be even worse sinners and ought to be more shameful of our own sins) is helpful in stimulating shame. It does no good for you if you recognize your guilt but are not ashamed for it. You will just keep on flaunting your sins and encouraging others to sin under the illusion that we should enjoy our sins and be proud of them because we “deserve to be happy.”

There are people in this forum who do just that.

 

[Ender]

No, that’s not right at all. For suppose you have a wonderfully wise grandfather who you know is much more wise than you are… Why not trust Grandpa?

This comparison is seriously flawed. Church wisdom is nothing like man’s wisdom.…the authentic reality of the Christian faith…is not simply a set of propositions to be accepted with intellectual assent. (CCC 156)
If it was otherwise we would be quite free to assent to whatever our intellect could rationalize.That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. (Lumen Gentium 12)
This is the difference between trusting your grandfather and trusting the church. Either the church is preaching God’s word or she isn’t and if her well established doctrines are wrong then she has failed her mission and her words are not commands but suggestions, which we are free to ignore as we please.

Infallibility has NOTHING to do with any particular moral teaching. A person can accept the teaching and its reasons while rejecting infallibility.

A person will accept a hard teaching only if he believes it is true. If he believes it is merely someone else’s opinion it will not change his own. If we do not believe that the church is infallible in her essential doctrines we have no incentive to do anything we are otherwise disinclined to do. Faith is a choice; it is not mindless acceptance.What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” … The assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind.” (CCC 156)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Because the teaching is correct, of course.

Surely you recognize that this begs the question of how you know any moral claim is correct.

f you came to believe the Church was not infallible, would you suddenly stop thinking things like stealing, murder, and fornication are wrong?

Actually, I would stop believing that morality as we understand the term was a sensible concept since there would be no basis for believing it actually existed. (But this truly is a topic for another thread.)

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ender,

You are seriously mistaking what I am saying. Please try to listen, and don’t assume that I’m saying something “Protestant” or “liberal”. I am following authors like Newman and Chesterton and Aquinas in insisting that human reason is (1) capable of arriving at moral truth unaided by Revelation or Church teaching, and (2) capable in arriving at the *independent *conclusion that the Church is correct through the internal working of the Holy Spirit.

This comparison is seriously flawed. Church wisdom is nothing like man’s wisdom.

It’s a metaphor. Of course it’s not perfect.

…the authentic reality of the Christian faith…is not simply a set of propositions to be accepted with intellectual assent. (CCC 156)
​

Agreed. But the wrongness of gay sex has nothing to do with any specific teachings of the Christian faith. It is available to natural reason, unaided by faith.

If it was otherwise we would be quite free to assent to whatever our intellect could rationalize.

False. The intellect, when clouded by sin, cannot be trusted to make accurate judgments. This is why we need guidance. Most people who become converts to Catholicism start by being humble about their own intellectual abilities, and rightly so.

That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. (Lumen Gentium 12)

But the question of EVANGELISM is not a question of obedience. It’s a question of acceptance. You can’t be expected to obey Mother Church – nor to believe she is infallible – until you accept the teaching of the Church. By putting infallibility forward as a basis for our moral teachings, we are setting up an unnecessary stumbling block to faith. We should argue on the basis of natural law, as Aquinas did, not on the basis of revealed truth.

This is the difference between trusting your grandfather and trusting the church. Either the church is preaching God’s word or she isn’t and if her well established doctrines are wrong then she has failed her mission and her words are not commands but suggestions, which we are free to ignore as we please.

No, not at all. The Baptist Church is certainly mistaken about many things, but when a Baptist pastor tells a teenager not to fornicate, he is NOT simply making a suggestion with no authority behind it. He is leading the teenager in the way of the Truth.

A person will accept a hard teaching only if he believes it is true. If he believes it is merely someone else’s opinion it will not change his own.

Your philosophy is off, here. There are no such things as “mere opinions”. Opinions are true or false. I believe that the Church’s opinion that gay sex is wrong is a TRUE opinion, and this is why I don’t engage in gay sex. It is a hard teaching for me, but I accept it.

If we do not believe that the church is infallible in her essential doctrines we have no incentive to do anything we are otherwise disinclined to do.

Again, false.

What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” … The assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind.”

(CCC 156)

I couldn’t agree more. When did I deny any of this?

