Isn't the trinity a communion of persons?
LGBTQ Catholics and Synodality
18,341 Views |
265 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bird Poo
Here, maybe you can start with these.
St Basil the Great
Abusers of themselves with mankind, and with beasts, as also murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, are deserving of the same punishment. Whatever rule you have in the case of the rest, observe also in their case. There can, however, be no doubt that we ought to receive those who have repented of impurity committed in ignorance for thirty years. In this case there is ground for forgiveness in ignorance, in the spontaneity of confession, and the long extent of time. Perhaps they have been delivered to Satan for a whole age of man that they may learn not to behave unseemly; wherefore order them to be received without delay, specially if they shed tears to move your mercy, and show a manner of living worthy of compassion. - Letter 188 Canon 7
He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers. - Letter 217 Canon 62
Or St John Chrysostom's homily on Romans 1:26-27. An excerpt, but the whole thing is really on topic.
All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases.
Or St Augustine's Confessions (III.8.15)
Therefore those offenses which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust. But those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men are to be avoided according to the customs severally prevailing; so that an agreement made, and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation, may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or stranger. For any part which is not consistent with its whole is unseemly.
St Basil the Great
Abusers of themselves with mankind, and with beasts, as also murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, are deserving of the same punishment. Whatever rule you have in the case of the rest, observe also in their case. There can, however, be no doubt that we ought to receive those who have repented of impurity committed in ignorance for thirty years. In this case there is ground for forgiveness in ignorance, in the spontaneity of confession, and the long extent of time. Perhaps they have been delivered to Satan for a whole age of man that they may learn not to behave unseemly; wherefore order them to be received without delay, specially if they shed tears to move your mercy, and show a manner of living worthy of compassion. - Letter 188 Canon 7
He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers. - Letter 217 Canon 62
Or St John Chrysostom's homily on Romans 1:26-27. An excerpt, but the whole thing is really on topic.
All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases.
Or St Augustine's Confessions (III.8.15)
Therefore those offenses which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust. But those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men are to be avoided according to the customs severally prevailing; so that an agreement made, and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation, may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or stranger. For any part which is not consistent with its whole is unseemly.
a question is not an argument.
Quote:
Now, I have been making the case...
To me... me only.. it would seem...
With respect, you sound like you have a good heart, but you lack faith. You remind me of the young man who tried to justify himself.
Quote:
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'"
He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth."
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to [the] poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"
This passage is not so much about wealth, but about faith. Most can follow the spiritual basics, but when God asks for more radical acts that they do not fully understand, most will fall away. They - like you - lack faith. God is God - we are not. In light of this, we must assume He knows something we don't.
So I understand your pov, but Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. And that law was the Torah. So the essence of the sexual laws of Judism still apply today. And those are Jesus' words (the guy who more likely than not was God) not some stuffy theologian's. So we should respect that even if we don't quite understand, because Jesus was God, and God is the highest reality there is. For example, I'm sure Mary didn't quite understand either, but she still trusted. And we continue to see the fruits of that faith 2000 years later. God saw beyond Mary's short-term suffering. God's view of space and time is higher than our limited, mortal view. We should be humble in the face of that.
And I agree that homosexuals have it tough. If they want to be authentic Christians, then they have no way to "legally" get their rocks off. I also do not think most heterosexual Christians give this unique suffering enough respect. So from a pragmatic pov, I think gay Christians should do the best they can within reason. Better to follow Christ imperfectly (and perhaps grow into a chaste lifestyle as that relationship with Him deepens) than not follow Him at all. Even St. Paul and St. Augustine weren't exactly stellar disciples at the beginning of their life's. However, the truth is still the truth, and the Church cannot turn away from Christ and approve of homosexual relationships. But this also does not mean God is unsympathetic.
Indeed, this is a major theme of the Bible and of the Western Canon, as seen in Dante's Divine Comedy. The first, largest, and most populated circle of Hell is lust. Dante recognized that out of all sins, humans struggle most with the temptations of the flesh. However, it is the highest circle, so it is not the deadliest sin. "Since lust involves mutual indulgence and is not, therefore, completely self-centered, Dante deems it the least heinous of the sins and its punishment is the most benign within Hell proper."
