Thoughts on the synod from one gay-ish Catholic

[Prodigal_Son]

Here’s what I’d like the Synod to say about homosexuality. It’s pretty simple:

1. Homosexual conduct is wrong. Priests who openly accept homosexual conduct (or any sort of sexual sin) will be defrocked.
2. Those who participate in gay marriages have firmly denied their allegiance to the Church, and should be denied communion. Individual churches who refuse to deny them (or other people in explicit division from the Church) communion will be disciplined.
3. Those who call themselves “gay” must not be presumed to be sexually active. Unless the pastor has clear and unquestionable evidence that such a person is in a sexual relationship, such people must never be denied communion. Pastors and bishops who deny such people communion will be disciplined.

This is both harsher and more gentle than current policies. Most importantly, it draws a firm line, and lets gay people know where they stand.

What do you think?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Here’s what I’d like the Synod to say about homosexuality. It’s pretty simple:

1. Homosexual conduct is wrong. Priests who openly accept homosexual conduct (or any sort of sexual sin) will be defrocked.
2. Those who participate in gay marriages have firmly denied their allegiance to the Church, and should be denied communion. Individual churches who refuse to deny them (or other people in explicit division from the Church) communion will be disciplined.
3. Those who call themselves “gay” must not be presumed to be sexually active. Unless the pastor has clear and unquestionable evidence that such a person is in a sexual relationship, such people must never be denied communion. Pastors and bishops who deny such people communion will be disciplined.

This is both harsher and more gentle than current policies. Most importantly, it draws a firm line, and lets gay people know where they stand.

What do you think?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

I would agree that it is important for people to know the Truth, regardless of how it ultimately affects them personally or emotionally. Personal interests and emotions are a big reason for the decline in the family.

I’d actually like to see the Vatican look more closely at Catholic colleges and universities that promote ideology that is squarely against Church teaching. :yup:

 

[Weejee]

I think the Synod should promote pastoral care for all persons wishing to be abstinent. That includes divorced people, gay people, single people. Abstinent people need help from the church in this sex-obsessed culture.

St. Kateri Tekakwitha, pray for the abstinent in this crazed culture.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Here’s what I’d like the Synod to say about homosexuality. It’s pretty simple:

1. Homosexual conduct is wrong. Priests who openly accept homosexual conduct (or any sort of sexual sin) will be defrocked.
2. Those who participate in gay marriages have firmly denied their allegiance to the Church, and should be denied communion. Individual churches who refuse to deny them (or other people in explicit division from the Church) communion will be disciplined.
3. Those who call themselves “gay” must not be presumed to be sexually active. Unless the pastor has clear and unquestionable evidence that such a person is in a sexual relationship, such people must never be denied communion. Pastors and bishops who deny such people communion will be disciplined.

This is both harsher and more gentle than current policies. Most importantly, it draws a firm line, and lets gay people know where they stand.

What do you think?

Would a gay “couple” who plan to “marry” be presumed to be sexually active by the fact they plan to “marry?”

This is where a redefinition of marriage becomes problematic, it seems, because there would be no possible way of distinguishing a “lifelong partnership” that under some conceptions could or should qualify for legal benefits and a gay “union” that attempts to mimic a conjugal matrimony.

The way the secular legal establishment treats the issue will potentially make things very difficult for the Church.

 

[Corki]

Would a gay “couple” who plan to “marry” be presumed to be sexually active by the fact they plan to “marry?”

This is where a redefinition of marriage becomes problematic, it seems, because there would be no possible way of distinguishing a “lifelong partnership” that under some conceptions could or should qualify for legal benefits and a gay “union” that attempts to mimic a conjugal matrimony.

The way the secular legal establishment treats the issue will potentially make things very difficult for the Church.

The sin is homosexual activity, not just homosexual sex. A couple who takes steps to enter into a same-sex “marriage” or some other marriage-like partnership meets the criteria to be denied Communion. Marriage is a public act so it’s “grave manifest public sin”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The sin is homosexual activity, not just homosexual sex. A couple who takes steps to enter into a same-sex “marriage” or some other marriage-like partnership meets the criteria to be denied Communion. Marriage is a public act so it’s “grave manifest public sin”.

