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

[twoshoes]

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.

I think we are same in that regards, our love for Jesus can make us seem force in our responses. God bless

 

[Tigg]

Not necessarily. As an analogy, Einstein didn’t disprove Newton, he only expanded the theory to include uncommon situations where an observer is moving near light speed. Newton is still valid when velocities are small compared to the speed of light. It’s about develpment, not change. .

Authentic development of doctrine can NEVER include a repudiation of that which has always been taught, but must continue in the same vein (to a fuller vision) so that what has always been believed, continues to be believed.

I firmly believe we need to look at the margins and find a way to bring them into full communion. If it involves a change to cannon law I’m okay with it.

Regarding homosexual behavior, it ultimately is not about ecclesiastical law at all; it is about Divine Law which the Church can never touch!

 

[Tigg]

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.

Exactly so. Without judgments and without exhortations to live a holy life. The sexually active gays wish to normalize their situation (to the detriment of children who are constantly exposed to this* now perhaps, even in church??*) and force society into accepting their lifestyle as just another conventional one, albeit contra to the gospel message……no more odd or sinful than any other. I pray the synod will be aware of the agenda.

I find a dishonesty in this, although I’m sure not all are consciously aware of it. They know what the Church says, and can assume the message will not change. In “welcoming” them with geniality on our part, where is the goodwill on theirs?

 

[Tigg]

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.

Excellent insight! Only those in touch with their inner self, btw, can truly repent.

 

[Tigg]

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema

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?

And here’s another one for you.
“The first thing necessary for salvation is to maintain the rule of sound faith.”

~ 4th Council of Constantinople ~

 

[Joe_Ca]

The sexually active gays wish to normalize their situation (to the detriment of children who are constantly exposed to this* now perhaps, even in church??*) …

The description in Matthew of the process of excommunication addresses this very issue.

We have children we are raising, children who do not have the maturity and perspective to understand that the presence of same sex couples in church is not an endorsement of their immoral activities. This presents us with the problem of scandal. To scandalize small children is an abomination.

Whatever decisions are made regarding dealings with same sex couples, it must be clear that under no circumstances are their immorality or actions accepted.

.

 

[marymary1975]

The primary way anyone feels welcome is by seeing other people like them in a place.

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.

I think you are hitting the right nail! On the money!! This is exactly what we need. Too bad not too many have figures this out

 

[Rin]

I think you are hitting the right nail! On the money!! This is exactly what we need. Too bad not too many have figures this out

Additionally, we need to again value lay celibacy; in the current situation where people immediately jump to the conclusion that something is “off” or even “wrong” if a person is neither priest nor married, makes the Church a hostile environment for those who for some reason can’t marry. It says a lot that even asexual people report feeling unwelcome in the Church!

Celibacy, be it lay or clerical, used to be seen as a higher calling than marriage. While the focus on the family as an important part of the Church is important, I fear it has been overemphasised at the expense of celibacy. This is in no way in accordance with Catholic Tradition or doctrine. If we want chaste gay people in the Church, we will also have to end this trend where unmarried laypeople are incessantly pressured to give an answer as to why they are not married, gossiped about, and even scorned for being out of the ordinary. This happens in both camps.

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.

We should also consider whether the current idea that gay people should not have even chaste relationships with a steady partner is doctrine or simply a product of our time and culture. There have been variations throughout the history of the Church. But that is a different debate, although tangential to this one.

 

[Joe_5859]

I thought the synod was only comprised of bishops, cardinals – the clergy. Customary for lay people to be in attendance? Well, you learn something new each day.

The lay people are “auditors” of the synod. They get to attend and even give some presentations, but they will not vote. Only the attending bishops do that. They are invited, I would assume by the Vatican office that oversees the Synods. It’s not as though any bishop just randomly invites someone of his own volition.

It has been the same for previous synods – at least the recent ones that I can recall, such as the Synod on the New Evangelization back in 2012. There were two Americans at that synod: Ralph Martin and Curtis Martin (no relation ).

 

[pnewton]

This whole thing stinks. Can anyone possibly imagine a saintly pope like St. Pius X listening to a couple telling him to “welcome” unrepentant sinners in the Church?

I would hope so. I sure can see Jesus doing it. When he sat down with the woman at the well, she did not come to him repentant. When he went to eat with Zacchueus, he did not repent until later.

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

Indeed. I would hope that such people would neither be targeted for damnation from the pulpit or pandered to. I would say present the Gospel and all the Holy Spirit to perform the work of sanctification. That’s kind of His thing. Obviously, this would be a major part of one’s life that they would have to deal with. So what? We all have sins we have to keeping dealing with, seeking the grace of God. The Church is a hospital for sinners not a gathering of saints.

That comes later.

