Sexuality and more inclusive language on Synod agenda

[FollowChrist34]

If the Synod’s goal is to get more people to consider Catholic doctrine, then yes…using more inclusive language could have a positive effect. That’s a no-brainer.
This I know for sure; the non-inclusive language usually has a negative effect.
Most non-Catholics that i know–and also, the Catholics I know who do not feel close to the religion–feel a door slamming in their face when they hear the non-inclusive language.
So if they want people to listen and come in for a mass–the more inclusive language they use, the more open doors.

.

I’ve never seen a human being seriously decide to go into a Church in my life simply because of more inclusive language - free lunch or maybe a car wash would probably work better with those folks.

 

[Seraphim73]

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23

For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Nations because of you” - Romans 2:24

If we drive people away from God by our actions or words we are in serious trouble. The reality is people deny God because of us. We who claim to believe in God but are harsh, uncharitable, hypocritical in our actions, who say all manner of nasty things about people and then pass those actions off as following God’s will. We look at what Jesus said or how some saints spoke and think that we are imitating them. What we forget is we ain’t Jesus and we ain’t saints. Instead of asking what would Jesus or some saint do we should ask what would God have me do.

We have to meet people where they are now. Part of that is using appropriate, charitable language as it’s understood today. I think it’s a wise thing for the Catholic Church to recognize that.

 

[OraLabora]

I will stick my neck out and state that I do not think what Cardinal Erdo and Lombardi are suggesting, understood within a proper theological framework, is in conflict with doctrinal truth.

I think it is possible to find significant “elements of love and holiness” in family situations and domestic relationships which - while lacking the fullness of truth found in a sacramental, marital relationship in which both partners engage in sex that is fully open to life - represent a “step” in the right direction and can be appreciated for those elements of truth even if we can never recognize them as ‘good’ or ‘ideal’.

Thus I think that pastors can work with individuals in such situations according to a law of gradualism, in a spirit of mercy and compassion.

If we simply say that such people are “living in sin” and try to compel them to make an immediate transformation, while this is objectively true (and I would never dispute it), we may in fact close these people off from any hope of “progression” in the faith, by alienating them from the Church.

I am prepared to be called a moral relativist I am philosophically opposed to moral relativism, however all I would say is that I do not think examining the application and presentation of a doctrine is this way need conflict with the doctrinal truth in question.

Sometimes, it might actually aid its effectiveness.

Dear Vouthon,

I agree completely with this. If I may add a personal note, in my own slow conversion (that started when I walked through the church door after 22 years of being a lapsed Catholic, and which is still ongoing), the graces of the sacraments were essential to my growth. Without them, I’m sure I would not be in the Church.

The paradox is that we are barring access to the sacraments from those who probably need them most to be able to grow in holiness. As the Holy Father says, we’re using them as a prize for the perfect rather than medicine for the soul, and this could be working as an opposite force to the Church’s mission to evangelize all peoples.

 

[Vouthon]

I’ve said this other places, but I think people are way over-reacting to this in both directions.

All we know is that this was one topic, discussed in one meeting, and it got mentioned in the summary. That’s it. This isn’t the new infallible dogma of the Church.

Well, of course it isn’t a new infallible dogma. It is rather about ways in which to implement and present doctrine to a complex, often deaf modern 21st century world

My point though is that it is a good thing for the Church that our pastors are discussing such things. Whatever the outcome, the discussion and even debate can only work for good. I do not think that any viewpoint floated by a cardinal in this synod should be dismissed or held up as something quasi-heretical just because one might favour a different approach.

If I may quote again:

“…Far from jeopardizing the Church’s unity, controversies. . . can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”…”

- Saint Pope John XXIII, AD PETRI CATHEDRAM (On Truth, Unity and Peace), 1959

“…Speaking generally of the dialogue which the Church of today must take up with a great renewal of fervor…We do so in fulfillment of Our duty and with no other thought in mind than to open Our heart to you and to strengthen more and more and render more joyful that union of faith and love which happily exists between us…These then are the lines of our dialogue. But before we engage in conversation with our brothers, we address ourselves lovingly to our Heavenly Father in earnest prayer and great confidence…A spirit of bitter criticism, defiance, and arrogance is far removed from that charity which nourishes and preserves the spirit of fellowship, harmony, and peace. It completely vitiates dialogue, turning it into argument, disagreement and dissension-a sad state of affairs, but by no means uncommon…For the lover of truth discussion is always possible…And so We end this Our first encyclical on a note of great joy in the union of our spirits which has its origin in Christ…”

