When St Paul makes tolerance intolerable

[Dee_S]

drbo.org/chapter/53005.htm

Thank you:thankyou:

 

[JM3]

I supply this link to the Homily of St John Chrysostom, where no mention is made of this event. It appears to refer to the distinction or rather lack of distinction between those in the world or ‘a brother’ in his condemnation of fornicators.

Instead of homily 16, look at homily 15.

newadvent.org/fathers/220115.htm

So that by means of this example also he mightily drives the fornicator out of the Church. For, says he, so far from his presence profiting, he even does harm, injuring the common estate of the body. For one knows not whence is the evil savor while the corrupt part is concealed, and so one imputes it to the whole. Wherefore he urges upon them strongly to “purge out the leaven, that you may be,” says he, “a new lump, even as you are unleavened.”

 

[JM3]

drbo.org/chapter/53005.htm

Also here.

haydock1859.tripod.com/id166.html

Ver. 3. &c. Have already judged, decreed, and do decree, being present in spirit with you, and with your congregation. — In the name…with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan by a sentence of excommunication, depriving him of the sacraments, the prayers, and communion, and even of the conversation of the rest of the faithful. It is likely in those times, such excommunicated persons were delivered over to Satan, so as to be corporally tormented by the devil. But most divines are of opinion that this man was delivered over to the devil, to strike a terror into others. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xv. and this is said to be done for the destruction, or punishment of the flesh, that the spirit, or soul, may be saved. (Witham) — It is the opinion of most of the Greek fathers, that this man was either really possessed by the devil, or at least struck with such a complaint as a mortification, and humiliation to his body, whilst it served to purify his soul. We have seen from many instances in holy Scripture, that it was not unusual, in the origin of Christianity, for persons who had fallen into crimes of this nature, to be punished with death, some grievous sickness, or by being possessed by the devil. But most divines are of opinion that this man was delivered over to the devil, so as to be separated from the communion of the Church. (St. Ambrose; Estius; Just.[St. Justin Martyr?]; Menochius)

 

[Dee_S]

Dee S,

I am so grateful that the people who were involved in leading me to the Church didn’t have this attitude. They tolerated and socially accepted me, and then, when they had earned a place of trust by showing the love of Christ to me in their actions, they spoke to me about their faith, and they made me understand why I would want to love Christ so much that I would leave my same-sex partner. I know a lot of people with SSA, and the only pattern that I have ever seen bear any fruit in helping them to live in accord with the teachings of the Church is the pattern of love first, Catechesis second. Being a ‘co-redeemer’ means that you go out into the place where the person that you want to reach is – just as Christ left His lofty seat in the Heavens and came down to share in our humanity. Those who merely condemn, without first manifesting active love and compassion, are like the scribes who “load on men burdens that are unendurable, burdens that you yourselves do not move a finger to lift.” [Lk 11:46]

Melinda,
I prefer to work from an established base i.e.That being Catholics, we must first understand and accept what the Church teaches which is:
"The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care."
americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Once in agreement there, then the discussion among Catholics is really going to be how to practically apply charity, without causing scandal and with best pastoral effect.

IFhowever, if this basic premise is denied, by using a self-styled version of Charity and re-naming it ‘Tolerance’, then this becomes a distortion of the truth, from which only illogical error and injustice will result. As it does in never ending ‘Christian bashing’ and ‘put Christians on a guilt trip’ tactics used to gain the perceived moral high ground.Not to mention the endless talk of intimate (disordered)personal experience in public media, that leads no-where.

It is a smokescreen that sadly, only fools those who want to be. I don’t believe SSA people are any different to any other humans created. Meaning, God has placed the Natural Law into our hearts, so even a person who has never experienced religion (a savage in a jungle) still knows the difference between right and wrong, especially in matters such as this, which are gravely disordered.

Claiming special rights and treatment at a social and legal level is another example of how wrong things can go if the basic premise is faulty. They are pushing for a public right and recognition to their sexual preferences, which are destructive to the very society they want to belong to, or do they intend to replace it somehow? (see the Spartans for details; they became extinct , as no incentives offered by their rulers could induce them to even ‘breed’ with a female).