I agree with you, however - and I’ve heard this argued before - that certain “partnerships” ought to have benefits (inheritance rights, for example) currently available only to married couples so the sole recourse for these partnerships is to declare themselves “married” which means changing the legal definition of marriage to include “lifelong partnerships.”

In other words, in order for the legal benefits to apply to them requires some “publicly recognizable act” and currently only “marriage” is that kind of public act. If the secular state merely subsumed all such legal partnerships under the umbrella definition of “marriage” that leaves the Church in a vexing position since its definition of “marriage” is not what the secular state deems it to be.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with you, however - and I’ve heard this argued before - that certain “partnerships” ought to have benefits (inheritance rights, for example) currently available only to married couples so the sole recourse for these partnerships is to declare themselves “married” which means changing the legal definition of marriage to include “lifelong partnerships.”

In other words, in order for the legal benefits to apply to them requires some “publicly recognizable act” and currently only “marriage” is that kind of public act. If the secular state merely subsumed all such legal partnerships under the umbrella definition of “marriage” that leaves the Church in a vexing position since its definition of “marriage” is not what the secular state deems it to be.

In this case, we need to change the laws so that people’s rights are respected. People should be able to write wills, create lists of who can visit in the hospital, etc., without hindrance, and regardless of their internal status.

There are plenty of people who come from seriously dysfunctional families who would preder their supportive friends at their sides if hospitalized, and there are plenty of people who don’t want to leave their money or all their money to relatives. And I am sure there are many people who wiuld prefer to leave their medical decisions to an older friend than to their younger children (I would prefer that my children not be the ones to have to make these decisions, nor my other non-Catholic relatives, should I be widowed).

And these people don’t have to be homosexual to have these problems!

 

[Peter_Plato]

In this case, we need to change the laws so that people’s rights are respected. People should be able to write wills, create lists of who can visit in the hospital, etc., without hindrance, and regardless of their internal status.

There are plenty of people who come from seriously dysfunctional families who would preder their supportive friends at their sides if hospitalized, and there are plenty of people who don’t want to leave their money or all their money to relatives. And I am sure there are many people who wiuld prefer to leave their medical decisions to an older friend than to their younger children (I would prefer that my children not be the ones to have to make these decisions, nor my other non-Catholic relatives, should I be widowed).

And these people don’t have to be homosexual to have these problems!

Again, I agree. However, this all depends on how particular secular states decide to deal with the problem and that will impact the Church in terms of how “marriage” as a sacrament is viewed inside and outside of the Church.

The point being, if the state decides to call all such partnerships or deal with all benefits under the umbrella term “marriage,” then the Church’s insistence that marriage be treated more uniquely will create issues for the Church which are not issues of its own creation.

 

[weller2]

Again, I agree. However, this all depends on how particular secular states decide to deal with the problem and that will impact the Church in terms of how “marriage” as a sacrament is viewed inside and outside of the Church.

The point being, if the state decides to call all such partnerships or deal with all benefits under the umbrella term “marriage,” then the Church’s insistence that marriage be treated more uniquely will create issues for the Church which are not issues of its own creation.

Only if there is no proper separation of the church and state.

There is no problem if churches do not issue state-recognized marriage licenses.

 

[weller2]

1. Homosexual conduct is wrong. Priests who openly accept homosexual conduct (or any sort of sexual sin) will be defrocked.

Great idea, but won’t happen. It would reduce the number of active priests by half, if anonymous surveys are to be believed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Great idea, but won’t happen. It would reduce the number of active priests by half, if anonymous surveys are to be believed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

Ummmm, are you assuming that all homosexuals believe that homosexual activity is morally permissible? That would be a bizarre assumption, from where I’m sitting. Moreover, I’m quite sure most Catholic priests who experience same-sex attraction do not believe that acting on it is morally permissible.

And FYI, I didn’t check the wikipedia link. Wiki is certainly not a credible source about a topic like this. If you have primary source material, I’d be interested in looking at it.

 

[Rau]

Would a gay “couple” who plan to “marry” be presumed to be sexually active by the fact they plan to “marry?”.