We also see this theme in Christ's mercy for the woman caught in adultery. He did not condemn her, but He also did not approve of what she did. "Go and sin no more." Instead, He invited action - He invited her deeper into the divine life, which is what Christianity is all about. A human being fully alive is one who has surrendered to God. In the end, living a disciplined life of correct worship is a small price to pay for participating in the divine life of God.
Quote:
The disciples were amazed at his words. So Jesus again said to them in reply, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to pass through [the] eye of [a] needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves, "Then who can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "For human beings it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God."
Peter began to say to him, "We have given up everything and followed you."
Jesus said, "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the sake of the gospel who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age: houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come. But many that are first will be last, and [the] last will be first."
Jesus blithely tells the disciples to forsake literally everything "for my sake". Who would have the audacity to say that? So either Jesus was a bad man, or who he was who he said he was. And if he was who he said he was, then we should listen to him, even if he came to fulfill the sexual law, and not abolish it in a way we personally would like.
You are also relying too much on your own subjective understanding of scripture and Church documents. This is like telling someone to read Shakespeare without a scholarly apparatus to guide them along - they will not fully understand the context and meaning of those complex works. For example, you do not cite Catholic scholarly opinion on the Vatican II documents or JPII's writings, you simply quote the original documents and twist them to suit your views. A scholar will heavily research a topic and see what other scholars have said about something before making a conclusion themselves. You are not doing that.
Additionally, relying solely on our own judgement is wrong, because it is easily deceived due to our fallen nature. As GK Chesterton said, the doctrine of original sin is the only doctrine of the Catholic Church for which there is empirical evidence. So with respect, your hot takes are a big deal, because you don't know what you don't know and it is important you realize this. You are falling into the temptation pride.
Tolkien recognized this danger. Gollum both loved and hated the ring. This is a metaphor for how we both love and hate our sin. We are noble, yet fallen, so we can easily delude ourselves into loving something that lacks goodness. As such, I could take your argument ("If those persons in a loving, committed, and free relationship can give themselves completely - not withholding anything - how is that not good?") and easily make a case for honor killings: "God approves of justice, and this person murdered my loved one, so it is right for me to murder them in return, because God approves of justice. How is that not good?" We need God to save us and clearly delineate what is goodness and what lacks goodness. Otherwise everything is relative based on our feelings. That is why Christianity is called a salvation religion. We need God to save us from our fallen nature. God is the protagonist, not us.
Therefore, you are asking the oldest intellectual traditional in the West to change one of its core dogmas - the Holy Sacrament of Marriage (and by extension contraception and abortion, because all the sexual teachings are interconnected). People smarter than you and me, and who were closer to Christ than you and me, have thought about this throughout the centuries and have confirmed again and again that sodomy is a sin and cannot be approved of. For you to disagree with the Church, and rely on your easily deceived fallen human nature to decide what is good, and to ignore the commentary of other Catholic and theologian scholars, is illogical, because you should not carelessly denigrate social institutions. You need a properly conditioned, interpretative apparatus to understand the will of God, because God is not "a do whatever you feel like, even if it feels good" type of God.
One last thing - if you do not truly believe in the divinity of Christ, then nearly all the teachings of Christianity will be seen as arbitrary, biased, and unfair. The supernatural aspect of Christianity is where it gets its power. Christians are the biggest losers in history if Jesus wasn't divine. So if you're struggling with obedience to His commands, I would mediate on the divinity of Christ, and let that reality sink deep into your being. I would also recommend reading Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, which is a great common sense discussion about who Jesus was. Bishop Barron's Word on Fire ministry also has many great resources that will allow you to understand how the oldest intellectual tradition of the West (the Roman Catholic Church) understands the Will of God.
Quote:
Better to follow Christ imperfectly (and perhaps grow into a chaste lifestyle as that relationship with Him deepens) than not follow Him at all.
