Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[Thorolfr]

Catechism:
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

Pope Francis:
35. Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed. When we adopt a pastoral goal and a missionary style which would actually reach everyone without exception or exclusion, the message has to concentrate on the essentials, on what is most beautiful, most grand, most appealing and at the same time most necessary. The message is simplified, while losing none of its depth and truth, and thus becomes all the more forceful and convincing.

1. All revealed truths derive from the same divine source and are to be believed with the same faith, yet some of them are more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel. In this basic core, what shines forth is the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ who died and rose from the dead. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council explained, “in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith”.[38] This holds true as much for the dogmas of faith as for the whole corpus of the Church’s teaching, including her moral teaching.
2. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the Church’s moral teaching has its own “hierarchy”, in the virtues and in the acts which proceed from them.[39] What counts above all else is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Works of love directed to one’s neighbour are the most perfect external manifestation of the interior grace of the Spirit: “The foundation of the New Law is in the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is manifested in the faith which works through love”.[40] Thomas thus explains that, as far as external works are concerned, mercy is the greatest of all the virtues: “In itself mercy is the greatest of the virtues, since all the others revolve around it and, more than this, it makes up for their deficiencies. This is particular to the superior virtue, and as such it is proper to God to have mercy, through which his omnipotence is manifested to the greatest degree”.[41]

Great quotes. It’s too bad that more people don’t realize that some teachings are more essential, more beautiful, more grand and more appealing than others. If LGBT people won’t even enter a church because they have been so harshly condemned on account of their sexuality and driven away, they won’t even get a chance to hear about those other things that are “more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel.”

 

[Lucretius]

Great quotes. It’s too bad that more people don’t realize that some teachings are more essential, more beautiful, more grand and more appealing than others. If LGBT people won’t even enter a church because they have been so harshly condemned on account of their sexuality and driven away, they won’t even get a chance to hear about those other things that are “more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel.”

G. K. Chesterton calls this way of thinking the mark of an intelligent man. A man who can " think on multiple levels" or “in three dimensions” or "with length, width, and depth. What he means is the use of the a fortiori.

To give an example, it is realizing that Justice is greater than injustice, but that Mercy is greater still. This sort of reasoning is sometimes called weighing the scales.

He points out that Christ does this quite a bit (like when he says “…how much greater still…”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Rau]

Great quotes. It’s too bad that more people don’t realize that some teachings are more essential, more beautiful, more grand and more appealing than others. If LGBT people won’t even enter a church because they have been so harshly condemned on account of their sexuality and driven away, they won’t even get a chance to hear about those other things that are “more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel.”

True enough. But the OP isn’t seeking to make that point, but rather suggesting that some of the teachings, taught since the beginning, fall below some invisible line where they don’t really count, and where they might one day be found to actually be in error, and be reversed. In this she is factually wrong.

 

[estesbob]

Great quotes. It’s too bad that more people don’t realize that some teachings are more essential, more beautiful, more grand and more appealing than others. If LGBT people won’t even enter a church because they have been so harshly condemned on account of their sexuality and driven away, they won’t even get a chance to hear about those other things that are “more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel.”

Interesting the only one who agrees with her rather novel interpretation of these quotes is a Lutheran . There is No hierarchy of doctrines in the Catholic Church . Homosexuals are no more harshly condemned than others who openly engage in sexual sin It is not the churches teachings that are driving homosexuals away from the church -it is their refusal to abandon their sinful behavior There is no amount of outreach that will bring a sinner into the church who does not wish to change their sinful ways

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Catechism:
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”

Pope Francis:
35. Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed. When we adopt a pastoral goal and a missionary style which would actually reach everyone without exception or exclusion, the message has to concentrate on the essentials, on what is most beautiful, most grand, most appealing and at the same time most necessary. The message is simplified, while losing none of its depth and truth, and thus becomes all the more forceful and convincing.

1. All revealed truths derive from the same divine source and are to be believed with the same faith, yet some of them are more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel. In this basic core, what shines forth is the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ who died and rose from the dead. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council explained, “in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith”.[38] This holds true as much for the dogmas of faith as for the whole corpus of the Church’s teaching, including her moral teaching.
2. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the Church’s moral teaching has its own “hierarchy”, in the virtues and in the acts which proceed from them.[39] What counts above all else is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Works of love directed to one’s neighbour are the most perfect external manifestation of the interior grace of the Spirit: “The foundation of the New Law is in the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is manifested in the faith which works through love”.[40] Thomas thus explains that, as far as external works are concerned, mercy is the greatest of all the virtues: “In itself mercy is the greatest of the virtues, since all the others revolve around it and, more than this, it makes up for their deficiencies. This is particular to the superior virtue, and as such it is proper to God to have mercy, through which his omnipotence is manifested to the greatest degree”.[41]

You, like others have misinterpreted the “hierarchy of truths”.

