Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.

  • Thread starter Thread starter BroomWagon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My question(s): Were my sins of engaging in premarital sex of a more grave nature than homosexuals engaging in sex? Were my sins of engaging in sex with other men’s wives of a more grave nature than my sins of having pre-marital sex? Were my sins of enaging in sex with other mens wives of a more grave nature than homosexuals engaging in sex?
Short answer:
No
No
No
Long answer:
Go make an appointment with a priest for a good, long, full confession!

The gravity of sins all depends on your culpability, and only you & your confessor (with the help of the Holy Spirit) can come up with the proper answer.
 
Dear dchezik,
If it were not so, those who break laws could say, “I didn’t have a choice” because I don’t know how to tell the difference between right and wrong. In re: the issue of why gays leave the Church, maybe they realize you can not attend a Christian church and call yourself a Christian because you choose the Lifestyle of GLBT which clearly is not following the true way of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I choose to believe that person is a “child of (meaning made by) God” and as such deserves our charity but I do not choose to accept their lifestyle as the Bible clearly makes the answer available to us in both the Old and New Testament. We most certainly CAN choose what we believe and choose our behavior and our behavior says more about us than our words do.
As a Catholic, is it not my duty to love my neighbor as myself? Would this not also include homosexuals (whether or not they are ‘practicing’ re: engaging in homosexual sex acts)? Should I not show love and compassion to these people regardless of whether or not they identify as, and engage in, homosexual sex acts which are clearly sinful?

This may be obvious, and it may not be. I feel as though it is my duty as a Catholic and a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ to treat homosexuals as my brothers and sisters as we are all children of God. I can and do recognize that this behavior is sinful, but I have sinned in many ways myself over the years. And only recently have I come back to the Church and started to confess and repet my sins. I have been surprised at how I have been able to, through prayer and confession and repenting, significantly lessen certain sins that I was engaging in on a somewhat fairly regular basis. Initially changing certain behaviors was somewhat of a struggle, but through prayer I have been surprised that I have been able to resist sinning in certain ways without much effort, except initially.

But back to my main point/question, isn’t it my duty to love all of my neighbors (including homosexuals) as myself? I ask because I get the impression (which I could be totally wrong about, as I often am) that certain Catholics either shun homosexuals or seem to advocate the shunning of them. And it’s my understanding as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ that I should not be doing that. I’m not talking about condoning their behavior, or condoning any sinful behavior. I’m speaking specifically about how I should interact with a homosexual or homosexuals. Should I not try to show them the love that Jesus would show them, despite their sinful behavior?

As a side issue, my thinking is that they may be more willing to look at their behavior as sinful and make efforts to change this behavior if they were shown more love and compassion. This may be totally untrue, and possibly the exact opposite of reality, I’m not sure. But I’m wondering if this is true and suspect that there is reason to believe that it is true.

In short, should I not love all of my neighbors as myself, including homosexuals, as a Catholic, as a Christian, and as a follower of the teachiings of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I’m asking because this is my belief and understanding but I have been away from the Church for many years. As far as I know the Bible has not changed during that time period and this was my understanding when I was active in the Church many years back. I have now returned and am active in the Church again and doing a better job of practicing my Faith.

With all of the disucssions of homosexuality, etc this can be confusing to someone like me. So I’m seeking information, and either conformation of my understanding of the way I should be behaving towards homosexuals or education as to how and why I should be behaving differently toward them if in fact this is the case and I should be behaving differently toward them.

Thanks and God Bless,
Bill
 
I have some thoughts on this topic.

Gays may turn away from church because they seem to want everything to revolve around gay. Religion (church) requires us to revolve around something greater than ourselves.

God bless all gay people and strength to all the gay people who live chastely.
Many of gays who left churches left churches that preached on how gays are evil, that they are possessed by demons, slaves of Satan etc.
 