This is so true and such a wonderful sentiment. I'd started to type this and delete it several times - but I recall a nun who gave a talk about fasting at the start of Great Lent. During the Q&A portion she was asked whether beer was fasting. She said something along the lines of, if you need to drink beer in your weakness, drink beer. Is beer fasting? Is breaking the fast a sin? I think what she taught in her answer was way more important. This does not excuse sin, or condone sin. But if the Church was only for the sinless it would be empty at all times, we would have no laity or the clergy. Better to struggle in the Church than be anywhere else in any state. As some fathers say, it is not possible to live as a Christian; it is only possible to die as one.
You wrote a beautiful post, and should probably just be the end of the thread.
I see many of you have grown tired of discussing this question. Peace then!
Catholics,
Why are we seemingly limiting ourselves to that which has been stated/written/promulgated in the last 60ish years? Our patrimony is greater and more ancient than that. When my wife and I were training to be NFP instructors (CCLi) we learned of Humanae Vitae and Castii Canubi, yet these teachings go back even farther. Our Tradition extends back two millennia, and it has never condoned, permitted, or endorsed the various ideas put forth by the German bishops nor that which Pablo has postulated herein.
Additionally, I see a theme that says we are loathe to suffer. I see a theme that says we don't want to pick up our cross and follow Christ. The simple wisdom to "offer it up" is nearly abandoned. We are soft. Creatures more devoted to our own comfort than to Our Blessed Lord. The crosses we bear are a gift ordered towards our sanctification. Do we offer our Lord any thanksgiving for this gift meant to help purify us? No, usually we complain. As my pastor would say, suck it up, buttercup.
TLDR...Holy Church's patrimony is greater than 60 years and it would behoove us to use it. Also, suck it up, buttercup, and suffer well.
Why are we seemingly limiting ourselves to that which has been stated/written/promulgated in the last 60ish years? Our patrimony is greater and more ancient than that. When my wife and I were training to be NFP instructors (CCLi) we learned of Humanae Vitae and Castii Canubi, yet these teachings go back even farther. Our Tradition extends back two millennia, and it has never condoned, permitted, or endorsed the various ideas put forth by the German bishops nor that which Pablo has postulated herein.
Additionally, I see a theme that says we are loathe to suffer. I see a theme that says we don't want to pick up our cross and follow Christ. The simple wisdom to "offer it up" is nearly abandoned. We are soft. Creatures more devoted to our own comfort than to Our Blessed Lord. The crosses we bear are a gift ordered towards our sanctification. Do we offer our Lord any thanksgiving for this gift meant to help purify us? No, usually we complain. As my pastor would say, suck it up, buttercup.
TLDR...Holy Church's patrimony is greater than 60 years and it would behoove us to use it. Also, suck it up, buttercup, and suffer well.
A fantastic post. God Bless you for taking the time to share this wisdom and clarity.
ie the cleric that converted to Catholicism due in no small part to its 1,900 year old teaching about sexuality as it relates to the human person Sacramentally?
To continually change towards the God's Will and amend one's ways? yes, absolutely...PabloSerna said:
"To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." - John Henry Newman
The Deposit of Faith? No.
"Therefore, you are asking the oldest intellectual traditional in the West to change one of its core dogmas - the Holy Sacrament of Marriage"
+++
I'm not on this board enough to respond to every misunderstanding. This however, is a complete miss. I have been clear from the beginning that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was never a target. So if you have arrived at this misunderstanding, hear me know and let me be very clear - it is not.
In my opinion, there are hierarchical aspects not unlike the choirs of Angels in heaven that reflect the love of God. Par Excellence is the love between a man and a woman in a sacramental bond, which love can bring forth new life. This relationship most perfectly reflects the love of God. Just under that, and some may say "no greater love" is the love between friends. I would add, what husbands and wives should aspire to become, namely each other's best friend. After 35 years of marriage, my wife and I move concurrently in each of these aspects of love- so it has me seeing something more about the greatness of God.
We know from scripture that God IS love (1 JN 4). This is my touchstone. In my line of work, I meet couples of all walks of faith and sexual orientation. They have the same dreams; a nice home for them to grow old together, raise kids, relax from a hard of work, and reflect their life story. The LGBTQ+ couples I have known and have become friends with are some of the most loving and caring people. They share a love and commitment not unlike the love my wife and I have in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I know it is not the same and by nature cannot bring forth life in the same way my wife and I have been blessed by God (8 times).