***- ECCLESIAM SUAM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI , AUGUST 6, 1964 ***

 

[DarkLight]

Here’s a thought for people:

I’ve been in 2 relationships, one with a man and one with another woman. My relationship with a woman had many things, truly good things, that were utterly lacking in my relationship with a man. I was respected in my desires rather than being ridiculed if I didn’t want what my boyfriend did. We genuinely cared about each other, rather than one person being treated as an accessory to the other. I as a person can both understand the church teaching on homosexuality and say what I just said is entirely true. A loving homosexual relationship was in many ways closer to the Christian ideal than a heterosexual relationship based pretty much entirely on domination.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Vouthon,

I agree completely with this. If I may add a personal note, in my own slow conversion (that started when I walked through the church door after 22 years of being a lapsed Catholic, and which is still ongoing), the graces of the sacraments were essential to my growth. Without them, I’m sure I would not be in the Church.

The paradox is that we are barring access to the sacraments from those who probably need them most to be able to grow in holiness. As the Holy Father says, we’re using them as a prize for the perfect rather than medicine for the soul, and this could be working as an opposite force to the Church’s mission to evangelize all peoples.

Another thought-provoking and insightful post Ora, thank you And I see that you are a Benedictine oblate. What a marvellous calling you have, one of the most impressive contemplative orders.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Here’s a thought for people:

I’ve been in 2 relationships, one with a man and one with another woman. My relationship with a woman had many things, truly good things, that were utterly lacking in my relationship with a man. I was respected in my desires rather than being ridiculed if I didn’t want what my boyfriend did. We genuinely cared about each other, rather than one person being treated as an accessory to the other. I as a person can both understand the church teaching on homosexuality and say what I just said is entirely true. A loving homosexual relationship was in many ways closer to the Christian ideal than a heterosexual relationship based pretty much entirely on domination.

Just to clarify, all men are not like that jerk. And the problem with the first relationship was his jerkiness, not his gender.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Let’s keep in mind the work of grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which opens and softens the heart, bringing forth virtue, among many other blessings. We’re not God. The Sacraments only work if they are received in true faith and worthily. Or are we re-defining worthily. Is that what we are doing? My God. I haven’t quite got my head around what all this really means. I’m going to be fearing for my own salvation on this road pretty soon here.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Just to clarify, all men are not like that jerk. And the problem with the first relationship was his jerkiness, not his gender.

I have seen real Lady Macbeths out there too, just making mincemeat of their husbands/boyfriends on a variety of levels. A bad mother can really screw up a guy too. Of course, the reverse is true too. Isn’t sin fun.

 

[OraLabora]

Let’s keep in mind the work of grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which opens and softens the heart, bringing forth virtue, among many other blessings. We’re not God. The Sacraments only work if they are received in true faith and worthily. Or are we re-defining worthily. Is that what we are doing? My God. I haven’t quite got my head around what all this really means. I’m going to be fearing for my own salvation on this road pretty soon here.

I’m not sure that any of us are ever truly “worthy”. Christ gave of Himself freely and totally. Do we not say just before we receive the greatest sacrament “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You”?

If we try to define who is, or is not, worthy of receiving, are we not in fact attempting to place man-made limits on God’s mercy?

What did the Holy Father mean when he said the that the Eucharist was not a “prize for the perfect, but instead medicine for sick souls”?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m not sure that any of us are ever truly “worthy”. Christ gave of Himself freely and totally. Do we not say just before we receive the greatest sacrament “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You”?

If we try to define who is, or is not, worthy of receiving, are we not in fact attempting to place man-made limits on God’s mercy?

What did the Holy Father mean when he said the that the Eucharist was not a “prize for the perfect, but instead medicine for sick souls”?

Each man/woman to him/herself. But I accept Paul’s exhortation (below). I accept the current Church designations as to who can receive the Sacrament. Don’t feel any need to change them. What is odd is that this used to really, really bother me, that Catholics prohibited some from Communion. I thought the Protestant way superior. Over time, I have shifted on that - maybe it was partaking of all those Eucharists, huh?