 

[marymary1975]

​

Additionally, we need to again value lay celibacy; in the current situation where people immediately jump to the conclusion that something is “off” or even “wrong” if a person is neither priest nor married, makes the Church a hostile environment for those who for some reason can’t marry. It says a lot that even asexual people report feeling unwelcome in the Church!

Celibacy, be it lay or clerical, used to be seen as a higher calling than marriage. While the focus on the family as an important part of the Church is important, I fear it has been overemphasised at the expense of celibacy. This is in no way in accordance with Catholic Tradition or doctrine. If we want chaste gay people in the Church, we will also have to end this trend where unmarried laypeople are incessantly pressured to give an answer as to why they are not married, gossiped about, and even scorned for being out of the ordinary. This happens in both camps.

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.

We should also consider whether the current idea that gay people should not have even chaste relationships with a steady partner is doctrine or simply a product of our time and culture. There have been variations throughout the history of the Church. But that is a different debate, although tangential to this one.

I agree as to celibacy too! The fact that we live in an overly sexualized culture does not help. We need to emphazise that celibacy is for everyone including heterosexual people and help people understand what marriage is and that marriage should be a very well discerned decision and a very well thought one.

We must put more emphasis on celibacy.

 

[marymary1975]

I would hope so. I sure can see Jesus doing it. When he sat down with the woman at the well, she did not come to him repentant. When he went to eat with Zacchueus, he did not repent until later.

Indeed. I would hope that such people would neither be targeted for damnation from the pulpit or pandered to. I would say present the Gospel and all the Holy Spirit to perform the work of sanctification. That’s kind of His thing. Obviously, this would be a major part of one’s life that they would have to deal with. So what? We all have sins we have to keeping dealing with, seeking the grace of God. The Church is a hospital for sinners not a gathering of saints.

That comes later.

I dont think you get santodomingo’s point. His point is the equivalent of: imagine if when Jesus called Matthew Matthew’s answer would have benn, OK I will follow you but in at the same time I will remain collecting taxes and I am still going to keep cheating on people. Jesus would have never accepted that. In fact Jesus was very clear to all that to follow him they should renounce to everything. Take the rich boy’s passage. Did Jesus told him oh Jesus come and join me? No Jesus told him to go and give all his possessions away and then to come and join him. The rich boy left and Jesus’ answer was not precisely we are welcoming everyone in heaven.

So yes we do have to present the gospel.to all.and as prodigal son said we need to emphasize celibates who deal with SSA but we cannot say yes let’s follow Jesus while you keep unrepentantly sinning. That is putting conditions on Jesus Christ and Jesus was very clear that he did not accept conditions.

 

[Eternal_One]

This is, to be frank, eisegesis.

People may thirst for God, the Sacraments, for forgiveness without having a perfectly formed conscience. It is possible to be of good will and not have a perfectly formed conscience. Sadly, such people are often driven away by lack of charity among Catholics.

To be frank, it is not.

Can you cite any passages where Jesus sits and dines with sinners during their sin? Or where he lets their sin go without calling them to repentance?

If one truly thirsts for God, they will strive to abide by His teachings. Notice I did not say will be successful in abiding, just that they at least strive to be better.

Jesus is there for us all. If we reject Him, He will simply go away from us. He will not force us to be with Him, nor will He forget His teachings so that we will “feel better.”

Calling sin for what it is, is not uncharitable, it is a true work of mercy. I suggest you revisit the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy.

 

[Beautiful]

I would hope so. I sure can see Jesus doing it. When he sat down with the woman at the well, she did not come to him repentant. When he went to eat with Zacchueus, he did not repent until later.

Indeed. I would hope that such people would neither be targeted for damnation from the pulpit or pandered to. I would say present the Gospel and all the Holy Spirit to perform the work of sanctification. That’s kind of His thing. Obviously, this would be a major part of one’s life that they would have to deal with. So what? We all have sins we have to keeping dealing with, seeking the grace of God. The Church is a hospital for sinners not a gathering of saints.

That comes later.

Lust

Watched a homosexual couple sit in a pew, shoulder-to-shoulder with entwined hands.
In all fairness
Watched a heterosexual couple advance to intimately with each other during Mass.

Gluttony

Watched all those behinds from the back pew.

Greed

Watched a parishioner hold a whole pew for family members (who entered last second) while old and infirm stood and hoped to sit down.

Sloth

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

Wrath

Watched a couple storm out of Mass during the homily directly after the priest reminded divorced people require an annulment before receiving Holy Communion.

Envy

Watched the woman in front of me eye balling another woman’s lovely clothing. Up and down her eyes go. Over and over again, her brows furrowed in an unmistakable expression

Pride

Watched a parishioner take Holy Communion by hand and purposely, quickly plunge it to the depths of the wine cup before the priest can react.

I hope no one offended but I think many are familiar with these pictures. Although all are prone to these sins, typically, these people with outwardly untethered, troublesome behaviors are not elected or appointed into leadership positions in the church. What I think Catholics will see is reinforcement of good stewards in leadership positions.