Still, I can sense God in their midst. My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord.
+++
I'm not on this board enough to respond to every misunderstanding. This however, is a complete miss. I have been clear from the beginning that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was never a target. So if you have arrived at this misunderstanding, hear me know and let me be very clear - it is not.
In my opinion, there are hierarchical aspects not unlike the choirs of Angels in heaven that reflect the love of God. Par Excellence is the love between a man and a woman in a sacramental bond, which love can bring forth new life. This relationship most perfectly reflects the love of God. Just under that, and some may say "no greater love" is the love between friends. I would add, what husbands and wives should aspire to become, namely each other's best friend. After 35 years of marriage, my wife and I move concurrently in each of these aspects of love- so it has me seeing something more about the greatness of God.
We know from scripture that God IS love (1 JN 4). This is my touchstone. In my line of work, I meet couples of all walks of faith and sexual orientation. They have the same dreams; a nice home for them to grow old together, raise kids, relax from a hard of work, and reflect their life story. The LGBTQ+ couples I have known and have become friends with are some of the most loving and caring people. They share a love and commitment not unlike the love my wife and I have in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I know it is not the same and by nature cannot bring forth life in the same way my wife and I have been blessed by God (8 times).
Still, I can sense God in their midst. My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord.
747Ag,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Vatican II is a "new idea"? I disagree wholeheartedly. If anything, Vatican II is expanding on everything we have understood for some time, in a way that connects to us in this time and in this place. I guess the easiest example is that of the vernacular. The core liturgy is the same, just now in a way that encourages participation in the language of the people in their region.
It may be the Lay Dominican formation that I have been engaged in since 1999, but I never felt like I couldn't think along with God or that he just wanted me to shut up and listen - far from it.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Vatican II is a "new idea"? I disagree wholeheartedly. If anything, Vatican II is expanding on everything we have understood for some time, in a way that connects to us in this time and in this place. I guess the easiest example is that of the vernacular. The core liturgy is the same, just now in a way that encourages participation in the language of the people in their region.
It may be the Lay Dominican formation that I have been engaged in since 1999, but I never felt like I couldn't think along with God or that he just wanted me to shut up and listen - far from it.
The working document for the upcoming Synod 21-24 in October, 2023 has been issued as of June 20, 2023. Entitled, Instrumentum Laboris (Latin for "working tool"), this document has taken 2 years and hundreds of meetings around the world to get to this point.
"The IL is not a document of the Holy See, but of the whole Church. It is not a document written at a desk. It is a document in which all are co-authors, each for the part he or she is called to play in the Church, in docility to the Spirit."
Significantly, "LGBTQ+ Catholics" are recognized in two parts of the document, specifically:
Under the organizing question, "How can a synodal Church make credible the promise that 'love and truth will meet' (Ps 85:11)?", the document asks:
"The desire to offer genuine welcome is a sentiment expressed by synod participants across diverse contexts:
"a) the final documents of the Continental Assemblies often mention those who do not feel accepted in the Church, such as the divorced and remarried, people in polygamous marriages, or LGBTQ+ Catholics"
Later, under the organizing question, "What steps can a synodal Church take to imitate ever more closely its Master and Lord, who walks with all in unconditional love and proclaims the fullness of the Gospel truth?", the document proposes:
"6) How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised, received, free to ask questions and not judged? In the light of the Post- Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?"
+++
The mistake to take from this document is that the Church is changing something, either the Sacrament of Marriage or that the church will be voting on "blessings" for LGBTQ+ persons. This is not the purpose, rather, the Synod is rightly recognizing that many lay faithful are LGBTQ+ and feel excluded from the life of the church. I think this is significant if only because it is absolutely true. Interested to see what comes of this Synod.
"The IL is not a document of the Holy See, but of the whole Church. It is not a document written at a desk. It is a document in which all are co-authors, each for the part he or she is called to play in the Church, in docility to the Spirit."
