Speakers tell pope, synod that parishes should welcome same-sex couples

[LongingSoul]

It is always about free will and choice. Do we love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and place Him first in our life? If so, then nothing can keep us from the sacraments.

The problem arises in cases such as the Pope Benedict cited as without resolution.

“Those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various bishops’ conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.”

The Church is looking for some resolution that doesn’t involve abandoning a family or living a celibate marriage for the rest of their lives which is unrealistic and cruel.

 

[marymary1975]

I did 100%. I just do not agree with him, or you. We are all too quick to work on the sins of others, especially in areas that we have zerowe- the chuemptation. None of us are free of sin yet. We thing the idea of being judged based on the standard we judge means the same sin, that is, we can at least judge homosexuals if we are not hypocrite that or other sexual sin. Yet we need to understand that for them the temptation they have there is as great as any we have.

Do we require people be free of pride or gluttony to come to Mass? Would we support a “no fat people” rule because they have not overcome their gluttony and may serve as bad example?

Our response should be that of the Father. Did he get a pledge from his son? Heck, did he even listen to the son? No. He was so overjoyed to see him show up that he brought him in.

I have never suggested that we bypass telling people about sin, or approve of their sin, only that we welcome all sinners with open arms, until the Holy Spirit moves them to greater sanctity.

We first need to clarify what we mean by “judge.”. Judge meaning making a final determination as to someone else’s state of soul we can’t. Under that specific concept you do have to be understanding and cannot make final calls on someone struggling with same sex attraction.

However, judging meaning discerning right from wrong is a duty requires from all Catholics. If a person in unrepentant living in a gay marriage, insisting on it and sees no problem in homosexual acts that is wrong and is the duty of the church to make a call to that person to stop sinning and repent.

The prodigal son was receives by the father but he repented. Yes we are all sinners but we are called to repent from our sins and convert. On the same way if a person that goes to the church is prideful and goes to church and the minute he gets out starts putting people down mistreating others and disrespecting others, that person is besides being a hupocrit doing wrong and is the church’s duty to point out the wrong action and make a call to that person to stop doing something is wrong. Same goes with cohabitation and any other sin.

Again we do have to welcome all sinners. The problem here is that people do not want to be told that something they are doing is wrong and while we welcome sinners we(the church most specifically) do also have a duty to point out what is wrong (remember even we individually have a duty of fraternal correction to those who are close to us) so the idea of welcoming sinners is true but you cannot welcome them and say oh OK continue sinning because we don’t care about sin.

 

[Tigg]

And, as Prodigal said, we need to remove the taboo on admitting one is gay. When chaste gay people are met with nonsense about their childhood, mental health, reorientation and so on as soon as they set foot in a parish, it is no wonder that the few who (heroically, might I add) manage to suck it up and stay are secretive about their reason for staying unmarried. Gay people often can’t picture chaste life as anything but miserable. If they never see chaste gay people who live fulfilling lives, it is no wonder they don’t see it as possible.

Then can they admit they are gay only to their confessor, their therapist, their family, and/or their closest friends?

Why must the world know they are gay? Why must innocence, those who have not the capacity to discern or understand any of this, be nevertheless, exposed to the ills of society without the maturity to deal with it? Parents cannot protect them, and it seems some are suggesting that even being in church cannot either. Is it some sort of social distinction they need in order to be treated in a special way by others? I honestly ask because I know if I were an alcoholic or schizophrenic, if I had an eating disorder, even if I had cancer or drug addiction, I would consider it private information to be shared only with a few trusted persons to whom I would ask advice. No public disclosure is needed.

** I do not need to know if you are gay because I am to treat you with the same respect as everyone else! ** There was a thread once in which the underlying theme was **too much information! ** This pertains to gays who may not be aware there are social boundaries, in the interests of polite, (and moral) conversation that otherwise is better left unsaid. Unless, of course, there is a hidden motivation here which would advance the *cause *for homosexuality as being a normal, and not unusual condition, even though only a minority are affected.