Surely you recognize that this begs the question of how you know any moral claim is correct.

That question has to be begged anyway. Do you propose that the only way to know if something is moral is through asking the Church? Don’t you realize that such a view is contrary to Aquinas, Augustine, and the deposit of faith?

Actually, I would stop believing that morality as we understand the term was a sensible concept since there would be no basis for believing it actually existed. (But this truly is a topic for another thread.)

Um, God would still exist, even if the Church weren’t infallible. God existed long before the Church existed, and thus before the Church was infallible.

I really honestly think you’re missing something here, Ender, and I hope you won’t just dismiss my words out of hand.​

 

[Gertabelle]

Gertabelle,
Do you think that it makes a difference when people try to help us stay close to Christ when we have embarked upon a journey that goes in an opposite direction? Looking back, do you think you would have made an effort to stick to what the faith teaches if you had genuine support in the church?

I can only recall two people who were willing to speak even the tiniest portion of the Truth to me at the time. The parish priests, the campus minister, the parish liturgist, and all of my friends at the parish were all rallying to support me in coming out. There really was only one person who even barely, in a sideways sort of manner, tried to discuss my choices with me. But she was not a close friend, and as you say, she was speaking against what I thought was a legitimate (indeed my only) choice.

If the priests and employees at that parish had been committed to Church teaching, I am certain that my heart would still have been soft enough to accept direction – and healing might have come 14 years sooner than it did. I worked in the parish office part time, and rented a room in the home of the parish liturgist; these were my closest friends! Incidentally, some years after I left that parish (and the Church) the Archbishop asked the religious congregation of priests at that parish to leave, and half the staff was fired. They are now served by loving and orthodox diocesan priests.

When I returned for Sunday mass a couple years ago, I saw the staff member in charge of music who was still there. She sweetly asked me if I was still with the woman I had “married” all those years ago. (She had attended the ceremony.) I nearly cried as I told her how hard it was to return to the parish where my life had taken such a terrible turn and led me down a path that will affect me (and indirectly, my son) for the rest of my life. I told her that by God’s grace, I no longer had those ssa feelings. She just stood there stunned, and then said she was sorry for my pain. I am SOOOOO thankful to Our Merciful Lord that I had that opportunity to be a witness to the Truth.

Wow, do I ever ramble

To answer your question directly, I was only willing to listen to my close friends. We young people had come to the parish (associated with the university) as faithful Catholics who wanted to be involved and grow closer to Christ. The leaders of that parish – God have mercy! – taught us the Church was wrong on most topics. These were my closest friends. We bought into the lies, and encouraged each other in sin.

I did not listen to those outside of my circle of close friends. Because of my experience, I do not go about looking for people living the gay lifestyle and trying to speak the Truth to them. You’re correct that they won’t hear, and in fact, I suspect that if I speak to strangers in that way, I will actually force them to strengthen their opposition to the Truth. When it comes to words, I only speak with those God has given me as friends and family.

What I remember is my “virtue envy” so I try, as St. Paul says, “to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.” Our attempts, our successes, our failures, our continued attempts, our growth – our living of the Faith, as imperfect as it is, can be a powerful witness to those around us. This is the only “speaking” of the Truth most of us are called to do. Save the words for those to whom we are close.

OK, I’m done

God bless you!

Gertie

 

[estesbob]

Sexual temptation and sexual sin afflict most of us. The problem with homosexual sin, in my opinion, is twofold. One is our culture is continuously telling us that it is not a sin at all and two many Catholics seem to believe that this sin is worst or far greater than other sexual sins.

I think part of the reason so many Catholics get worked up about the sin of homosexuality is it we don’t have a lot of people trying to justify masturbation, adultery, premarital sex , etc. All out grievous sins-all hurt our relationship with God

For the Catholic afflicted with homosexual tendencies it is very hard for them to get meaningful counseling about the cross they have to bear. It appears to me they are given only two options-“don’t worry about it that’s not a sin” or “just get over it or you are going to burn in hell for it.”

People with homosexual tendencies are called to chastity, as all Catholics are. Does that mean that they can never know love, never have intimacy? No, of course not. Again the problem goes back to our culture-a culture that says a love and intimacy can only be found and physical expression.