Significantly, "LGBTQ+ Catholics" are recognized in two parts of the document, specifically:
Under the organizing question, "How can a synodal Church make credible the promise that 'love and truth will meet' (Ps 85:11)?", the document asks:
"The desire to offer genuine welcome is a sentiment expressed by synod participants across diverse contexts:
"a) the final documents of the Continental Assemblies often mention those who do not feel accepted in the Church, such as the divorced and remarried, people in polygamous marriages, or LGBTQ+ Catholics"
Later, under the organizing question, "What steps can a synodal Church take to imitate ever more closely its Master and Lord, who walks with all in unconditional love and proclaims the fullness of the Gospel truth?", the document proposes:
"6) How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised, received, free to ask questions and not judged? In the light of the Post- Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?"
+++
The mistake to take from this document is that the Church is changing something, either the Sacrament of Marriage or that the church will be voting on "blessings" for LGBTQ+ persons. This is not the purpose, rather, the Synod is rightly recognizing that many lay faithful are LGBTQ+ and feel excluded from the life of the church. I think this is significant if only because it is absolutely true. Interested to see what comes of this Synod.
PabloSerna said:
"Therefore, you are asking the oldest intellectual traditional in the West to change one of its core dogmas - the Holy Sacrament of Marriage"
+++
I'm not on this board enough to respond to every misunderstanding. This however, is a complete miss. I have been clear from the beginning that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was never a target. So if you have arrived at this misunderstanding, hear me know and let me be very clear - it is not.
In my opinion, there are hierarchical aspects not unlike the choirs of Angels in heaven that reflect the love of God. Par Excellence is the love between a man and a woman in a sacramental bond, which love can bring forth new life. This relationship most perfectly reflects the love of God. Just under that, and some may say "no greater love" is the love between friends. I would add, what husbands and wives should aspire to become, namely each other's best friend. After 35 years of marriage, my wife and I move concurrently in each of these aspects of love- so it has me seeing something more about the greatness of God.
We know from scripture that God IS love (1 JN 4). This is my touchstone. In my line of work, I meet couples of all walks of faith and sexual orientation. They have the same dreams; a nice home for them to grow old together, raise kids, relax from a hard of work, and reflect their life story. The LGBTQ+ couples I have known and have become friends with are some of the most loving and caring people. They share a love and commitment not unlike the love my wife and I have in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I know it is not the same and by nature cannot bring forth life in the same way my wife and I have been blessed by God (8 times).
Still, I can sense God in their midst. My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord.
How do you hope their relationship can be squared with 2000 years of church teaching and the Bible itself without the church flat out saying "we were wrong about a core teaching on morality for this entire time"?
Quote:
My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord
Be more specific
What form should this "recognition" take?
Do you want to see the Catholic recognize or bless same sex marriage?
And how would the church get to that point? What should they change and why?
Quote:
The mistake to take from this document is that the Church is changing something, either the Sacrament of Marriage or that the church will be voting on "blessings" for LGBTQ+ persons. This is not the purpose, rather, the Synod is rightly recognizing that many lay faithful are LGBTQ+ and feel excluded from the life of the church. I think this is significant if only because it is absolutely true. Interested to see what comes of this Synod.
WTH? You said in your very next post you want their relationships recognized. Then you say it's a mistake to assume this is a move toward recognition?
Which is it? Or, how far would "recognition" go? What do you want recognized? What would recognition entail and what form would it take?
The Banned said:PabloSerna said:
"Therefore, you are asking the oldest intellectual traditional in the West to change one of its core dogmas - the Holy Sacrament of Marriage"
+++
I'm not on this board enough to respond to every misunderstanding. This however, is a complete miss. I have been clear from the beginning that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was never a target. So if you have arrived at this misunderstanding, hear me know and let me be very clear - it is not.
In my opinion, there are hierarchical aspects not unlike the choirs of Angels in heaven that reflect the love of God. Par Excellence is the love between a man and a woman in a sacramental bond, which love can bring forth new life. This relationship most perfectly reflects the love of God. Just under that, and some may say "no greater love" is the love between friends. I would add, what husbands and wives should aspire to become, namely each other's best friend. After 35 years of marriage, my wife and I move concurrently in each of these aspects of love- so it has me seeing something more about the greatness of God.