As a Catholic, is it not my duty to love my neighbor as myself? Would this not also include homosexuals (whether or not they are ‘practicing’ re: engaging in homosexual sex acts)?
Yes and yes. It also includes jihadists and loansharks, adulterers and corrupt politicians. But consider this: you love yourself but don’t think this means you must approve of everything you do, right? You find fault with yourself just as I find fault with myself. Loving homosexual persons does not require approving of all their actions, and certainly not their sins, any more than loving a heterosexual person who fornicates or commits adultery requires approving of those acts. (This also goes for ‘difficult people’ who may not—to our knowledge–be in sin. Some people are whiny or bossy or terse or histrionic but we still must love them but this does not require us to “affirm” their difficult traits.)
 
Long answer:
Go make an appointment with a priest for a good, long, full confession!

The gravity of sins all depends on your culpability, and only you & your confessor (with the help of the Holy Spirit) can come up with the proper answer.
I"m not sure whether or not I mentioned in the post you quoted that I recently returned to the Church, and as part of this engaged in Confession and repentance. If I did not I can certainly understand your suggestion. If I did, why do you suggest I confess the same sins I did in the past over again?

As far as my question about comparing the severity of my sins and those of homosexual acts sins I was just curious, it is not of primary importance of mine. I am mainly concerned about my own sins and avoiding them in the future. While I regret being away from the Church for a very long time, and it being 17 years between confessions, I have since confessed my sins during that time and repented. Those sins I hadn’t committed for several years since the confession. The sins that I have more recently committed I have been blessed that my repenting and praying have been very helpful in assisting me in avoiding those temptations to engage in those sins, as well as being more mindful of the sins I have committed recently, assisting me in avoiding them mostly as well.

As less than perfect I continue to sin but think I am on the right track. There are a few sins that I still struggle with but feel as though with the help of my priest and prayer I am making progress with those. And I feel blessed for being able to do so.

So, sorry if I omitted that I have confessed my past sins in that post, if in fact I did. If I did mention it and you feel as though I should re-confess, I am curious as to why you think I should do this?

God Bless,
Bill
 
Yes and yes. It also includes jihadists and loansharks, adulterers and corrupt politicians. But consider this: you love yourself but don’t think this means you must approve of everything you do, right? You find fault with yourself just as I find fault with myself. Loving homosexual persons does not require approving of all their actions, and certainly not their sins, any more than loving a heterosexual person who fornicates or commits adultery requires approving of those acts. (This also goes for ‘difficult people’ who may not—to our knowledge–be in sin. Some people are whiny or bossy or terse or histrionic but we still must love them but this does not require us to “affirm” their difficult traits.)
markeverett,

Thanks for the reply. And it’s interesting that you metion jihadists and loansharks, etc. It makes it more clear to me that it is, at least for me, more difficult to love certain neighbors than it is for others. But of course I understand and agree that I (we) are not to approve of their (or our) sins.

I suppose for different people it is more difficult for them to love certain neighbors (based on their behaviors) than it is for them to love others. Thanks for making this more clear to me as I continue on my path to do my best to live my life according to the teachings of my Lord and Savior. Your post helped put in better perspective for me why different people seem to have different attitudes towards different types of sinners.

God Bless and thanks again,
Bill
 
Well so many effects are seen from the consequence of refusing to recognize a God, and/or, holding a head strong position with the realized evidence of a True Church. The homosexual(and we all should be saying homosexual instead of “gay”) who says he is atheist, already claims to have a clue why he cannot rid himself of this temptation.

But there are also underlying reasons which I feel play a greater part in their decision. I would say obligation and responsibility is a main factor. Given a delectable sensory appetite such as this, some could come to the conclusion, “Why WOULD I even want to join a Church which would work at ridding me of such a wonderful temporal state.” Or a variant, “Why WOULD I want to admit to the existence of a God, who’s laws evidently implicate me and make me culpable of my acts. I would actually need to work at my own salvation. If I don’t believe, maybe I can go on with my life with no consequences. I’ll just argue at my judgement that my unbelief mitigates my case”.

But this position too is to no avail. No such grant will be available. No ambiguous cloud(manufactured ignorance) of one’s own making will mitigate such a position. Even before a Church or existence of God enters the intellect, God gave everyone a conscience which serves has a switch station to discern the correct action to take. On day one of existence, it is perfect and fully functional, but since Adam, tainted slightly due to original sin. God gave his Son, and Church, to help us hone this conscience so that it is effective. What Christ says we need to survive into eternal life, is not a selection of optional choices, but an absolute essential. If he came to redeem us, how much more certain that he would tell us the truth on what is essential for us?. We need to get it right now. The test is happening *now *and it will only happen once.