The Church is accepting of people with homosexual tendencies, even those who engage in homosexual behavior just as it it is accepting of people who lust after others on their wives and engage in sex outside of marriage. Notice I said accpeting, not affirming. We have 2000 years of teachings and tradition to draw upon. We have the grace has imparted through the sacraments to help us bear the crosses that God has chosen to give us. We don’t have to give into our temptations but when we do the church’s is there offer us forgiveness and guide us on our way.

To the original poster I can tell that I have great empathy for you as there are teachings of the church I too have great difficulty with. I also have temptations and desires that are difficult to overcome. My recommendation is that you receive the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and confession ,as often as possible and trust in God that he has a plan for you that will be carried out in the fullness of time. A plan that will bring you a great joy both now and in hereafter.

You are in my prayers.
.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sexual temptation and sexual sin afflict most of us. The problem with homosexual sin, in my opinion, is twofold. One is our culture is continuously telling us that it is not a sin at all and two many Catholics seem to believe that this sin is worst or far greater than other sexual sins.

I think part of the reason so many Catholics get worked up about the sin of homosexuality is it we don’t have a lot of people trying to justify masturbation, adultery, premarital sex , etc. All out grievous sins-all hurt our relationship with God

For the Catholic afflicted with homosexual tendencies it is very hard for them to get meaningful counseling about the cross they have to bear. It appears to me they are given only two options-“don’t worry about it that’s not a sin” or “just get over it or you are going to burn in hell for it.”

People with homosexual tendencies are called to chastity, as all Catholics are. Does that mean that they can never know love, never have intimacy? No, of course not. Again the problem goes back to our culture-a culture that says a love and intimacy can only be found and physical expression.

The Church is accepting of people with homosexual tendencies, even those who engage in homosexual behavior just as it it is accepting of people who lust after others on their wives and engage in sex outside of marriage. Notice I said accpeting, not affirming. We have 2000 years of teachings and tradition to draw upon. We have the grace has imparted through the sacraments to help us bear the crosses that God has chosen to give us. We don’t have to give into our temptations but when we do the church’s is there offer us forgiveness and guide us on our way.

To the original poster I can tell that I have great empathy for you as there are teachings of the church I too have great difficulty with. I also have temptations and desires that are difficult to overcome. My recommendation is that you receive the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and confession ,as often as possible and trust in God that he has a plan for you that will be carried out in the fullness of time. A plan that will bring you a great joy both now and in hereafter.

You are in my prayers.
.

Beautiful post! Thank you, Bob!

 

[seakelp]

I think there’s a big problem in the Church with the tone and attitude towards homosexuality that comes from a culturally defensive position. Some Catholics see any borderline tolerance of homosexuality as an offense not only in terms of morality, but also within the context of the culture wars going on in our society.

As many posters have pointed out, being a homosexual or being attracted to a member of the same sex is not sinful at all. Rather, any non-procreative, non-unitive sexual act is sinful. Because homosexual sex is not procreative, it is, by application of simple logic, sinful.

With the designation of some activity as contrary to the good life that God calls us to, we are of course obliged to help each other combat temptation to participate in that activity. We should strive to help each other, even as we ask others for help with our own sins. I, for example, have a horrible habit of acting like I know everything (I blame my Jesuit education). But I do my best, and I ask my friends to help, to be more humble.

Good enough. But one thing I notice, even from some of the most compassionate and right-minded posters here, is that the conversation sort of ends there for homosexuals. Someone like you, the OP, posts about a deeply hard and troubling experience relating to the faith. Immediately, and I think this serves as a microcosm of the Church generally, posters are quick to point out all the rules I discussed above.

But that’s where it ends: “here’s the rule, go follow it. It’s your cross to bear.” How can we say that? If the OP is part of the Body of Christ, aren’t we all suffering as he suffers? Isn’t Christ himself suffering as the OP is suffering? Not to say that Jesus is a homosexual, obviously, but Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the desert.

I’ll be honest: I don’t have much of an alternative in mind, here. I don’t think we should tolerate sin, obviously. But I there is something missing from the Catholic approach to homosexuality. I’m not sure what it is, but maybe the OP can help us find it.

 

[estesbob]

I think there’s a big problem in the Church with the tone and attitude towards homosexuality that comes from a culturally defensive position. Some Catholics see any borderline tolerance of homosexuality as an offense not only in terms of morality, but also within the context of the culture wars going on in our society.