You are trying to imply that some truths of the faith are negotiable or that some truths are less true than others. In fact, the hierarchy of truths is merely the principle of ordering the mysteries of faith based on the varying ways they are related one another as elements of Christian revelation, as summarized in the Creed.

 

[Rau]

Dogmas, Doctrine and Infallibility

*Doctrine. The word doctrine comes, by way of the Latin doctrina, from the Greek word doxa, meaning belief. The doctrine(s) of the Church, therefore, are those teachings which must be believed by the faithful. These include 1) dogmas, teachings which the Church has solemnly defined as formally revealed by God, and, 2) other teachings definitively proposed by the Church because they are connected to solemnly defined teachings. The first (dogmas) can be called doctrines of divine faith, the second doctrines of catholic faith. Together they are said to be “of divine and catholic faith.” Both kinds of doctrine require the assent of faith. Both are infallibly taught by the Church. Dogmas require it because they are formally revealed by God. Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church require it, because the infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals is itself divinely revealed. A side note, doctrine shares the same root as orthodox, meaning correct belief. Those who hold the Church’s doctrines faithfully are thus orthodox.

Dogma. Dogmas, therefore, are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a General Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person), or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).

Definitively Proposed. Doctrines that are definitively proposed are no less certain, even though they are not proposed as formally revealed by God. They are connected to dogmas, however, by either historical or logical connection. An example of logical necessity would be the reservation of priesthood to men in the witness of Scripture and Tradition. The Church has not yet taught that it was formally revealed by God, but such dogmatization is possible. Papal infallibility was similarly infallibly taught by the Church before it was proposed as formally revealed by God. An example of historical necessity would be the election of a Pope or the celebration of a General Council. While a portion of the Church could elect an antipope, or hold a false council, the Church as a whole could not err in this way without compromising Christ’s revealed promise to be with the Church until the end of time.

Infallible. As noted above, all that the Church teaches as being of “divine and catholic faith” is taught infallibly. Infallibility is not limnited, therefore, to extraordinary acts of proposing dogmas, whether by popes or councils. Those looking to believe only such “infallible” statements deceive themselves. In both the category of divinely revealed and definitively proposed doctrines there are many which are taught only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. This means that the Church has “always and everywhere” taught it as true, and, therefore, that the contrary position has never been taught. Perhaps, the most debated example is contraception. At no time in history has the Church taught that contraception is morally licit. Whenever in the Fathers, Doctors or the Magisterium it has been discussed it has always been as an evil. There is no formal declaration, no extraordinary act, but it is certainly infallibly taught from the beginning of the Church, to Paul VI, to today.

Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope. *

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmes…?number=564105

I believe what is said above about the nature of the teaching on contraception applies equally to the nature of the teaching regarding homosexual acts.

See also:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html and in particular “Doctrinal Commentary
on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei” about half-way through that document.

 

[Murmurs]

It may not make sense but, **assent of “intellect and will” **to irreformable and definitive teachings of the Church are required for full communion with the Catholic Church.

Well, i have some big thinking to do then. Doing (or doing one’s best to do) what the Church teaches is asked of us, is one thing. In other words, the assent of the will is perfectly feasible if sometimes not what we would like to do (were we maybe to let our baser urges to overcome us).

Saying that to be in full communion with the Church means we effectively cannot question it, or even think round what it infallibly teaches, frankly means I (and very many others) seriously have to consider whether or not we have any right to ever receive the Eucharist ever again (never mind turn up in the first place). I can conform my will (sometimes against my will!) to the teachings of the Church. No one who actually has half a grain of intellectual capacity or curiosity can wholly submit their intellect. We have to question. We’re meant to question. The very greatest gift God gave us (leaving aside His Son which is in an altogether more wonderful class of gift!), is human intellect, reason, curiosity. Are we not meant to use these things if they mean we question the Church? Doesn’t refusing to question dishonour the gifts we’re given? I can follow teaching, applying it to my own behaviour (with greater or lesser success, like anyone else); I can’t conceive how my disagreeing with it should force me from the church. I can disagree and still obey, right? If anything that’s a greater sacrifice or gift of myself, on my part (or someone like me), to follow where I am led even though it seems banal?