There are many elsewhere in a place of their choosing who would give everything to have the chance we have now to get it right. …one more time.
 
As a Catholic, is it not my duty to love my neighbor as myself? Would this not also include homosexuals (whether or not they are ‘practicing’ re: engaging in homosexual sex acts)? Should I not show love and compassion to these people regardless of whether or not they identify as, and engage in, homosexual sex acts which are clearly sinful?

This may be obvious, and it may not be. I feel as though it is my duty as a Catholic and a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ to treat homosexuals as my brothers and sisters as we are all children of God. I can and do recognize that this behavior is sinful, but I have sinned in many ways myself over the years. And only recently have I come back to the Church and started to confess and repet my sins. I have been surprised at how I have been able to, through prayer and confession and repenting, significantly lessen certain sins that I was engaging in on a somewhat fairly regular basis. Initially changing certain behaviors was somewhat of a struggle, but through prayer I have been surprised that I have been able to resist sinning in certain ways without much effort, except initially.

But back to my main point/question, isn’t it my duty to love all of my neighbors (including homosexuals) as myself? I ask because I get the impression (which I could be totally wrong about, as I often am) that certain Catholics either shun homosexuals or seem to advocate the shunning of them. And it’s my understanding as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ that I should not be doing that. I’m not talking about condoning their behavior, or condoning any sinful behavior. I’m speaking specifically about how I should interact with a homosexual or homosexuals. Should I not try to show them the love that Jesus would show them, despite their sinful behavior?

As a side issue, my thinking is that they may be more willing to look at their behavior as sinful and make efforts to change this behavior if they were shown more love and compassion. This may be totally untrue, and possibly the exact opposite of reality, I’m not sure. But I’m wondering if this is true and suspect that there is reason to believe that it is true.

In short, should I not love all of my neighbors as myself, including homosexuals, as a Catholic, as a Christian, and as a follower of the teachiings of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I’m asking because this is my belief and understanding but I have been away from the Church for many years. As far as I know the Bible has not changed during that time period and this was my understanding when I was active in the Church many years back. I have now returned and am active in the Church again and doing a better job of practicing my Faith.

With all of the disucssions of homosexuality, etc this can be confusing to someone like me. So I’m seeking information, and either conformation of my understanding of the way I should be behaving towards homosexuals or education as to how and why I should be behaving differently toward them if in fact this is the case and I should be behaving differently toward them.

Thanks and God Bless,
Bill
Love does not always mean of approving of another’s behavior. Fraternal correction is also an act of love, despite what misguided progressives tell you.
 
Well so many effects are seen from the consequence of refusing to recognize a God, and/or, holding a head strong position with the realized evidence of a True Church. The homosexual(and we all should be saying homosexual instead of “gay”) who says he is atheist, already claims to have a clue why he cannot rid himself of this temptation.

But there are also underlying reasons which I feel play a greater part in their decision. I would say obligation and responsibility is a main factor. Given a delectable sensory appetite such as this, some could come to the conclusion, “Why WOULD I even want to join a Church which would work at ridding me of such a wonderful temporal state.” Or a variant, “Why WOULD I want to admit to the existence of a God, who’s laws evidently implicate me and make me culpable of my acts. I would actually need to work at my own salvation. If I don’t believe, maybe I can go on with my life with no consequences. I’ll just argue at my judgement that my unbelief mitigates my case”.
djames,

This post of yours reminds me of a post I recently made. It was in relation to evangelizing. There was someone I knew that had a sibling die in childhood. Ever since (I met him well into adulthood) he essentially held a grugde (to put it mildly) against God for ‘allowing’ is young brother to die (he died of some sort of medical condition). Ever since that time (I assume, it was obvious when I met him in adulthood) he held this grudge/hated God.