As far as the welcoming part, I think we’re forgetting the most important thing in our eagerness to be so accommodating. Salvation is a* private *affair and my struggles, my weakness, my baring of my soul and my ability to confess my sins and honestly repent of them comes only from within. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. No one else can do it for us. Now this is not to say support should not be given to those who are struggling. That’s what like-minded, organized support groups are for - to give hope and encouragement.

I hope in listening to these “speakers,” the synod will also recall this:

1. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Are we naïve enough to think homosexual couples are not flirting with the near occasions of sin?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then can they admit they are gay only to their confessor, their therapist, their family, and/or their closest friends?

Why must the world know they are gay? Why must innocence, those who have not the capacity to discern or understand any of this, be nevertheless, exposed to the ills of society without the maturity to deal with it? Parents cannot protect them, and it seems some are suggesting that even being in church cannot either. Is it some sort of social distinction they need in order to be treated in a special way by others? I honestly ask because I know if I were an alcoholic or schizophrenic, if I had an eating disorder, even if I had cancer or drug addiction, I would consider it private information to be shared only with a few trusted persons to whom I would ask advice. No public disclosure is needed.

If you would never share with another person AT CHURCH that you were alcoholic, schizophrenic, anorexic, or addicted to drugs, then there is something seriously wrong with our churches. This is exactly what churches are for!

No one is saying that it’s appropriate to tell 8 year olds you’re gay. No one is saying to wear a bright pink shirt advertising it, or to make it the first thing you mention in every conversation. People who do that sort of thing are hurting very badly, and expressing their pain. But many gay folks aren’t like that at all – and chaste gay people are especially unlikely to be that immature.

I think you’d be surprised, if my suggestions were put into effect. You wouldn’t notice it on the ground. But word would spread quickly though the gay community that churches were letting you call yourself gay, and not immediately insisting on therapy. It would make people feel more welcome, and it wouldn’t create scandal at all – except among those who simply desire to be scandalized.

 

[OraLabora]

Hmm. Three words. “He is our son.”



brain collapses into black hole while attempting to reconcile and equate “threeness” and “fourness”

I’m pretty sure I’d stutter and stumble too if I had to make a presentation to the pope!!!

 

[OraLabora]

Sloth

Watched a front pew parishioner dozing off during Mass and even snoring to the point of distraction.

It’s happened to me from time to time when not feeling well or very fatigued.

I once had a colleague who would nod off at meetings and snore embarrassingly (sometimes in front of clients). Some thought he was a lazy old geezer but he ended up having a major heart attack; the dozing was caused by his heart not functioning properly. So I would cut the dozer a bit of slack, he may have a health problem.

 

[opus101]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — A married couple told Pope Francis and the Synod of Bishops on the family that Catholic parishes should welcome same-sex couples, following the example of parents who invite their son and his male partner to their home for Christmas.]

Question: Isn’t this what the Church already does? Anyone can attend Mass.
It is the reception of Holy Communion that would not be available to those in that type of relationship, but that goes for all of us when we fall into our various sins and need to go to confession.

 

[Brendan]

Do we require people be free of pride or gluttony to come to Mass? Would we support a “no fat people” rule because they have not overcome their gluttony and may serve as bad example?

The very act of conversion requires that we have at least an intent of overcoming the sin, that we recognize that our pride or gluttony or lust is contrary to the message of the Gospel.

The person may not have given up their gluttony or lust, but the Church is quite right to ask them not only to attempt to give up the sin, but leave outside the pews and sign to the attachment to sin. What would you say about a person reading a ‘Penthouse’ at Mass, or having a picnic lunch in the pews.

Those would be the signs, the occasions of their sin. Likewise with a homosexual couple. They are welcome, but as a sign of their rejection of sin, perhaps they should sit apart at Mass, If the lustful sinner makes attempts to keep their sin out of the public realm, should not any other form of sin.

