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

[dfp42]

I can’t imagine being barred from Holy Communion for the rest of my life because of early mistakes I made. I’ve always tried to do the right thing as a life long Catholic, but I was blessed to have been born into a deeply religious environment and thoroughly catechised from birth. Lucky me. But I can’t help feeling a similar sorrow to the holy Fathers at the plight of those whose inner conversion came at a time after they understood fully what’s what. It’s at least worth having a good look at through a synod to see what the Holy Spirit might come up with!

I can’t see how its a sin subjectively speaking in people really didn’t have knowledge. Only God knows the hearts of people. However, objectively speaking things are what they are and I really don’t know any other way of saying it. If I found out later I was in the wrong about something I now know to be wrong, I would try to avoid or work on fixing the situation with my priest the best I could. Although, the question remains how does one fix something so deep when there’s family now involved? Is there a solution when it comes the Eucharist unless it’s on a case by case basis? That would be a lot of cases though, since there are so many living together invalid.

 

[J_Peterson]

I’m not a believer in science as my guiding light, especially on Jesus Christ. All knowledge of man has changed or expanded, that does not make it right or wrong, only constantly changing. This life, this existence will come to an end, the alfa and the omega, cyclical. I look to Jesus for my answers in life not man. It has worked ever well for me. Thomas Merton, great man and I hope a Saint someday. Hope can be every illusive if we look in the wrong direction, away from God, and to man for our answer. I think Father Merton would agree with me on that subject.

It was just an analogy, I’m not saying it’s exactly the same.

Who says I’m not looking to God. Who else can bring about change in the Church besides God?

 

[twoshoes]

I sincerely ask, when does this verse begin to take effect in this Synod? St Paul is clear in his instruction. Although Doctrine is not being changed, Tradition possibly is. As Catholics, we hold Tradition and Doctrine as equally important, they are both part of the Gospel. Is St. Paul instructing not to follow any changes?

Change is only for good when the people of God are not led astray. The last time I looked sex out side of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage is a sin. Jesus did not attend the marriage of a gay couple at Cana. To expand the Sacrament of Marriage outside of Man, Woman, and God would be in opposition to Jesus’s teachings. Paul did not tell us to change for mans sake, but for eternal life in Jesus.

 

[Beautiful]

Thus far, no one has spelled out exactly what ‘welcome’ means. We can’t derive what welcome means from the information in the article either.

What I think welcome means is full participation in parish community.

They (active gays) want the parish priest to appoint them to positions of leadership. They want to be elected into parish boards. They want to teach religious education to the children. They want others to come sit with them at the annual parish picnic. They want to direct the choir or sing right alongside everyone else. They want the full measure of parish life without judgments.

JimG mentioned earlier Post #18

At every parish I’ve been in, I’ve never noticed anyone at the door checking to see if anyone entering might be a homosexual couple. They don’t check to see if some couple might be shacking up, or if there are fornicators, masturbators or adulterers entering. As far as I can see, it is entirely welcoming. Those issues might arise in the confessional, and the confessional is open to any Catholic, and RCIA is open to non-Catholics.

No one can really tell who is the fornicator, adulterer, masturbator or even thief, murderer or even glutton (there are many ways to be a glutton), etc. But if you walk into a parish as legally married homosexual couple and list in the parish directory that way….well? They might as well be wearing a big badge on their chests. Does the adulterer walk around with a letter A? The murderer an M? The thief T? And so on. Currently, sex offenders are the only people that are publicly exposed for the safety and well-being of women and children.

It is inherent that openly married homosexuals are and will remain unfavorably exposed in parish life within the Catholic Church as long as they openly and wantonly declare their sin and want respect for it! Were there active homosexuals living among us before the closet door opened, yes. Are active homosexuals going back to the closet? I doubt it.

Will they continue to feel stagnated? Don’t we all when our hearts and actions aren’t in full communion with the Church?

Therein lies the problem.

By the way
Imagine the woman Jesus saved from stoning.
What if she tweaked Jesus’ nose when He said to go and sin no more?
Tough one to picture?

 

[twoshoes]

It was just an analogy, I’m not saying it’s exactly the same.

Who says I’m not looking to God. Who else can bring about change in the Church besides God?

Sorry if I upset you, it was not my intent to do so. I was speak about myself, I would not purpose to speak for others. This post is just my thoughts I do not attribute them to you, I welcome your thoughts on this matter. God Bless.