We know from scripture that God IS love (1 JN 4). This is my touchstone. In my line of work, I meet couples of all walks of faith and sexual orientation. They have the same dreams; a nice home for them to grow old together, raise kids, relax from a hard of work, and reflect their life story. The LGBTQ+ couples I have known and have become friends with are some of the most loving and caring people. They share a love and commitment not unlike the love my wife and I have in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I know it is not the same and by nature cannot bring forth life in the same way my wife and I have been blessed by God (8 times).
Still, I can sense God in their midst. My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord.
How do you hope their relationship can be squared with 2000 years of church teaching and the Bible itself without the church flat out saying "we were wrong about a core teaching on morality for this entire time"?
Seems to me PabloSerna doesn't care
He wants it changed because he doesn't like it
It's that simple
The purpose of the Synod is to discuss the pastoral approach to issues in the Church for a unified response. That is a good thing. Who wants one Bishop doing something different in Germany and another doing something else in Africa? Think of the Synod as a huddle where the play is being called.
What I said stands, I am talking about the long term not this particular Synod. What this working document is rightly identifying is a problem facing the people of God.
What I said stands, I am talking about the long term not this particular Synod. What this working document is rightly identifying is a problem facing the people of God.
PabloSerna said:
The purpose of the Synod is to discuss the pastoral approach to issues in the Church for a unified response. That is a good thing. Who wants one Bishop doing something different in Germany and another doing something else in Africa? Think of the Synod as a huddle where the play is being called.
What I said stands, I am talking about the long term not this particular Synod. What this working document is rightly identifying is a problem facing the people of God.
While he might have been heated, he did directly ask what you would want/hope it looks like? How do we say "yah, we've been calling this intrinsically disordered since forever, but we're allowing it now" and not change a church teaching?
This isn't a "the death penalty is inadmissible now that we don't need it" situation, and that one is teetering on the edge of saying the church was wrong all along. Recognizing homosexual relationships goes well past that.
"How do you hope their relationship can be squared with 2000 years of church teaching and the Bible itself without the church flat out saying "we were wrong about a core teaching on morality for this entire time"?
+++
I alluded to this in regards to "love" freely given in a committed relationship based on fidelity to living out God's call to holiness. I do believe that all are called to this, the RCC church teaches as much in Lumen Gentium, chapter 5 "Universal Call to Holiness." For many LGBTQ+ Catholics, we now know for certain, this has been a challenge because they have been pushed away. I have seen this first hand and it is very sad. Thankfully, there are places where the focus is on the healing love of God instead of treating the sacraments as a prize only for the most worthy, when we proclaim our unworthiness just before communion.
So that is one clear example of how one church in one part of the world is handling things differently from another church in another part of the world. We (RCC) need to get on the same page.
The more we begin to understand that you cannot "pray the gay away" and that this is who they are and how can we make room at the table of the Lord for our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters - the closer I believe we will be true to the mission.
+++
I alluded to this in regards to "love" freely given in a committed relationship based on fidelity to living out God's call to holiness. I do believe that all are called to this, the RCC church teaches as much in Lumen Gentium, chapter 5 "Universal Call to Holiness." For many LGBTQ+ Catholics, we now know for certain, this has been a challenge because they have been pushed away. I have seen this first hand and it is very sad. Thankfully, there are places where the focus is on the healing love of God instead of treating the sacraments as a prize only for the most worthy, when we proclaim our unworthiness just before communion.
So that is one clear example of how one church in one part of the world is handling things differently from another church in another part of the world. We (RCC) need to get on the same page.
The more we begin to understand that you cannot "pray the gay away" and that this is who they are and how can we make room at the table of the Lord for our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters - the closer I believe we will be true to the mission.
PabloSerna said:
The purpose of the Synod is to discuss the pastoral approach to issues in the Church for a unified response. That is a good thing. Who wants one Bishop doing something different in Germany and another doing something else in Africa? Think of the Synod as a huddle where the play is being called.
What I said stands, I am talking about the long term not this particular Synod. What this working document is rightly identifying is a problem facing the people of God.
Ok. Let's talk long term. Fast forward 100 years. What would you hope is the Catholic Church position on same sex relationships? How about marriage? Transgender medical affirmation for kids under 18?