Seriously, either I’ve misunderstood you (entirely possible, in which case my knickers are in a twist over nothing!), or I frankly can’t be a Catholic. Maybe this sudden crisis has to move to a different thread, but, seriously, I think i need some help…

 

[estesbob]

Well, i have some big thinking to do then. Doing (or doing one’s best to do) what the Church teaches is asked of us, is one thing. In other words, the assent of the will is perfectly feasible if sometimes not what we would like to do (were we maybe to let our baser urges to overcome us).

Saying that to be in full communion with the Church means we effectively cannot question it, or even think round what it infallibly teaches, frankly means I (and very many others) seriously have to consider whether or not we have any right to ever receive the Eucharist ever again (never mind turn up in the first place). I can conform my will (sometimes against my will!) to the teachings of the Church. No one who actually has half a grain of intellectual capacity or curiosity can wholly submit their intellect. We have to question. We’re meant to question. The very greatest gift God gave us (leaving aside His Son which is in an altogether more wonderful class of gift!), is human intellect, reason, curiosity. Are we not meant to use these things if they mean we question the Church? Doesn’t refusing to question dishonour the gifts we’re given? I can follow teaching, applying it to my own behaviour (with greater or lesser success, like anyone else); I can’t conceive how my disagreeing with it should force me from the church. I can disagree and still obey, right? If anything that’s a greater sacrifice or gift of myself, on my part (or someone like me), to follow where I am led even though it seems banal?

Seriously, either I’ve misunderstood you (entirely possible, in which case my knickers are in a twist over nothing!), or I frankly can’t be a Catholic. Maybe this sudden crisis has to move to a different thread, but, seriously, I think i need some help…

Why would the fact to be in full communion in the Church one needs to follow the teachings of the Church be a surprise to anyone? Of course we can discuss these teachings and its fine if we have problems with them-as long as we adhere to them anyway. I have problems with Church teachings on barrier forms of contraception but I know the problem is not with the teaching-its my lack of understanding.

 

[Murmurs]

Why would the fact to be in full communion in the Church one needs to follow the teachings of the Church be a surprise to anyone? Of course we can discuss these teachings and its fine if we have problems with them-as long as we adhere to them anyway. I have problems with Church teachings on barrier forms of contraception but I know the problem is not with the teaching-its my lack of understanding.

I’m not saying one shouldn’t follow (even if, sometimes, we wish the teaching would be different!). That’s not what I’m saying at all.

The way I interpreted Zoltan’s post was that to be in full communion we have to believe and give intellectual assent to something as well as “doing what we’re told”. In other words follow and believe rather than just follow. And moreover what we should be believing just because we’re told to follow.

I agree with you, estesbob (there is a first time for everything!! ) - Zoltan’s post rather confused and/or alarmed me.

W/r lack of understanding - sometimes one can read, digest, discuss, thoroughly explore a topic, talk with some priests, or scholars, friends, family, (people on CAF!), etc - and come to the conclusion that one does have as good an understanding on the topic as any human being possibly could. I don’t think the issue is that sometimes we don’t understand a topic fully (your example of barrier contraception is a good one), but that all our human reasoning, discussion and debate, and prayer, do not leave us in a position where we can conclude that the Church is right. The Church asserts she is right…but we simply can’t agree. I don’t mean something that’s pride or arrogance, but a coherent and honest intellectual disagreement.

So for instance one might follow the reasoning behind the sinfulness of barrier contraception. Certainly one can understand that it is sinful, and consequently not use them - which is “following” the teaching, even rigorously, but still not agree that it is sinful, or as sinful as (eg) hormonal contraception.

I guess what I am trying to ask is - as long as we do follow (the best we sinners can) the precepts and teachings of the Church, putting our own feelings on the matter to one side - is it wrong, or sinful even, (or something altogether preventing full communion), to think the Church is still wrong about something? Can we give the assent of our will, our actions, and not intellectual consent, and remain Catholic?

This is a very confusing topic for me (and my writing style probably makes it confusing for you!) - because I have trouble reconciling the idea of infallibility in doctrine (to which I certain feel able to give intellectual consent), with what reason otherwise directs. (Infallibility itself shouldn’t be a matter of doctrine, IMO, but that’s a topic for another thread - but is an example of my point actually).