 

[Joe_5859]

I know it’s not an entirely undeserved skepticism that some of us feel when the word “welcoming” gets tossed out ecclesial discussions. However, I do think it is something that is important for us to look at and that warrants us to ask ourselves some questions about the way we do things.

Sure, we don’t have liturgical bouncers that physically block entrance to Mass every Sunday in every parish. But that’s a far cry from saying that we are welcoming. Our attitudes can turn people away far more than physical obstruction.

I know I’ve seen it play out in a number of ways. A priest who was pastor of several parishes, one of which was being closed and absorbed by one of his other parishes, told me of a woman in the non-closing parish who told him to his face, “I hope that those people from St. Such-and-such don’t think they can come here to our parish!”

Regrettably, such sentiments are not as uncommon as they should be. Certainly, we do not “welcome” sinful behavior as though it is not really sinful at all. But we do need to welcome the sinner, even when they are still sinning. Heck, I know I’m still sinning – every day, unfortunately – and yet I would hate to be unwelcome in Church. Where else would I go to be healed?

What this should look like is exactly the type of question I think that the synod seeks to address. Because, as has been noted, there are legitimate concerns about welcoming people in such a way that it implies that doctrine has changed and conversion is no longer necessary. We definitely want to avoid such pitfalls. But we want to do so in a way that attracts people to the Church rather than repels them. And I think there is definitely room for improvement there. That’s really what it’s all about.

 

[ProVobis]

Thus far, no one has spelled out exactly what ‘welcome’ means. We can’t derive what welcome means from the information in the article either.

What I think welcome means is full participation in parish community.

They (active gays) want the parish priest to appoint them to positions of leadership. They want to be elected into parish boards. They want to teach religious education to the children. They want others to come sit with them at the annual parish picnic. They want to direct the choir or sing right alongside everyone else. They want the full measure of parish life without judgments.

No one can really tell who is the fornicator, adulterer, masturbator or even thief, murderer or even glutton (there are many ways to be a glutton), etc. But if you walk into a parish as legally married homosexual couple and list in the parish directory that way….well? They might as well be wearing a big badge on their chests. Does the adulterer walk around with a letter A? The murderer an M? The thief T? And so on. Currently, sex offenders are the only people that are publicly exposed for the safety and well-being of women and children.

It is inherent that openly married homosexuals are and will remain unfavorably exposed in parish life within the Catholic Church as long as they openly and wantonly declare their sin and want respect for it! Were there active homosexuals living among us before the closet door opened, yes. Are active homosexuals going back to the closet? I doubt it.

Will they continue to feel stagnated? Don’t we all when our hearts and actions aren’t in full communion with the Church?

Therein lies the problem.

By the way
Imagine the woman Jesus saved from stoning.
What if she tweaked Jesus’ nose when He said to go and sin no more?
Tough one to picture?

Good points.

The same can be said for those who are openly cohabiting and flaunting it. Welcoming, whatever it means, can only go so far.

 

[Eternal_One]

twoshoes,

I agree. You did not answer my question: In Galatians 1:8, is St Paul instructing not to follow any changes? Did you even bother to read my post?

 

[J_Peterson]

Sorry if I upset you, it was not my intent to do so. I was speak about myself, I would not purpose to speak for others. This post is just my thoughts I do not attribute them to you, I welcome your thoughts on this matter. God Bless.

I wasn’t upset, I was trying to clarify my thougts. Sometimes it’s easy for me to come off that way though. I try to be brief but that doesn’t always work online. I need a reminder to be careful about how I write online every now and again.

 

[Rin]

Notice that when Christ ate with tax collectors and showed mercy to prostitutes he got to work on them. The unnamed tax collector gave half his possessions to the poor and repaid anyone he had defrauded fourfold. The other tax collector - Thomas - gave up his profession altogether. The prostitute was told to sin no more. The sinful woman who approached Christ was already sobbing out her repentance.

Is there any hint this couple are suggesting to the Church that parishes should welcome homosexual/lesbian couples and likewise go to work on them, urging them to repent and give up their lifestyle? Somehow I don’t think so.

One thing should be noted, though: These people turned away from sin after Our Lord met them with love and acceptance unconditionally. He did not save the prostitute from stoning, eat with tax collectors and so on under the condition of conversion. His actions towards them did not presume any action on their part; and perhaps that is what moved them to conversion.