I and others have tried in great vain to get you off the platitudes and vague concepts, and asked you simply for specifics. Just your opinion, not what you think the church WILL do, but what the church SHOULD do
it's futile
it's futile
After reading what was written back in May and the what was brought up again, it seems like PS really really hopes/wants the understanding of Church teachings over the last 2000 years to change to accommodate same sex relationships. While I believe it is intrinsically dangerous to start down that path of changing Church doctrine/scriptural teachings...I can understand the desire to want it to be more inclusive, particularly if one has a family member who is in that situation and the idea that they are living outside of Christs teachings is extremely disheartening. I think its somewhat comparable to the universal salvation argument for ones loved ones who might be agnostic. It can be a very painful experience and I understand the need to find resolution.Captain Pablo said:The Banned said:PabloSerna said:
"Therefore, you are asking the oldest intellectual traditional in the West to change one of its core dogmas - the Holy Sacrament of Marriage"
+++
I'm not on this board enough to respond to every misunderstanding. This however, is a complete miss. I have been clear from the beginning that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was never a target. So if you have arrived at this misunderstanding, hear me know and let me be very clear - it is not.
In my opinion, there are hierarchical aspects not unlike the choirs of Angels in heaven that reflect the love of God. Par Excellence is the love between a man and a woman in a sacramental bond, which love can bring forth new life. This relationship most perfectly reflects the love of God. Just under that, and some may say "no greater love" is the love between friends. I would add, what husbands and wives should aspire to become, namely each other's best friend. After 35 years of marriage, my wife and I move concurrently in each of these aspects of love- so it has me seeing something more about the greatness of God.
We know from scripture that God IS love (1 JN 4). This is my touchstone. In my line of work, I meet couples of all walks of faith and sexual orientation. They have the same dreams; a nice home for them to grow old together, raise kids, relax from a hard of work, and reflect their life story. The LGBTQ+ couples I have known and have become friends with are some of the most loving and caring people. They share a love and commitment not unlike the love my wife and I have in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I know it is not the same and by nature cannot bring forth life in the same way my wife and I have been blessed by God (8 times).
Still, I can sense God in their midst. My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord.
How do you hope their relationship can be squared with 2000 years of church teaching and the Bible itself without the church flat out saying "we were wrong about a core teaching on morality for this entire time"?
Seems to me PabloSerna doesn't care
He wants it changed because he doesn't like it
It's that simple
PabloSerna said:
"How do you hope their relationship can be squared with 2000 years of church teaching and the Bible itself without the church flat out saying "we were wrong about a core teaching on morality for this entire time"?
+++
I alluded to this in regards to "love" freely given in a committed relationship based on fidelity to living out God's call to holiness. I do believe that all are called to this, the RCC church teaches as much in Lumen Gentium, chapter 5 "Universal Call to Holiness." For many LGBTQ+ Catholics, we now know for certain, this has been a challenge because they have been pushed away. I have seen this first hand and it is very sad. Thankfully, there are places where the focus is on the healing love of God instead of treating the sacraments as a prize only for the most worthy, when we proclaim our unworthiness just before communion.
So that is one clear example of how one church in one part of the world is handling things differently from another church in another part of the world. We (RCC) need to get on the same page.
The more we begin to understand that you cannot "pray the gay away" and that this is who they are and how can we make room at the table of the Lord for our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters - the closer I believe we will be true to the mission.
A part of holiness is our actions, no? Homosexual behaviors are a mortal sin, no? So how do we call them to holiness while tell them they don't have to try and live a holy life? Are we accepting them as they are and teaching them to stop those actions over time or are we telling them those actions are A OK?
I see lots of words, but none are addressing how we wrap our heads around telling everyone the church was flat out wrong about this for 2000 years.
The Banned said:PabloSerna said:
The purpose of the Synod is to discuss the pastoral approach to issues in the Church for a unified response. That is a good thing. Who wants one Bishop doing something different in Germany and another doing something else in Africa? Think of the Synod as a huddle where the play is being called.
What I said stands, I am talking about the long term not this particular Synod. What this working document is rightly identifying is a problem facing the people of God.
While he might have been heated, he did directly ask what you would want/hope it looks like? How do we say "yah, we've been calling this intrinsically disordered since forever, but we're allowing it now" and not change a church teaching?