I’m sure the fog must be lifting, even just a little…

“There is a terrible hunger for love. We all experience that in our lives - the pain, the loneliness. We must have the courage to recognize it. The poor you may have right in your own family. Find them. Love them.” Mother Teresa of Calcutta

 

[Justin_Swanton]

too long to read. can you resume this in 3 points?

Let me try and do it in one: it is important, in our dealings with SSA individuals, to be clear in the distinction between accepting them personally as individuals (which charity impels us to) and accepting their sexual orientation as such. Important, because it is easy, especially in our age of tolerance, to extend the first kind of acceptance to the second.

Howzat?

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Dee,

Let me clarify. There are a couple of points that we definitely agree about:

1. Homosexual acts are immoral.
2. Catholics are called, under the authority of the Magisterium, to oppose the legalization and normalization of same-sex unions.
3. It is an obligation in charity to tell the truth concerning human sexuality, even when the people we are speaking to may not want to hear that truth.

I’m assuming that we are both familiar with the relevant Vatican documents (the ones on pastoral care, same-sex unions, and homosexuality in the Priesthood), and also with the Catechism’s teaching on the matter. I would add that I’ve read most of these documents more than once, and CCC 2357-2359 I’ve read at least 20 times. This is my work, so I do keep going back to those texts to make sure that I’m securely moored in the teaching of Mother Church.
I’m not talking about a tolerance that does not include truth. I’m talking about how you form a relationship with someone such that the truth that you speak will have some chance of penetrating to their heart. I notice, for example, that you include a quotation from Mother Theresa about finding and loving those who are hungry and thirsty for love. This is exactly what I’m talking about. Mother Theresa understood, and Christ did too, that if you find someone who is thirsty, you first give them water to slake their thirst, and then you start to tell them about the true water that gives eternal life. If you find someone who is hungry, you first feed them, and then you talk about the true bread. LGBTQ people are hungry for acceptance. You may not believe that there’s any difference, and in an ontological sense you are absolutely right, but in a practical sense men who are effeminate, and women who are masculine, tend to suffer peer rejection starting at a very young age. It is natural for us to want to be accepted for who we are – for who we really are. So if you meet an LGBTQ person, the first thing that you do is you give them your acceptance. You show them that you love them, that you want to be around them, that you are not rejecting or shunning them, because that’s what they’re hungry for. Once you’ve done that, then you can start talking about the difference between their gay or lesbian identity, and their true identity in Christ. This is how the people who evangelized me did it. They accepted me, treated me as a friend, invited me into their homes and into their lives, talked to me, shared ordinary interests with me, took me and my partner along on their picnics, asked us along to their church. When the issue of homosexuality came up, they confirmed the Church’s teaching that it is wrong. This was startling to me, because it allowed me to see that it really was possible for someone to love me, and to affirm my deepest and most integral identity, without agreeing that my lesbian relationship was good for me. It allowed me to see that there really was a difference between my true self and my lesbian identity.
This is not a fog. It’s my experience. It’s what works. It is the only method of evangelizing homosexuals that I have ever seen bear fruit.

 

[Elizabeth502]

it’s really unpleasant to live in a world that casually treats you like dung, where everybody behaves as though it’s perfectly normal, natural and acceptable to ridicule, deride, incarcerate, pillory, experiment on, castrate, rape and even kill a group of people because they have attractions or gender-traits that they did not choose.

I’m sorry, but this sounds like just as much a stereotype, unfair generalization, and dehumanizing of heterosexuals as you accuse the latter of doing to LGBQT people.

The variations in reactions and responses by heterosexuals, to those who are not, are as varied as the differences among the LGBQT community. I’m getting really tired of feeling caricatured by association, regardless of how Politically Correct it has become to do so.