One night he was speaking of this anger/hate toward God. One interesting thing was that he sort of considered himself an athiest. How can someone be an athiest if they acknowledge the existance of God, right? I’m no genius, nor am I gifted with special powers to evangelize. But I mentioned to him, after he was done speaking, “It’s nice to know you have a relationship with God.” He was dumbstruck by this comment of mine. He must have spent some time thinking about it because he approached me later, sort of more open minded/changed and asked me about my comment. I told him (which was the truth) that I prayed for God to “please be on my mind, on my lips, and in my heart” before I spoke. This struck him further, he believed me.

I guess my point is, that with people who have some sort of relationship with God, albeit one where they are angry at God or similar, it can be helpful, as a starting point for them, to sort of plant a seed if you will, to simply point out that they have a relationship with God and you think this is a good thing. I think it’s worth a try and possibly a much better approach than getting into a debate with such a person about what God is responsible for, if they should be angry with God or not, etc, etc… and instead simply validate that they have a relationship with God and that this is a good thing.

You never know what can come from such an approach. With this guy he wound up ‘forgiving God’ in his heart and changed much for the better as a result. I think that possibly making a similar comment to someone who is homosexual and resents God (or claims to be athiest but you suspect that in reality they may not truely be athiest but angry at God or similar) that “It’s good to know you have a relationship with God” and leaving it at that.

Let’s face it, it’s unlikely one is going to convert a homosexual invested in their lifestyle to change overnight, but by making such a comment it might give them something to reflect upon as your not judging them or their relationship to God, your simply validating that relationship. Who knows where that could lead (and I doubt it will lead to making them hate God MORE).

So just a tidbit of info I have found helpful in conversing with people (I’ve done this a few times and never had a negative reaction) who have negative feelings toward the Church and God. Maybe someone reading this could add this to their toolbox so to speak and find that at some point, in a conversation with someone, it might be a helpful thing to say to help a person re-think their position as it relates to God.

God Bless,
Bill
 
Hi Bill, thanks for your interesting post. You are commended for your approach.

Your right in that we cannot judge, this is why I fraternally correct. Fraternal correction obviously involves a stated observation of a fault, not politically correct in this secular world. If there is no uttering of an observation, then we cannot even fraternally correct. 1 Cor. It also involves relating the consequences of an action, if indeed the fault constitutes a fault at all. This last is determined by the subject, because we have reached the limits of fraternal jurisdiction at this point.

The OP welcomed general discussion and I took that as an opportunity to expand on one other typical stances that homosexuals(or take your pick) use to justify their position. I typically go objective in my general discussions, nor do I go into N person unless I know it involves a subject, as your position was, then I change my demeanor since I am speaking to a man created in God’s image, and I am offering personal persuasion. The stance I notice in my years of experience is a valid one and true. The audience is whoever this could benefit. The doctrine is true. This is not a pastoral discussion, so I can speak in generalities.

There are different approaches in evangelization, and if we are to emulate Christ properly, I feel we are mandated to pick the proper one for the proper occasion as he did.

But forgive me if I’m going on a tangent here 😃 and don’t understand you, perhaps you can expand ?. 🙂
 
Hi Bill, thanks for your interesting post. You are commended for your approach.

Your right in that we cannot judge, this is why I fraternally correct. Fraternal correction obviously involves a stated observation of a fault, not politically correct in this secular world. If there is no uttering of an observation, then we cannot even fraternally correct. 1 Cor. It also involves relating the consequences of an action, if indeed the fault constitutes a fault at all. This last is determined by the subject, because we have reached the limits of fraternal jurisdiction at this point.

The OP welcomed general discussion and I took that as an opportunity to expand on one other typical stances that homosexuals(or take your pick) use to justify their position. I typically go objective in my general discussions, nor do I go into N person unless I know it involves a subject, as your position was, then I change my demeanor since I am speaking to a man created in God’s image, and I am offering personal persuasion. The stance I notice in my years of experience is a valid one and true. The audience is whoever this could benefit. The doctrine is true. This is not a pastoral discussion, so I can speak in generalities.

There are different approaches in evangelization, and if we are to emulate Christ properly, I feel we are mandated to pick the proper one for the proper occasion as he did.