In light of the intrinsic nature of marriage, and it’s fruits, the presumption we make for a man and woman is “yes” (ie. they Intend to be sexually active). Who can say for a same sex couple? What does marriage mean to them? Regardless of their answer, our notion of marriage makes no sense in their context.

 

[Rau]

Only if there is no proper separation of the church and state.

There is no problem if churches do not issue state-recognized marriage licenses.

Given the “clerical” nature of the State licensing procedure, how does it matter if the Priest collects the relevant signatures on behalf of the State. It’s just a procedural efficiency, benefitting the State. I just don’t see how changing that gets to the heart of the matter. In other countries, the 2 are handled separately, but that does nothing to resolve the same sex “marriage” debate.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Would a gay “couple” who plan to “marry” be presumed to be sexually active by the fact they plan to “marry?”

It doesn’t matter. We’re not presuming them to be sexually active. We’re saying that – by declaring themselves to be MARRIED – they are schismatic. We are holding onto the concept of “marriage”, and saying it is important, even as the culture loses touch with the real concept.

If this means that chaste gay friends who refuse to be “married” will be persecuted, well then, God will be glorified through that! And the Church can stand behind these couples, and express *our *pride in their fortitude.

Indeed, I think that this is the beauty of my proposal. It tells someone EXACTLY where the lines are. It tells someone that they may be gay and fall into sin without being schismatic, but that they may not arrange their lives around their sin. It affords the same presumption of innocence to the gay person as to the straight person. It may involve some level of “seeing no evil, and hearing no evil”, but it is MUCH better for the Church to be duped than for the Church to execute injustice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It doesn’t matter. We’re not presuming them to be sexually active. We’re saying that – by declaring themselves to be MARRIED – they are schismatic. We are holding onto the concept of “marriage”, and saying it is important, even as the culture loses touch with the real concept.

If this means that chaste gay friends who refuse to be “married” will be persecuted, well then, God will be glorified through that! And the Church can stand behind these couples, and express *our *pride in their fortitude.

Indeed, I think that this is the beauty of my proposal. It tells someone EXACTLY where the lines are. It tells someone that they may be gay and fall into sin without being schismatic, but that they may not arrange their lives around their sin. It affords the same presumption of innocence to the gay person as to the straight person. It may involve some level of “seeing no evil, and hearing no evil”, but it is MUCH better for the Church to be duped than for the Church to execute injustice.

Good answer.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I agree with you, however - and I’ve heard this argued before - that certain “partnerships” ought to have benefits (inheritance rights, for example) currently available only to married couples so the sole recourse for these partnerships is to declare themselves “married” which means changing the legal definition of marriage to include “lifelong partnerships.”

In other words, in order for the legal benefits to apply to them requires some “publicly recognizable act” and currently only “marriage” is that kind of public act. If the secular state merely subsumed all such legal partnerships under the umbrella definition of “marriage” that leaves the Church in a vexing position since its definition of “marriage” is not what the secular state deems it to be.

Civil marriage already includes heterosexual lifelong partnerships deliberately without kids.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Civil marriage already includes heterosexual lifelong partnerships deliberately without kids.

And is, at least in part, used by revisionists as the reason why marriage should be redefined and also why there is tension with the Church’s view on what marriage is. There has been a de facto redefinition of the term “marriage” by secular culture which is behind the push on the Church to relax its understanding.

I am not sure what your point is, except, perhaps, to express agreement that the problem has originated in secular culture and that has put the Church in a vexing position because its view of marriage is not the same as the modern western view - which is misconceived to begin with.

In any case, I think Prodigal_Son answered my concern and your point is moot.

 

[on_the_hill]

1. Those who participate in gay marriages have firmly denied their allegiance to the Church, and should be denied communion.

Define participate.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Define participate.

Oh, I just meant the two people who are “gay married”. I don’t recommend denying communion to those who merely attend a gay wedding or bake the cake for one. Those things might be sinful, but they are not the sort of clear break with Church teaching that the Church needs to discipline.

 

[kozlosap]

When the SCOTUS refused to hear any of the cases from around the country concerning marriage equality this morning, it is blatantly clear that now there will be 30+ stares where it is legal. The likelihood that the Court will overturn lower court decisions is almost nil after this court was terrified to make a decision one way or the other.