(I can’t remember now how this little detour relates back to the original topic, so apologies for getting so far off-piste!)

 

[catholic1seeks]

True enough. But the OP isn’t seeking to make that point, but rather suggesting that some of the teachings, taught since the beginning, fall below some invisible line where they don’t really count, and where they might one day be found to actually be in error, and be reversed. In this she is factually wrong.

Not that they don’t count!

I would hope that my presence and posts on this forum would imply that I am serious about my faith. That is why it is so hard to synthesize everything: how I am and what the faith is.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Interesting the only one who agrees with her rather novel interpretation of these quotes is a Lutheran . **There is No hierarchy of doctrines in the Catholic Church **. Homosexuals are no more harshly condemned than others who openly engage in sexual sin It is not the churches teachings that are driving homosexuals away from the church -it is their refusal to abandon their sinful behavior There is no amount of outreach that will bring a sinner into the church who does not wish to change their sinful ways

That there is a hierarchy of truths in the Catholic faith is something I just provided evidence for.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Murmur,

This is how I see it for myself. This is why I choose to consider myself Catholic even though I have serious disagreements with some of the Church’s moral teachings. The Church may maintain and insist that all that it teaches are true, but the concept of the hierarchy of truths lets us understand that some truths – especially the Revealed truths – are more central to the Christian faith than others. And as long as I cling to the most central teachings of Catholic doctrine and practice, such as Christ’s Resurrection and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, then I consider myself part of the Church. No one is perfectly part of the Church on Earth. We even say non-Catholics are somehow in the Church, related to her and in communion – though not full communion.

 

[estesbob]

Murmur,

This is how I see it for myself. This is why I choose to consider myself Catholic even though I have serious disagreements with some of the Church’s moral teachings. The Church may maintain and insist that all that it teaches are true, but the concept of the hierarchy of truths lets us understand that some truths – especially the Revealed truths – are more central to the Christian faith than others. And as long as I cling to the most central teachings of Catholic doctrine and practice, such as Christ’s Resurrection and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, then I consider myself part of the Church. No one is perfectly part of the Church on Earth. We even say non-Catholics are somehow in the Church, related to her and in communion – though not full communion.

As has been pointed out to you their is no hierarchy of truths-at least in the way you interpret it. Truth is truth. It NEVER changes no matter where in you hierarchy you choose to place it. I am really at a loss as to the point you are trying to make? Do you believe that the Church teachings on homosexuality is wrong or that one can ignore them if they believe they are wrong?

 

[catholic1seeks]

As has been pointed out to you their is no hierarchy of truths-at least in the way you interpret it. Truth is truth. It NEVER changes no matter where in you hierarchy you choose to place it. I am really at a loss as to the point you are trying to make? Do you believe that the Church teachings on homosexuality is wrong or that one can ignore them if they believe they are wrong?

I am not going to believe something I do not believe to be true.

 

[estesbob]

I am not going to believe something I do not believe to be true.

So there really is no need for a Church. We pick and choose what we believe.

Either the Church contains the fullness of Truth or it does not. If it does not, as you suggest, there is no credibility to anything they teach.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So there really is no need for a Church. We pick and choose what we believe.

Either the Church contains the fullness of Truth or it does not. If it does not, as you suggest, there is no credibility to anything they teach.

That does not follow. First off, many Christians (most non-catholics) believe in a Church that does not teach infallibly.

But I believe in a Church that was meant to teach the truth. Not so sure if this means every single aspect of its teachings is true.

 

[estesbob]

That does not follow. First off, many Christians (most non-catholics) believe in a Church that does not teach infallibly.

But I believe in a Church that was meant to teach the truth. Not so sure if this means every single aspect of its teachings is true.

Then how do we determine which aspects are true? If she doesn’t have the fullness of Truth why should we believe anything she says?

 

[edwest2]

That does not follow. First off, many Christians (most non-catholics) believe in a Church that does not teach infallibly.

But I believe in a Church that was meant to teach the truth. Not so sure if this means every single aspect of its teachings is true.

That does not follow. Over the past 2,000 years, the Church has been questioned by many people who were confused, needed clarification or who disagreed. And, somewhere, I can’t recall which document right now, the Church has thanked them for asking for clarifications and more detailed explanations.