 

[opus101]

The very act of conversion requires that we have at least an intent of overcoming the sin, that we recognize that our pride or gluttony or lust is contrary to the message of the Gospel.

That is a very good point. We fall into sins that we acknowledge are, in fact, sins. It is acknowledged that a wrong was done, and we need to repent of it… that is, when we’re aware of it.

To display a romantic relationship with a same-sex partner (whether or not sex is involved) at a Church that considers it an objective mortal sin, is not the same thing. It would be highly unlikely that the couple would not know Church doctrine on the matter.

Nevertheless, I’ve never seen anyone be rejected from a Mass (except demonstrators, or people who are there to disrupt the service).

 

[JimG]

Then can they admit they are gay only to their confessor, their therapist, their family, and/or their closest friends?

Why must the world know they are gay? Why must innocence, those who have not the capacity to discern or understand any of this, be nevertheless, exposed to the ills of society without the maturity to deal with it? Parents cannot protect them, and it seems some are suggesting that even being in church cannot either. Is it some sort of social distinction they need in order to be treated in a special way by others? I honestly ask because I know if I were an alcoholic or schizophrenic, if I had an eating disorder, even if I had cancer or drug addiction, I would consider it private information to be shared only with a few trusted persons to whom I would ask advice. No public disclosure is needed.

** I do not need to know if you are gay because I am to treat you with the same respect as everyone else! ** There was a thread once in which the underlying theme was **too much information! ** This pertains to gays who may not be aware there are social boundaries, in the interests of polite, (and moral) conversation that otherwise is better left unsaid. Unless, of course, there is a hidden motivation here which would advance the *cause *for homosexuality as being a normal, and not unusual condition, even though only a minority are affected.

As far as the welcoming part, I think we’re forgetting the most important thing in our eagerness to be so accommodating. Salvation is a* private *affair and my struggles, my weakness, my baring of my soul and my ability to confess my sins and honestly repent of them comes only from within. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. No one else can do it for us. Now this is not to say support should not be given to those who are struggling. That’s what like-minded, organized support groups are for - to give hope and encouragement.

I hope in listening to these “speakers,” the synod will also recall this:

Are we naïve enough to think homosexual couples are not flirting with the near occasions of sin?

I can certainly understand your point. There are a lot of single people in the world, a lot of single people in parishes. I don’t assume that any of them are gay. I don’t assume anything about any parishioner, any more than I would assume an individual is an alcoholic, or an adulterer, or a porn addict. Indeed, a lot of people might be porn addicts. There is no need to specifically welcome them at the parish; if they wish to confide in you, they will confide. I didn’t know or inquire about a friend’s marriage problems until he elected to confide in me that a divorce was pending. Must everything be public?

 

[OraLabora]

I can certainly understand your point. There are a lot of single people in the world, a lot of single people in parishes. I don’t assume that any of them are gay. I don’t assume anything about any parishioner, any more than I would assume an individual is an alcoholic, or an adulterer, or a porn addict. Indeed, a lot of people might be porn addicts. There is no need to specifically welcome them at the parish; if they wish to confide in you, they will confide. I didn’t know or inquire about a friend’s marriage problems until he elected to confide in me that a divorce was pending. Must everything be public?

I’m reminded of the instruction sheet on every desk of the guest house of the monastery I’m associated with. It exhorts guests to “respect the mystery” of other guests of the monastery and not ask personal questions (in addition to maintaining silence as much as possible).

Overall I think it’s a good policy to have. Like you say if they wish to confide they can confide. Otherwise its mind one’s own business.

 

[Beautiful]

It’s happened to me from time to time when not feeling well or very fatigued.

I once had a colleague who would nod off at meetings and snore embarrassingly (sometimes in front of clients). Some thought he was a lazy old geezer but he ended up having a major heart attack; the dozing was caused by his heart not functioning properly. So I would cut the dozer a bit of slack, he may have a health problem.

I’m sorry I guess I gave a very bad example.
I’ve learned to watch where my eyes fall I guess that’s the point.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m sorry I guess I gave a very bad example.
I’ve learned to watch where my eyes fall I guess that’s the point.