Too often, I see Catholics imply that the Church should only welcome people after they have sorted out their lives. Too often, I see people explain away Pope Francis’ quote: “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will – well, who am I to judge him?” with help of the clause I’ve put in cursive, without realizing that many actively gay people actually are seeking God, and are of good will, but have not yet found a way to live in accordance with Catholic teaching without being in complete misery. It is fully possible to seek God, seek the Church, and be of good will, while yet having issues with parts of Catholic teaching.

Sexual purity is not achieved overnight, not even for straight, married people. And if people who struggle with a sexuality different than the norm are not welcomed in the Church, it will never be achieved. This is our problem, not theirs; we cannot expect people to just accept our teachings and adjust their lives before they’ve even had a chance to experience what the Church is all about. For most actively gay people, Catholic teaching simply doesn’t make sense, and it never will, if they don’t feel welcomed by the Church, and even more importantly, Catholics.

All of this said, I do not advocate for the Church to change Her doctrine. But there needs to be a change in how this doctrine is communicated, in how actively gay people are met in parishes and by individual Catholics, and perhaps even in how this doctrine is implemented pastorally. I think this Synod represents a kind of crossroads with regards to this - we have the chance to do something about our problems in relating to this group of people, or we can reinforce the impression of the Church as a hostile environment for gay people. In today’s climate, even being a chaste gay person is difficult in many parishes, and this needs to change.

I don’t really have a good solution to all of this, but I sincerely hope the Synod comes up with something. Again, not a change of doctrine, but a change of how we relate to this group. Time is running out if we ever want them to consider the Church even as something remotely resembling an option. The sad thing is that I sometimes get the feeling many people don’t want these people to find their way home, just as the older brother of the Prodigal Son did not want the Father to welcome him back home.

 

[Beautiful]

I don’t really have a good solution to all of this, but I sincerely hope the Synod comes up with something. Again, not a change of doctrine, but a change of how we relate to this group.

As Joe5859 pointed out immediately

Which of course invites the question, what does it mean to “welcome” them?

Rin,
What do you mean by “how we relate to this group”?
What do you think this means? I spelled out what I think welcome means.

 

[JimG]

I can give the example of my late aunt, whose short first marriage didn’t last long. That guy abandoned and divorced her quickly. Her application for an annulment was denied (in the 1940’s), but she later remarried. She never felt unwelcome in her small parish. She refrained from communion for years—decades, in fact—but was an active member of the parish her whole life. When her (2nd) husband became aged and impotent, she went to confession and started receiving communion again. Had she insisted on coming up for communion prior to that, I suppose she would have put her pastor in an awkward position. She was welcome the whole time. She just followed the rules for reception of communion.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I disagree there. Most Church traditions have been abandoned for one thing. And where once marriage separation was taboo, divorce is now widely accepted. Cohabitation and birth control are prevalent. There’s very little mentioned on sin and Hell. And we want more desensitization against sin, especially sexual ones? I suggest it’s not the fault of conservatives that Church attendance has declined.

Wait - I agree with you. I am trying to say that I think it’s the relaxing of the Gospel message, emphasizing mercy at the cost of mentioning sin and repentance, that weakens people’s faith and their commitment to the Church. Eventually there is not really much distinction between the Church and secular culture. The Church is a social institution performing local acts of charity - a way to meet people. There are a lots of ways to meet people and do good in our society and, eventually, people just leave to find their own group that perhaps they feel they have more in common with. The faith dissipates through lack of being proclaimed.

The other thing about all this fuss against the conservative bishops in the US. Yes, they are a vocal, national presence to a certain degree, but on the parish level, I never saw the slightest impact. The homilies all around the country NEVER reference any hot topics - abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc. Two different worlds.

And to be honest I do think Churches can be unwelcoming. I’ve had people glare at me just for what I am wearing or God knows what. Not speak to me. I think a lot of people go through it; I see it happen to others. It’s naive not to think it wouldn’t happen to a gay couple. In a way, because they are the same sex, it’s kind of hard to conceal the nature of their relationship - not sure what the answer is to that. A straight couple might get a break with people thinking they are married. My point is that Churches are unwelcoming a lot, to a lot of people. But in theory, we are all called not to judge one another. Believe me, if you are there for the Eucharist and aspiring to take it worthily, you put up with it. It is no more than a fly buzzing around you.