I know non-Catholic Christians and while questions are always welcomed, the answers remain the same, especially as it regards human sexuality; the abuse or misuse of which is the biggest cause of the social problems we are having.

Although we need to breathe, eat and drink. Only we decide when and with who we have sex. But true love, earned trust, friendship, self-giving and even the differences of the sexes, as God arranged it, have been buried. Pleasure is the driving force. I remember in the 1980s, I met a man for the first time at a friend’s place. As we talked, I began to realize how quickly the virus had spread. “I’m getting married.” he said. “Congratulations.” I said. Then he followed with, “Well, if it doesn’t work out, we can always get a divorce.” Did he tell his wife to be he thought that?

No, when pleasure, meaning the flesh, comes first we forget a basic principle: the spirit and the flesh are constantly at war. Are we not in control of our own sexual desires? Why not? Just be honest. Who told you and where did you learn that sex is just a bodily function like using the restroom? I heard this on TV from a woman who was playing a character looking for a man, “It’s just sex.” Trivial, meaningless. Then a certain actress appeared on TV playing a type of woman who wants young men for sex. They are all at least half her age. The character was sitting in the stands watching some shirtless football players and said, “I’d love to lick the sweat off his body.” Hey, what’s the big deal? Right?

It took decades to go from suggestive dialogue to my last quote. Shocking? What’s shocking anymore? What’s right or wrong anymore? Decide, please.

Are you in charge of your body?

Ed

 

[pete_29]

That does not follow. First off, many Christians (most non-catholics) believe in a Church that does not teach infallibly.

But I believe in a Church that was meant to teach the truth. Not so sure if this means every single aspect of its teachings is true.

As Catholics, we are required to accept that the Church teaches infallibly. We are required to bend our wills to the will of God as the Church teaches it. Do we always do this? No, we are weak humans thus we commit sin. I am a worthless sinner, but I’m not so arrogant to believe that that Church should change it’s teachings to accommodate me. I wish I didn’t sound so harsh, but we either believe or don’t believe, we don’t get to pick and choose, we carry our crosses or not, but the Catholic Church can never and will never change. That’s the way Jesus set it up.

 

[Rau]

I’m not saying one shouldn’t follow (even if, sometimes, we wish the teaching would be different!). That’s not what I’m saying at all.

The way I interpreted Zoltan’s post was that to be in full communion we have to believe and give intellectual assent to something as well as “doing what we’re told”. In other words follow and believe rather than just follow. And moreover what we should be believing just because we’re told to follow.

I agree with you, estesbob (there is a first time for everything!! ) - Zoltan’s post rather confused and/or alarmed me.

W/r lack of understanding - sometimes one can read, digest, discuss, thoroughly explore a topic, talk with some priests, or scholars, friends, family, (people on CAF!), etc - and come to the conclusion that one does have as good an understanding on the topic as any human being possibly could. I don’t think the issue is that sometimes we don’t understand a topic fully (your example of barrier contraception is a good one), but that all our human reasoning, discussion and debate, and prayer, do not leave us in a position where we can conclude that the Church is right. The Church asserts she is right…but we simply can’t agree. I don’t mean something that’s pride or arrogance, but a coherent and honest intellectual disagreement.

So for instance one might follow the reasoning behind the sinfulness of barrier contraception. Certainly one can understand that it is sinful, and consequently not use them - which is “following” the teaching, even rigorously, but still not agree that it is sinful, or as sinful as (eg) hormonal contraception.

I guess what I am trying to ask is - as long as we do follow (the best we sinners can) the precepts and teachings of the Church, putting our own feelings on the matter to one side - is it wrong, or sinful even, (or something altogether preventing full communion), to think the Church is still wrong about something? Can we give the assent of our will, our actions, and not intellectual consent, and remain Catholic?

This is a very confusing topic for me (and my writing style probably makes it confusing for you!) - because I have trouble reconciling the idea of infallibility in doctrine (to which I certain feel able to give intellectual consent), with what reason otherwise directs. (Infallibility itself shouldn’t be a matter of doctrine, IMO, but that’s a topic for another thread - but is an example of my point actually).

(I can’t remember now how this little detour relates back to the original topic, so apologies for getting so far off-piste!)

There is no “wrong” in questioning, studying seeking to understand. There is no wrong in involuntary doubt. It is when one decides to take a contrary stance that one goes too far.