Don’t worry, we all laughed at my colleague too when he’d snore away in meetings. We were rather embarrassed when he had the heart attack. I guess we were guilty of ageism, I was in my late 30s at the time (I’m 56 now…), and he in his 60s.

 

[shelby_sun]

I can certainly understand your point. There are a lot of single people in the world, a lot of single people in parishes. I don’t assume that any of them are gay. I don’t assume anything about any parishioner, any more than I would assume an individual is an alcoholic, or an adulterer, or a porn addict. Indeed, a lot of people might be porn addicts. There is no need to specifically welcome them at the parish; if they wish to confide in you, they will confide. I didn’t know or inquire about a friend’s marriage problems until he elected to confide in me that a divorce was pending. Must everything be public?

I think you are exactly right. Maybe these people mean to be nice to everyone you meet at Church as they are children of God. Even if you meet a gay couple, one cannot assume they are having sex, which is whatever one wants to assume. Just as we don’t know if married comes are following the laws of the Church in their own lives, we have no idea what a gay couple is doing.

We have a gay couple that lives across the street and our next door neighbors, who are very involved in our Church, will not even acknowledge they exist, even though they are wonderful neighbors to everyone, they help the elderly neighbors, they will help anyone who needs it, and they are positive, kind people. I have NO idea what they do in bed or if they even sleep in the same bed. Just like I don’t know what my next door neighbors are doing.

 

[Rin]

I’m reminded of the instruction sheet on every desk of the guest house of the monastery I’m associated with. It exhorts guests to “respect the mystery” of other guests of the monastery and not ask personal questions (in addition to maintaining silence as much as possible).

Overall I think it’s a good policy to have. Like you say if they wish to confide they can confide. Otherwise its mind one’s own business.

Of course people should respect the mystery (I love that phrase, by the way) of others, and of course people should be free to choose whether they confide. I also believe that when two men live together as brother and brother (a venerable tradition, might I add), people should not automatically jump to conclusions about the nature of their relationship. People should mind their own business, something for which different cultures seem to have different aptitude. And people should drop the idea that life-long, chaste relationships (that are more than what we now call ‘friendships’, since we sadly in this age by ‘friend’ mean ‘acquaintance’) between two men or two women somehow are sinful; it is a tradition (back to at least the early Middle Ages) in many Catholic cultures, though sadly it has slowly disappeared over the last few hundred years. Homosexual inclinations are disordered by their object only insofar as they are directed towards homosexual sexual acts. Lifelong companionship, even chaste cohabitation, is not a sexual act. Thus, it is not disordered. Actually, the lack of such companionship makes chastity a lot more difficult, for gay and straight people alike. It should be encouraged, not advised against as I often see people do.

This said, people should also drop the “why should people be so public” attitude. If all chaste gay people are closeted, well, then actively gay people will never have the chance to witness such people. People who through their attitude makes being openly gay, but chaste, difficult or even taboo, effectively reinforce the problem of gay people believing that chastity would mean misery. The ‘ew, I don’t want to know’ attitude should have no place in the mind of a Catholic.

 

[pnewton]

We first need to clarify what we mean by “judge.”. Judge meaning making a final determination as to someone else’s state of soul we can’t… On the same way if a person that goes to the church is prideful and goes to church

Doesn’t judging that someone is prideful cross the line past judging actions and judging the soul?

The problem here is that people do not want to be told that something they are doing is wrong and while we welcome sinners we(the church most specifically) do also have a duty to point out what is wrong (remember even we individually have a duty of fraternal correction to those who are close to us) so the idea of welcoming sinners is true but you cannot welcome them and say oh OK continue sinning because we don’t care about sin.

There is a little bit of straw man here. Three actual:

1. No one has suggested that wrong is never pointed out.
2. No one has said it is OK to continue sinning.
3. No one has said we don’t care about sin.