 

[Rin]

As Joe5859 pointed out immediately

Rin,
What do you mean by “how we relate to this group”?
What do you think this means? I spelled out what I think welcome means.

To be honest, I do not have a good answer. But what I do know is that actively gay people aren’t exactly flocking to the Church, while active sinners flocked to Our Lord. That means we are doing something differently from Him, predominantly in how we relate to them - and that is something we should worry about.

By “how we relate to this group”, I mean how we meet them, speak with them, speak about them and how we treat them. I think an actively gay person would be better suited than me to describe the current situation, but I can at least say they feel anything but welcome. I don’t think a change of doctrine is necessary to change that - it was not necessary for Our Lord, after all.

Edit: That said, if I am to say anything, the persistent habit of many CAF users (and hence probably Catholics elsewhere too) to bring up things like child abuse, polygamy, murder, robbery and other completely irrelevant acts as soon as homosexuality is mentioned, is one example. Another example is when gay people are met with nonsense like “you must have grown up in a dysfunctional family”, recommendation of “reparative” therapy, insistence that being gay is a a mental illness and so on. I guess this is something that a synod can’t fix, though, since such ideas are a cultural trait more than anything to do with our Faith. I rarely encounter them, even among conservatives, in my own country.

However, as I said, I do not have the solution. But I hope the Synod does, because if not, I fear this group, with few exceptions, will be alienated from the Church for generations. If anything, I cannot see how that would be God’s will.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

One thing should be noted, though: These people turned away from sin after Our Lord met them with love and acceptance unconditionally. He did not save the prostitute from stoning, eat with tax collectors and so on under the condition of conversion. His actions towards them did not presume any action on their part; and perhaps that is what moved them to conversion.

Not quite. When Christ ate or otherwise interacted with sinners they were put ***immediately ***on the moral mat. They knew, the moment they were in his company, that they would have to do something about their situation. The point though is that Christ, when urging them to repentance, did so in a loving way, as a shepherd would look for his lost sheep. But the sheep were never for a moment allowed to suppose they were not lost.

Notice also that Christ interacted with sinners in a ***personal ***capacity. He did not - whilst they were still public sinners - admit them to his group of Apostles or Disciples. To join the parish of Christ, one had to repent first, as did Thomas.

Too often, I see Catholics imply that the Church should only welcome people after they have sorted out their lives. Too often, I see people explain away Pope Francis’ quote: “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will – well, who am I to judge him?” with help of the clause I’ve put in cursive, without realizing that many actively gay people actually are seeking God, and are of good will, but have not yet found a way to live in accordance with Catholic teaching without being in complete misery. It is fully possible to seek God, seek the Church, and be of good will, while yet having issues with parts of Catholic teaching.

No. It is possible to know what God wants and what the Church requires and refuse to give it. Many people pass their lives at odds with their conscience. The fact that they have a functioning conscience does not mean they are seeking God or the Church. The Godfather is a good illustration of this war between conscience and convenience. Michael Corleone has the potential to become a good Catholic, but he will not do what he knows he must. He has a heart, but it is in the wrong place.

Sexual purity is not achieved overnight, not even for straight, married people. And if people who struggle with a sexuality different than the norm are not welcomed in the Church, it will never be achieved. This is our problem, not theirs; we cannot expect people to just accept our teachings and adjust their lives before they’ve even had a chance to experience what the Church is all about. For most actively gay people, Catholic teaching simply doesn’t make sense, and it never will, if they don’t feel welcomed by the Church, and even more importantly, Catholics.

Personal sexual purity is one thing. Putting oneself publicly in a proximate occasion of sin is another. An individual homosexual who knows homosexuality is wrong, does not live with a partner, but is still struggling with occasional lapses, is to be given all the help and support possible. A homosexual who has a partner and comes to the parish with his partner is effectively telling the Church to accept his situation.

All of this said, I do not advocate for the Church to change Her doctrine. But there needs to be a change in how this doctrine is communicated, in how actively gay people are met in parishes and by individual Catholics, and perhaps even in how this doctrine is implemented pastorally. I think this Synod represents a kind of crossroads with regards to this - we have the chance to do something about our problems in relating to this group of people, or we can reinforce the impression of the Church as a hostile environment for gay people. In today’s climate, even being a chaste gay person is difficult in many parishes, and this needs to change.