By the way, I have learned to guard my eyes during Mass. That is what I recommend. Guarded eyes during Mass.

 

[pnewton]

I dont think you get santodomingo’s point.

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 zero temptation. 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 beset by 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?

So yes we do have to present the gospel.to all.and as prodigal son

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.

 

[Eternal_One]

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.

But the son already had a change of heart when his father welcomed him back. He was so sorry that he spent all of his money and regretted ever having left the safety of his father’s house.

Would the father have been so welcoming in this parable, if the son had brought back with him 5 prostitutes, to keep around the house for the after party with no intention of giving them up?

 

[Rin]

To be frank, it is not.

Can you cite any passages where Jesus sits and dines with sinners during their sin? Or where he lets their sin go without calling them to repentance?

If one truly thirsts for God, they will strive to abide by His teachings. Notice I did not say will be successful in abiding, just that they at least strive to be better.

Jesus is there for us all. If we reject Him, He will simply go away from us. He will not force us to be with Him, nor will He forget His teachings so that we will “feel better.”

Calling sin for what it is, is not uncharitable, it is a true work of mercy. I suggest you revisit the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy.

Did I say Our lord dined with sinners during their sin? No. Did I say He did not call people to repentance? No. You seem to have some eisegesis going on in your reading of me, too.

I said that Our lord saved the prostitute before calling her to repentance, and He did so unconditionally. I said He ate with sinners before calling them to repent. And in some cases, if I remember correctly, they repented without Him even needing to make such a call; His mere presence was enough.

The fact that people not yet disagree with Catholic teaching, does not mean they do not strive to know God and live by His will. It does not mean they do not thirst. If they’re met with a cold shoulder by Catholics, they are effectively denied the possibility to ever satisfy that thirst.

Lastly, I never said we should not call sin for what it is. I said there must be something very wrong with our pastoral approach. The problem here is that many seem to have a binary understanding of this - as if the only choices are to choose a hard line or throw doctrine out the window; to harshly and loudly condemn, or completely and uncritically approve. This is also reflected by the fact that I find myself seen as liberal by conservatives, and as conservative by liberals; people seem unable to fathom that not everything can be represented as “either/or”.

I say there must be another way. Currently, conservatives are alienating those who struggle with sin, while liberals compromise doctrine. There must be a way to do neither, but I do not presume to have the answer to this.

Lastly, pointing to the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy is too simple. To admonish sinners can be done charitably, in a way that brings people closer to Christ, but it can also be done with complete disregard of the person and their struggles, in which case it will alienate people from the Church and Christ. In the latter case it is no longer a Work of Mercy, but may well be a sin, and a grave one at that. Sadly, charity in our times is often written off as “political correctness” and the like.

 

[gracepoole]

Because many gays actually see it that way. I work in an industry that attracts a lot of lesbians and homosexuals. It is amazing how many of them interpret my friendliness as approval of their lifestyle. They seem to think one is either a hater of gays or a friend of them. They have some difficulty accepting one can be friendly but still not approve of their lifestyle. This may be in part due to some experiencing being shunned by family when they came out, so when another person doesn’t shun them they interpret it as acceptance. I don’t know but this is my experience.

But the option then presented is a false dilemma: either welcome and approve or shun. I’m less concerned with whether someone believes I approve of his or her lifestyle and I’m more concerned with whether she feels welcome to come to Christ. Shunning, as far as I can see, will never lead anyone to Christ.

 

[Eternal_One]

Did I say Our lord dined with sinners during their sin? No. Did I say He did not call people to repentance? No. You seem to have some eisegesis going on in your reading of me, too.

I said that Our lord saved the prostitute before calling her to repentance, and He did so unconditionally. I said He ate with sinners before calling them to repent. And in some cases, if I remember correctly, they repented without Him even needing to make such a call; His mere presence was enough

Jesus was calling them to repentance during his dinner visit though. And, usually they took the initiative and invited Jesus to dinner, signifying that they were open to Him too. It was not just a one way street.

What is being suggested, sounds like it is a one way street. They want to be welcomed and forgiven without seeing a need to change or be sorry, like the Pharisees.

 

[Rin]

Jesus was calling them to repentance during his dinner visit though. And, usually they took the initiative and invited Jesus to dinner, signifying that they were open to Him too. It was not just a one way street.

What is being suggested, sounds like it is a one way street. They want to be welcomed and forgiven without seeing a need to change or be sorry, like the Pharisees.

I never said it was a one way street.

Edit: I did, however, say it has to begin with us. Ultimately, their invites were most probably preceded by word of mouth about Jesus. If He had been rumored to be hostile, I doubt they would invite Him. Similarly, it is largely up to us to change the impressions gay people have of the Church - and believe me, those rumors are not mainly due to our teachings, but to the personal experiences of gay people who were met with anything but charity.