A public statement was made. A public correction is in order.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Elizabeth love,

The statement was meant hyperbolically. I was trying to communicate the feelings of the early gay-rights movement, and the reasons why homosexual people react the way that they do to rejection. It wasn’t a literal condemnation of all heterosexual people – just contextually that should obviously be ridiculous. I’m married to a guy who is and always has been completely straight. Clearly I’m not saying that he’s some sort of horrible homophobe just because he’s hetero, or just because he’s an orthodox Catholic. You may take it as a given that I extend the same consideration to all Catholics, all Christians, all straight people, and all people of any stripe who don’t actually participate in fag-bashing, name-calling, unjust persecution and discrimination.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

So if you meet an LGBTQ person, the first thing that you do is you give them your acceptance. You show them that you love them, that you want to be around them, that you are not rejecting or shunning them, because that’s what they’re hungry for. Once you’ve done that, then you can start talking about the difference between their gay or lesbian identity, and their true identity in Christ. This is how the people who evangelized me did it. They accepted me, treated me as a friend, invited me into their homes and into their lives, talked to me, shared ordinary interests with me, took me and my partner along on their picnics, asked us along to their church. When the issue of homosexuality came up, they confirmed the Church’s teaching that it is wrong. This was startling to me, because it allowed me to see that it really was possible for someone to love me, and to affirm my deepest and most integral identity, without agreeing that my lesbian relationship was good for me. It allowed me to see that there really was a difference between my true self and my lesbian identity.
This is not a fog. It’s my experience. It’s what works. It is the only method of evangelizing homosexuals that I have ever seen bear fruit.

Hi Melinda,

The hallmark of clear thinking is the ability to make distinctions, and this is an issue that absolutely requires clear thinking.

The approach here of the Catholics who befriended you I obviously cannot reproach. It was a manifestation of true charity: a good tree that bore good fruit. St Paul would not have reproached it either. So how to tie it up with that passage from I Corinthians?

We need a distinction. The people who welcomed you did so with the hope of leading you into the Catholic fold. I don’t read in your account any ‘live and let live’ attitude on their part. Without pushing, and without the desire to hang up a trophy on the wall, they nevertheless did all they could to bring you to accept the Faith, which is the best gift one can give another. In other words, it was a process of evangelisation. I can well imagine the parents putting their children onto prayer duty: “You must pray for them, that God brings them into the Church” (to the 6 year olds), “They’re a lesbian couple, but you must pray for them. They’re interested in Catholicism and we’re inviting them to church. Be kind to them and mind what you say.” (to the 16 year olds). There was no chance of anyone taking scandal from the situation.

It is a very different ball game, however, when someone, especially a family member, who is ***already ***a Catholic and knows the score, tries to get the family or the Catholic group he is part of to accept behaviour that is unacceptable. There is no question here of evangelisation. Uncle George and his male partner are already evangelised. He wants to remain part of the family circle and get the family consensus changed to accommodate him. He wants it done, not so much by words as by deeds. It is uncle George who is doing the evangelising, and there is simply no way to accommodate it. It is this kind of individual that St Paul is speaking about, and I believe this is the situation that you raised in an earlier thread (which I hope the moderators will forgive me for resurrecting).

Bear in mind, as I said in my first (or second) post in this thread, that if uncle George comes to the family circle in a manner that does not in any way advertise or promote his homosexuality, then it is a different matter. He knows it is wrong, he knows what the family think about it, and he does not try to get them to think or act otherwise. This, however, would really only work if George came alone.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth love,

The statement was meant hyperbolically. I was trying to communicate the feelings of the early gay-rights movement, and the reasons why homosexual people react the way that they do to rejection.

My point is that hyperbole hurts, especially when it communicates a stereotype. It doesn’t seem any more just to apply it to heterosexuals as a group than to homosexuals.


IOW, I would have understood without explanation if you had merely inserted the words: to live in a world where it seems as if “everybody”…(etc.)
It is logical to feel something intensely or even in a distorted way if there’s a singular or exaggerated focus on it, but then your words were, i.m.o., also inappropriately strong. I’m glad you clarified.