What we need in a world where homosexuality is being forced on society as a socially and by implication morally acceptable lifestyle, is for the Church to take an uncompromisingly firm stand against it, rather like the stand Christ took against the Pharisees (Christ, if he lived today, would be very, very politically incorrect, and contemporary progressives would call him all sorts of names). ‘Actively gay people’ need to be told they are on the path to hell, in the same way someone in a lifeboat in a storm shouts to people in the water: “Grab the rope you fools, or you’ll drown!”

I don’t really have a good solution to all of this, but I sincerely hope the Synod comes up with something. Again, not a change of doctrine, but a change of how we relate to this group. Time is running out if we ever want them to consider the Church even as something remotely resembling an option. The sad thing is that I sometimes get the feeling many people don’t want these people to find their way home, just as the older brother of the Prodigal Son did not want the Father to welcome him back home.

The time when one can live an authentic Catholic lifestyle and be at harmony with contemporary social norms is what is rapidly running out. Catholics will have no choice but accept marginalisation from society, in the way early Christians were marginalised from the world of pagan Rome. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Joe_5859]

Not quite. When Christ ate or otherwise interacted with sinners they were put ***immediately ***on the moral mat. They knew, the moment they were in his company, that they would have to do something about their situation.

I question this assertion. When Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, he did not tell her that “If you first went and rectified your marital situation and then came to me and asked, I would have given you living water.”

Of course, conversion is the goal. But I don’t think we can construe from Scripture that the time table is always and everywhere immediate. I’m open to hearing a scriptural argument that demonstrates otherwise, though.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I question this assertion. When Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, he did not tell her that “If you first went and rectified your marital situation and then came to me and asked, I would have given you living water.”

Of course, conversion is the goal. But I don’t think we can construe from Scripture that the time table is always and everywhere immediate. I’m open to hearing a scriptural argument that demonstrates otherwise, though.

In a conversation that lasted perhaps ten minutes Christ got to the point pretty fast: the Samaritans were in error and it was the from Jews that salvation would come (how offensive!) and the woman herself was in an irregular situation, having gone through five husbands and now living with a man who was not her husband (how brutal!).

The Samaritan seems to have been rather morally retarded. She runs off and tells everyone: “This man knows I had five husbands and that I’m now shacked up - he must be the Messiah!” Christ’s approach was the right one: get her interested in her spiritual well-being and then tell her how she was to obtain it. She really knew nothing at all.

 

[Eternal_One]

I question this assertion. When Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, he did not tell her that "If you first went and rectified your marital situation and then came to me and asked, I would have given you living water."

Of course, conversion is the goal. But I don’t think we can construe from Scripture that the time table is always and everywhere immediate. I’m open to hearing a scriptural argument that demonstrates otherwise, though.

Actually, yes He did do that. He first called her out on her sin, informing her that she is still married to her first husband and that the others were not her husbands at all. In fact, didnt He even refer to the Samaritans as dogs here? Once she showed faith, conversion of heart, sorrow and repentance to Christ, did He give her this living water.

He told the adulteress to go and sin no more. He didnt condemn her because she showed faith, conversion, repentance and gratefulness for saving her life.

Mary Magdalene washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and the finest oils, an act of repentance. Jesus forgave her then.

Yes Jesus ate and loved the tax collectors, but He also flipped their tables in righteous anger and shared a few harsh words with them, too.

Jesus is not a pushover, He constantly called people out. Once they acknowledged their sin, He did not condemn them but forgave them and showed mercy. John the Baptist also had a very vocal, aggressive style of preaching and evangelization, and Jesus called John the greatest man ever born of a woman.

 

[Eternal_One]

Asking people that they repent and follow teaching if they want to be in full Communion isnt wrong nor is it legalistic. The Pharisees were guilty of condemning people to be stoned to death, even if the person showed contrition, because the Law had to be upheld at any and all costs. This is legalism.

The main difference in Jesus’ approach in comparison to the Pharisees, is that he never spurned a contrite heart. But make no mistake, Jesus still upheld the Law too.

 

[kyria]

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.

It is not the Church that is unwelcoming. What is unwelcoming for some is their conscience. It is their conscience telling them that the lifestyle they live is contrary to God’s law. Some might say they feel unwelcome at mass. But what they really are not welcoming is their conscience being touched by truth.

No one sinner or type of sinner is going to be told that their sin is okay but all sinners are welcome to hear the Word of God.