But forgive me if I’m going on a tangent here 😃 and don’t understand you, perhaps you can expand ?. 🙂
Excellent post!
 
I have some thoughts on this topic.

Gays may turn away from church because they seem to want everything to revolve around gay. Religion (church) requires us to revolve around something greater than ourselves.

God bless all gay people and strength to all the gay people who live chastely.
Well said!
 
Love does not always mean of approving of another’s behavior. Fraternal correction is also an act of love, despite what misguided progressives tell you.
I"m not sure what frateran correction means, as far as how it may be carried out concretely. Maybe you could explain? And I am not political, so pay no mind to political ‘teachings’ from any party/fraction of a party, etc.

How would fraternal correction be carried out, and how would one be certain that in doing so one is taking the best approach toward leading one to be closer to God and Jesus Christ (compared to some other approach) and not doing so to satisfy one’s own internal needs? Do you understand what I’m getting at here?

God Bless,
Bill
 
But forgive me if I’m going on a tangent here 😃 and don’t understand you, perhaps you can expand ?. 🙂
The example I gave was not in reference to a homosexual, but I believe that such an approach could be used with a homosexual. I feel as though I have a pretty good understanding of human nature, as well as the way poeple change, at least from a secular perspective, as I have worked in the human services field for the past 20 years.

If a person has their heels dug in, so to speak, on whatever issue may be, ‘arguing’ with them IMO doesn’t usually produce positive results. Your experience may be different.

A recent example where I was the recipient was when I went to confession for the first time in 17 years. If the priest showed less love and understanding, and instead choose to lecture me on the things that I already knew were wrong that I did and was therefore confessing as sins…I probably would have had a negative reaction and be’ pushed away’ from Jesus and God, if yo will, rather than being pulled and guided further toward them.

So IMO if someone believes what they are doing is correct, I have found that arguing with them doesn’t usually produce them agreeing with me. A recent real life example is a thread I started, something about LEAP and drug prohibition causing problems and not producing positive results. I found that people were not at all open minded on the issue, not interested in hearing what police who spent 20 years on the job had to say about the negatives of the war on drugs, not open to hearing or even considering that an alternate approach toward trying to successfully address societies drug problem dispite what I feel is overwhelming evidence that the war on drugs causes tons of harm and is not at all effective in getting people off of drugs.

So as a generalization, while one’s motives may be good and pure, changing people’s minds on different issues is quite a challenge when they have believed something for a period of 20 years or so. I have found that they are like the def, blind, and dumb monkey’s. One can not change such a person’s mind on any issue if they are in such a state.

So I was suggesting one possible approach as a way to get a person who ‘has a problem with God’ to open their ears/heart where in the future they may be open to hearing more.

I am in favor of using whatever method(s) are most effective when trying to get a person to change sinful behavior. And I think that people are often clouded by their own views, not paying enough attention to the views of the other person and whether or not their approach/efforts are actually effective.

I think one can stand in front of a gay bar all day and night with a sign saying "homosexual behavior is a sin’ and preaching that message and the net result may be that each and every person who sees the sign and hears the message goes out and has extra homosexual sex out of spite as a reaction to such an approach. The person with the sign might feel better, but the result on the sinners leaves them worse off than they were before.

So I think it’s important to recongize such things. I find that in general, looking for ‘teachable moments’ when a person is open to hearing a message and using that moment to try and get your point across the best you can is in general a much more effective approach when trying to get a person to change their behavior, whatever that behavior might be, rather than just randomly going out and evangelzing at random because one feels the internal need to do so.

Of course I could be completely wrong, as I often am.

God Bless,
Bill
 
Hi Bill

Reviews and refreshers between fraternal brothers are the norm, and of course you are correct, arguing doesn’t gain anything. In this case what is needed instead is a time out for reflection and the skill to determine the correct point for the suggestion. The ball becomes in the receiver’s park however, and any further discussion must be commenced by him. As in everything experience betters us as we practice.

But discussing the broader issue, no one takes offense to being corrected in the ideal world, and is a signature attitude of those of today who try to live that world, emulating the Corinthians of antiquity, who were guided/evangelized/corrected by the Doctors of those times, now replaced by priests and the Magisterium who’s wisdom God graces us with today.