 

[pnewton]

The very act of conversion requires that we have at least an intent of overcoming the sin, that we recognize that our pride or gluttony or lust is contrary to the message of the Gospel.

Conversion is often a process. Those that come to Church may be in the first step of that process. As to reading Penthouse, this too is a straw man. No one is suggesting that homosexuals engage in active sin at Mass.

Now before anyone throws more straw, no one is suggesting that welcoming same-sex couples are either welcoming demonstrations or supporting same sex marriage. They need to be welcomed like a couple that is in an irregular marriage or two people living together, or to expand to other sin, like someone who is a glutton. No pork rinds permitted.

 

[Tigg]

If you would never share with another person AT CHURCH that you were alcoholic, schizophrenic, anorexic, or addicted to drugs, then there is something seriously wrong with our churches. This is exactly what churches are for!

No one is saying that it’s appropriate to tell 8 year olds you’re gay. No one is saying to wear a bright pink shirt advertising it, or to make it the first thing you mention in every conversation. People who do that sort of thing are hurting very badly, and expressing their pain. But many gay folks aren’t like that at all – and chaste gay people are especially unlikely to be that immature.

I think you’d be surprised, if my suggestions were put into effect. You wouldn’t notice it on the ground. But word would spread quickly though the gay community that churches were letting you call yourself gay, and not immediately insisting on therapy. It would make people feel more welcome, and it wouldn’t create scandal at all – except among those who simply desire to be scandalized.

I believe I once shared with you, Prodigal, that I was in a prayer ministry at our parish which ministered to gays. You responded that such a thing was rare, but ours was under the auspices of the Charismatic Renewal at the time and our direct “supervisor” was the priest who headed it. We prayed with them and urged them to seek spiritual counseling. No one outside our group even knew we were doing this as we were under a complete commitment of confidentiality and those who came for prayer and support did so quietly.

If gay people don’t see (chaste!) gay/SSA people in the Church, they won’t feel welcome. But as it is, we recommend chaste gay folks stay super-quiet about their situations, and then unchaste gay people don’t feel welcome.

You are missing my entire point. It is fact that only God’s grace can bring us into the light. Do not give credit to man what only God can do and that is to change the heart. If a person is sincerely seeking spiritual help, he will do so by the inspiration of the HS and through actual grace which strengthens the will. How are parishes supposed to welcome gay couples (which to me would be an indication of an active sex life) without the number one rule honoring the bishops exhortation to first remind them that they may not engage in that behavior? (see direct link to the Vatican web site in my previous post.) What do they want from the Church? Acceptance of that which we cannot possibly give, or are they open to listening to that which can save them? I don’t at all buy into the thought that unless gays are surrounded by others of their kind, they cannot step into the light, nor experience God’s truth and His love for them. You, most of all, should give them more credit than that.

 

[ProVobis]

They need to be welcomed like a couple that is in an irregular marriage or two people living together, or to expand to other sin, like someone who is a glutton. No pork rinds permitted.

Perhaps the solution is what Poles and some others do at Christmas. It’s called the opłatek.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_wafer

I don’t see why this couldn’t be extended to before or after each Mass.

 

[marymary1975]

Doesn’t judging that someone is prideful cross the line past judging actions and judging the soul?

There is a little bit of straw man here. Three actual:

1. No one has suggested that wrong is never pointed out.
2. No one has said it is OK to continue sinning.
3. No one has said we don’t care about sin.

Stating that someone is commiting the sin of pride is not judging the state of the soul, is discerning between good and evil, which is a duty imposed to all catholic. Indicating that said person is going to hell would be judging the state of the soul.

Then I am truly not understanding your point. I will go back to re read to be 100% sure but when we previously stated exactly that you responded that you didn’t agree it. When me and someone else posted that there was a requirement that at least having the intention or desire to stop sinning you also indicated you didn’t agree with that. So if now you are saying that you are actually agreeing with that people need at minimum the intention to stop sinning, I have no idea then what is that you are trying to say.