St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."218

 

[OraLabora]

Each man/woman to him/herself. But I accept Paul’s exhortation (below). I accept the current Church designations as to who can receive the Sacrament. Don’t feel any need to change them. What is odd is that this used to really, really bother me, that Catholics prohibited some from Communion. I thought the Protestant way superior. Over time, I have shifted on that - maybe it was partaking of all those Eucharists, huh?

Whether or not any of us feel disposed one way or the other on the current rules, it’s not within our authority to make that decision. Whatever comes out of the Synod, as faithful laity we’ll be called to assent even if we disagree.

But if the Holy Father can instruct participants to speak freely with the filters turned off, so can we, I believe.

As I’ve grown older in the faith (17 years since I came back), I’m more inclined to think pastorally than doctrinally. I’m doctrinally orthodox, but pastorally, I believe we need to explore new avenues because clearly the current approach isn’t attracting too many people, at least in the Western Church.

I say that because my own growth in the faith has been very gradual, often with three steps forward, two steps back, or one forward, two back, then inch forward again. If a good and holy priest hadn’t taken the pastoral approach with me back when I reverted, I doubt I’d have been Catholic for more than a brief time; I had a lot of baggage of my own to sort out back then, and it took time. Even my time as an oblate (11 years) has been a gradual conversion, not an “aha!” moment.

To think that someone can throw off the yoke of many years of living in an irregular situation (e.g. divorced & remarried, cohabitation), with kids, a spouse/partner that may not be Catholic etc., at the flip of a switch, is to completely deny human nature. Yes, we know where they’re supposed to be going and a good shepherd will try to get them there, but they’ll need food for the journey.

The world is a broken place with a lot of hurting people. I hope we are a Church that helps heal them instead of slamming the door in their face as lost causes.

 

[DarkLight]

Just to clarify, all men are not like that jerk. And the problem with the first relationship was his jerkiness, not his gender.

Of course. But my point is there were genuine goods in the latter relationship, and it doesn’t do me or anyone else any good to ignore them. I learned a lot from that about proper respect for my own body - lessons that are still very important to me.

 

[Vouthon]

Whether or not any of us feel disposed one way or the other on the current rules, it’s not within our authority to make that decision. Whatever comes out of the Synod, as faithful laity we’ll be called to assent even if we disagree.

But if the Holy Father can instruct participants to speak freely with the filters turned off, so can we, I believe.

As I’ve grown older in the faith (17 years since I came back), I’m more inclined to think pastorally than doctrinally. I’m doctrinally orthodox, but pastorally, I believe we need to explore new avenues because clearly the current approach isn’t attracting too many people, at least in the Western Church.

I say that because my own growth in the faith has been very gradual, often with three steps forward, two steps back, or one forward, two back, then inch forward again. If a good and holy priest hadn’t taken the pastoral approach with me back when I reverted, I doubt I’d have been Catholic for more than a brief time; I had a lot of baggage of my own to sort out back then, and it took time. Even my time as an oblate (11 years) has been a gradual conversion, not an “aha!” moment.

To think that someone can throw off the yoke of many years of living in an irregular situation (e.g. divorced & remarried, cohabitation), with kids, a spouse/partner that may not be Catholic etc., at the flip of a switch, is to completely deny human nature. Yes, we know where they’re supposed to be going and a good shepherd will try to get them there, but they’ll need food for the journey.

The world is a broken place with a lot of hurting people. I hope we are a Church that helps heal them instead of slamming the door in their face as lost causes.

:tiphat:

 

[FollowChrist34]

Whether or not any of us feel disposed one way or the other on the current rules, it’s not within our authority to make that decision. Whatever comes out of the Synod, as faithful laity we’ll be called to assent even if we disagree.

But if the Holy Father can instruct participants to speak freely with the filters turned off, so can we, I believe.

As I’ve grown older in the faith (17 years since I came back), I’m more inclined to think pastorally than doctrinally. I’m doctrinally orthodox, but pastorally, I believe we need to explore new avenues because clearly the current approach isn’t attracting too many people, at least in the Western Church.

I say that because my own growth in the faith has been very gradual, often with three steps forward, two steps back, or one forward, two back, then inch forward again. If a good and holy priest hadn’t taken the pastoral approach with me back when I reverted, I doubt I’d have been Catholic for more than a brief time; I had a lot of baggage of my own to sort out back then, and it took time. Even my time as an oblate (11 years) has been a gradual conversion, not an “aha!” moment.