We should all take ourselves back in time in our attitudes and disposition and change this world to emulate that small gathering of Christians living in fear of the secular world. And indeed, we should be ever watchful that nothing of it’s acceptance of the empirical rubs off on us. The secular perspective needs to take a back seat when we are dealing with the salvation of men.

Evangelization at random is not the problem I feel. If one severs himself from a Church, (for whatever reason perhaps due to no fault of his own), then what should be familiar in base precepts,customs and precepts are lost to him. The evangelist of today teaching his own, is forever first establishing a point of common understanding which should have already been taught at an early age in the typical household of the ideal Catholic and it’s schools. These become as unfamiliar to nonpracticing Catholics as do to the irreligious.

But it occured to me that you might find this site interesting.

From: Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P, Ph.D.

sensustraditionis.org/texts_online.html

then choose: Pastoral Theology and the Philosophy of Man

*"Hence, in the last forty years, there has been many who
have drained their pastoral theology of theology itself and replaced it with psychology. While one must have mental health in order to advance spiritually, nevertheless, psychology cannot be substituted for pastoral theology for two reasons. The first is that most priests are not adequately trained in psychology, but the second, more important reason is that psychology does not, in itself, take into account the final end of man. As a science, it is not directed, nor can it direct man to something beyond himself since the science is concerned with man himself.

Connected to this is the view that spirituality consists in emotions. This came from Friedrich Schleiermacher who said that piety was an emotion rather than a filial love of God and love of neighbor because he is in God’s image.

Another dangerous philosophy of man is …" *

etc.

My apologies to the op for going off topic here. 😦

Enjoy
 
One must keep in mind that fraternal correctional only works when dealing with your brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
One must keep in mind that fraternal correctional only works when dealing with your brothers and sisters in Christ.
We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, even (especially) those who do not acknowlege the family bond.
 
Hi Bill

Reviews and refreshers between fraternal brothers are the norm, and of course you are correct, arguing doesn’t gain anything. In this case what is needed instead is a time out for reflection and the skill to determine the correct point for the suggestion. The ball becomes in the receiver’s park however, and any further discussion must be commenced by him. As in everything experience betters us as we practice.
Hi djames,
This is what I meant when I spoke of ‘the teachable moment’, when a sort of window of opportunity opens up for the reciever which can happen under a variety of different circumstances, which puts them in a position where they are more likely to ‘hear’ and integrate what is being taught. I work in the helping professions so have become accustomed to picking up on such circumstances as it is part of my day to day work where instances like this occur not infrequently and since I’ve been doing it for 20 years I’ve developed a bit of a knack for it compared to someone without such experience.
But it occured to me that you might find this site interesting.

From: Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P, Ph.D.

sensustraditionis.org/texts_online.html

then choose: Pastoral Theology and the Philosophy of Man

*"Hence, in the last forty years, there has been many who
have drained their pastoral theology of theology itself and replaced it with psychology. While one must have mental health in order to advance spiritually, nevertheless, psychology cannot be substituted for pastoral theology for two reasons. The first is that most priests are not adequately trained in psychology, but the second, more important reason is that psychology does not, in itself, take into account the final end of man. As a science, it is not directed, nor can it direct man to something beyond himself since the science is concerned with man himself.

Connected to this is the view that spirituality consists in emotions. This came from Friedrich Schleiermacher who said that piety was an emotion rather than a filial love of God and love of neighbor because he is in God’s image.

Another dangerous philosophy of man is …" *

etc.

My apologies to the op for going off topic here. 😦

Enjoy
And thanks for the link, I will check it out later when I get home.

God Bless,
Bill
 
We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, even (especially) those who do not acknowlege the family bond.
Who does Christ consider brothers and sisters?
46 As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.
47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.
48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Too many who try to “fraternally correct” another try to do so by rebuking them and do you know what the Bible says on rebuking?

1 Timothy 5 said:
1 An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father: young men, as brethren:
2 Old women, as mothers: young women, as sisters, in all chastity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top