As many posters have pointed out, being a homosexual or being attracted to a member of the same sex is not sinful at all. Rather, any non-procreative, non-unitive sexual act is sinful. Because homosexual sex is not procreative, it is, by application of simple logic, sinful.

With the designation of some activity as contrary to the good life that God calls us to, we are of course obliged to help each other combat temptation to participate in that activity. We should strive to help each other, even as we ask others for help with our own sins. I, for example, have a horrible habit of acting like I know everything (I blame my Jesuit education). But I do my best, and I ask my friends to help, to be more humble.

Good enough. But one thing I notice, even from some of the most compassionate and right-minded posters here, is that the conversation sort of ends there for homosexuals. Someone like you, the OP, posts about a deeply hard and troubling experience relating to the faith. Immediately, and I think this serves as a microcosm of the Church generally, posters are quick to point out all the rules I discussed above.

But that’s where it ends: “here’s the rule, go follow it. It’s your cross to bear.” How can we say that? If the OP is part of the Body of Christ, aren’t we all suffering as he suffers? Isn’t Christ himself suffering as the OP is suffering? Not to say that Jesus is a homosexual, obviously, but Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the desert.

I’ll be honest: I don’t have much of an alternative in mind, here. I don’t think we should tolerate sin, obviously. But I there is something missing from the Catholic approach to homosexuality. I’m not sure what it is, but maybe the OP can help us find it.

I think the problem is that too often we feel we need to have a different approach to homosexuality than we doother sins. In the end it is no different than any other grievous sin-it cuts one off from God and harms the faith community. The solution is the same solution for all sins-repent, confess, try to sin no more.

 

[seakelp]

I think the problem is that too often we feel we need to have a different approach to homosexuality than we doother sins. In the end it is no different than any other grievous sin-it cuts one off from God and harms the faith community. The solution is the same solution for all sins-repent, confess, try to sin no more.

I completely agree, estesbob. I do think that we approach the particular homosexual sin against chastity as taking on bigger meaning because of the cultural context in which we find ourselves. We’re situated in a time and place where there is more tolerance not only for homosexuals (which is good), but for homosexual acts (which is not good).

There’s a really negative trend, I think, where compassion for homosexuals somehow means you’re also accepting their sinfulness.

And there is also, as you pointed out, the trend of homosexuality as being far more visible an issue. It is easy nowadays to tell who is homosexual, because people are more willing to express their sexual preference. There is greater comfort in being out of the closet. I think many Catholics therefore react more heatedly and directly against homosexuals.

The third thing, and these are all rather indistinct issues, perhaps, is that people see acceptance of homosexuals as people as accepting a certain kind of lifestyle. There’s some truth to this, I think. Our society has drawn a line that says, “You either accept the lifestyle of homosexuals that is inherently about homosexual sex, or you don’t.” Catholics, I think, fall victim to a trap when they accept that dichotomy.

 

[estesbob]

The third thing, and these are all rather indistinct issues, perhaps, is that people see acceptance of homosexuals as people as accepting a certain kind of lifestyle. There’s some truth to this, I think. Our society has drawn a line that says, “You either accept the lifestyle of homosexuals that is inherently about homosexual sex, or you don’t.” Catholics, I think, fall victim to a trap when they accept that dichotomy.

I have a lot of experience in this area due to close family members who are homosexual. My goal in dealing with them is to be accepting but never be affirming.

 

[seakelp]

I have a lot of experience in this area due to close family members who are homosexual. My goal in dealing with them is to be accepting but never be affirming.

That’s interesting - what do you mean by “accepting” but not “affirming?” How does that play out when you’re actually interacting with your loved ones?

I realize that’s a personal question, please feel free not to answer.

 

[Emily2014]

Respectful response to Tigg.
We just view things differently.
I cannot see any similarity between saving someone’s life by preventing that person from falling over a cliff and presuming to intrude upon another person’s personal life.
We are not here to be the custodian of others, nor to impose our views upon them.
I actually see that as presumptuous, with the implication that we are right and they are not.
Why foster the widely held but outdated impression that Catholics as a genre were smug, bigoted and intolerant. We are not. It is our duty to reach out to others with love, compassion and acceptance - as Jesus does.
God bless you.