I think it is also easy with any topic or issue to translate volume (in the public sphere) into level of representation (inaccurately). Strident voices (for example, against homosexuals) do not in themselves quantify a level of rejection among the general public – even as to the previously historical period you were referencing. Massive rejection seems more likely to be a community by community dynamic, rather than an entire country. I acknowledge that I was not raised in a reactionary community, but in a very educated & sophisticated community. I guess what I am questioning is the accuracy of the highly generalized perception which resulted in the “feelings” you describe in the above quote, regarding “the early movement.”

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Now to dissect 1 Corinthians 5. St. Paul here is writing to a newly formed Church, as you pointed out, where the people are freshly converted to Christianity and the Church is growing. I think that these are all really important factors.
…

There really is a time and a place where the right thing to do if you find a guy gathering wood on the Sabbath day is to take him out and stone him. The reasons for this are precisely the reasons that you so aptly articulated in your post, concerning the creation of a social milieux that encourages the growth of a fledgling faith community. Let’s call this the spirituality of the nest: it involves living your faith within a sheltered sanctuary that is removed to a certain degree from the rest of the world.

Here I have to disagree with the historical comparison. Leaving aside the social exclusivity of the OT religion for the moment, I see nothing in the New Testament that implies that the early Christians were required to live ‘within a sheltered sanctuary that is removed to a certain degree from the rest of the world.’ Sorry - one exception: the early Christian community in Jerusalem, which Providence saw fit to scatter by the persecution of Herod Agrippa in AD40-1.

St Paul makes it clear that Christians had no choice but to maintain contacts with the pagans around them. They could not become Amish:

I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators. I mean not with the fornicators of this world or with the covetous or the extortioners or the servers of idols: otherwise you must needs go out of this world.

Christians had as much contact with the pagan world as anyone else. St Paul did not tell them to shrink in sectarian fear from the pagans and give them all up as damned, but to evangelise them as he himself did. Hence his great emphasis on supernatural charity, because it drives out sectarian fear and has a great evangelising force. And this from day one.

It was the mature Christians that separated themselves from the world. There is no greater a spiritual heavyweight so isolated from worldly contact as a Trappist monk. The sheltered sanctuary removed from the world was the place where those who wished to advance to the more perfect heights of sanctity went. This started very early on with the desert fathers of Egypt and Syria, and continued in the established religious orders who followed them. Not every Christian entrenched in his Faith was called to leave the world in this fashion, but what is clear is that it was no place for spiritual newborns. The ‘ordinary’ Christians stayed in the towns.

What was required from these early Christians, newborn or seasoned, was that every member who formed part of their community, who shared in and upheld the consensus that bonded the community together, could not*** in any manner or degree tolerate or promote sinful conduct in that community***. And this is something that is just as much valid now as it was then - more so as we live in world that increasingly resembles the pagan society of that time.

The problem is that this spirituality is a preparation. As a Church, or an individual, matures the problems and temptations assailing them will change. Christ basically came to a Jewish world that had become moribund because the Pharisees and scribes insisted on clinging to a sheltered, legalistic spirituality that no longer served to protect the faithful, but that rather served to alienate all but the most puritanical. The nest had ceased to be a place where a delicate faith grew into something robust, and had become a place of shelter for pride. When this happens to a Church, the result is that people turn away. They come to associate virtue and religion with god-bothering hypocrisy, and the Church starts to hemorrhage members. It’s really obvious that this is the phase of development that the modern Church in North America is at. We’re not a newly formed community, we’re a faltering community that is desperately trying to cling to its legal strictures in the hopes that we will somehow manage to hang on to the few members that we still have.

I don’t think this has anything to do with age. St John in the Apocalypse describes exactly this kind of community in one of his letters to the seven angels. A Christian community can lose its sense of charity in any epoch and replace it with a sense of ritualistic duty.

Christ was really clear that when this happens, it’s time to go out into the streets and find anyone and everyone that you can, and start inviting them in. This is the time for evangelizing, the time to “Be Not Afraid,” the time to open the doors and let the people come in, even if they are ragged, wretched, dirty, or even gay.

Yes, but remember what happened to the guest who did not come with a wedding garment.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated. This thread is now closed.