To think that someone can throw off the yoke of many years of living in an irregular situation (e.g. divorced & remarried, cohabitation), with kids, a spouse/partner that may not be Catholic etc., at the flip of a switch, is to completely deny human nature. Yes, we know where they’re supposed to be going and a good shepherd will try to get them there, but they’ll need food for the journey.

The world is a broken place with a lot of hurting people. I hope we are a Church that helps heal them instead of slamming the door in their face as lost causes.

Well said, I actually agree with a lot of this. I have definitely turned off my filters on a number of things here. I came into the Church tossing and turning over Protestant/Catholic issues, so I made my peace with a lot of that slowly, very slowly, as I am sure many of my priests would attest. I feel like everyone around me is having that kind of crisis now, while I sit back and cling to my newly found, much loved, slipping away orthodoxy. It’s weird. That’s why I get so defensive. And for me it was about faith so I don’t really get the intense recruiting angle. I wasn’t recruited and I am a little skeptical about it. I feel the Church is there in truth and at some point it’s up to the individual to accept it - and to conform themselves to it. We are trying to make it too easy; it’s a Cross after all. And for me, it really is life or death; it must be seriously, completely engaged. May not always sound like it, but I am coming from a place of love. Just my thoughts.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Of course. But my point is there were genuine goods in the latter relationship, and it doesn’t do me or anyone else any good to ignore them. I learned a lot from that about proper respect for my own body - lessons that are still very important to me.

Yes, I agree 100%. When people deny such goods, their intentions might be good, but they don’t get it. Gay folks aren’t going to take you seriously if you don’t admit that SOME goods can be achieved in gay relationships.

 

[Vouthon]

May not always sound like it, but I am coming from a place of love. Just my thoughts.

I assure you it does. I love your passion for the faith and for upholding the truth. It is inspiring, even if my favoured approach is a bit different

 

[DarkLight]

Yes, I agree 100%. When people deny such goods, their intentions might be good, but they don’t get it. Gay folks aren’t going to take you seriously if you don’t admit that SOME goods can be achieved in gay relationships.

Right. This was actually a big deal for me. People hemmed and hawed over my heterosexual relationship despite the fact that it was plain old abusive but were very quick to condemn a homosexual relationship and would not acknowledge that there could be goods from it. When I would say the greater evils happened within the former and not the latter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Right. This was actually a big deal for me. People hemmed and hawed over my heterosexual relationship despite the fact that it was plain old abusive but were very quick to condemn a homosexual relationship and would not acknowledge that there could be goods from it. When I would say the greater evils happened within the former and not the latter.

My own belief is that nothing of ultimate good can emerge from sexual sin itself, but that a whole lot of good can emerge from relationships which involve (among many other things) sexual sin. This is not downplaying the sin, in my mind: I don’t think homosexual sex makes people more loving, more generous, more holy. But I wouldn’t imagine denigrating the deep friendships two homosexual lovers could have. How much more lovely and beautiful their relationships would be if they were chaste!

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

My concern is that if we officially institutionalize this practice as “gradualism” it will quickly fall into abuse, a slippery slope that starts out as an act of mercy, but is used in practice as license to allow more and more leniency in terms of adhering to Church doctrine on issues of marriage and human sexuality. This will lead to sinful behavior not only being tolerated, but in fact, condoned. Let’s look at our Protestant sisters and brothers here – quick look into the future. The Anglican Church, perhaps?
.

I think you are right. People take advantage of any sign of leniency. Kindness is often taken as stupidity. It’s human nature. This “gradualism” would definitely be twisted to mean whatever people want it to mean.

These discussions seem so desperate to me, like the church is afraid to stand up to the pressures of the secular world, bowing to it, fearing to lose the faithful over sexual matters, and bending backwards to accommodate sinners who are not sure if they want to or need to repent. It is pleading for people to stay at all cost. Jesus never did that. He was always kind but told people the truth. He was there for them and showed them the way, but never begged them to follow him. Are people of today so sensitive and shallow that everything has to be sweet baby talk so their feelings and egos don’t get hurt? Are those who seek the Truth so easily put off by clear language that doesn’t pander to ideological trends?

I honestly don’t know what to think of it all.