This isn't a "the death penalty is inadmissible now that we don't need it" situation, and that one is teetering on the edge of saying the church was wrong all along. Recognizing homosexual relationships goes well past that.
I am not mad or anything, and I have no doubt PS is a nice guy, full of love and compassion
He is Catholic, But he obviously has a beef with the Catholic church's position on sexuality, same sex relationships, etc
I have tried numerous times to ask him what should be done, or changed, with respect to the Church's position on these issues
We only get vague responses like "need to have a conversation", "need to reflect on our past and how we can do better in the future", etc
Never anything specific
BluHorseShu said:After reading what was written back in May and the what was brought up again, it seems like PS really really hopes/wants the understanding of Church teachings over the last 2000 years to change to accommodate same sex relationships. While I believe it is intrinsically dangerous to start down that path of changing Church doctrine/scriptural teachings...I can understand the desire to want it to be more inclusive, particularly if one has a family member who is in that situation and the idea that they are living outside of Christs teachings is extremely disheartening. I think its somewhat comparable to the universal salvation argument for ones loved ones who might be agnostic. It can be a very painful experience and I understand the need to find resolution.Captain Pablo said:The Banned said:PabloSerna said:
"Therefore, you are asking the oldest intellectual traditional in the West to change one of its core dogmas - the Holy Sacrament of Marriage"
+++
I'm not on this board enough to respond to every misunderstanding. This however, is a complete miss. I have been clear from the beginning that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was never a target. So if you have arrived at this misunderstanding, hear me know and let me be very clear - it is not.
In my opinion, there are hierarchical aspects not unlike the choirs of Angels in heaven that reflect the love of God. Par Excellence is the love between a man and a woman in a sacramental bond, which love can bring forth new life. This relationship most perfectly reflects the love of God. Just under that, and some may say "no greater love" is the love between friends. I would add, what husbands and wives should aspire to become, namely each other's best friend. After 35 years of marriage, my wife and I move concurrently in each of these aspects of love- so it has me seeing something more about the greatness of God.
We know from scripture that God IS love (1 JN 4). This is my touchstone. In my line of work, I meet couples of all walks of faith and sexual orientation. They have the same dreams; a nice home for them to grow old together, raise kids, relax from a hard of work, and reflect their life story. The LGBTQ+ couples I have known and have become friends with are some of the most loving and caring people. They share a love and commitment not unlike the love my wife and I have in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I know it is not the same and by nature cannot bring forth life in the same way my wife and I have been blessed by God (8 times).
Still, I can sense God in their midst. My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord.
How do you hope their relationship can be squared with 2000 years of church teaching and the Bible itself without the church flat out saying "we were wrong about a core teaching on morality for this entire time"?
Seems to me PabloSerna doesn't care
He wants it changed because he doesn't like it
It's that simple
Yes, I figure that's what he wants, i just want him to confirm or deny it but he refuses
And you are spot on. It's a cognitive dissonance that must be resolved by either him changing his mind, or the Church changing its mind
I'm not being hateful, I'm not being aggressive
But yeah, when m I see Catholics advocating for fundamental change in the way the Church treats sin, sexuality, etc, I want to know where they're coming from and why? And what they advocate for
I've seen what this fight does to other churches. I've seen what woke liberalism has done to other Churches. I'll be damned if it's gonna happen to the Holy Catholic Church without at least asking some questions
"Recognizing homosexual relationships goes well past that."
+++
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This is copied straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is saying two things primarily, one is a recognition that we do not fully understand some things about same sex attraction. I think that is important. Two, is that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law, meaning that two persons of the same sex cannot bring forth the gift of life. In a way this is a direct comparison to teachings of the sacrament of marriage and the Church's opposition to so called "birth control." It should be noted that sex between a man and a woman not married is a sin and not approved either.
What I think is different now than before is the biological understanding of LGBTQ+ persons going past a previously held idea that they were just "choosing" a lifestyle. I would link studies for your reference, but I think you can do the research yourselves. This goes back to the first point and brings up a new dimension:
If being lesbian/gay is not unnatural, then what would that mean to the love experienced between lesbian/gay persons?
That is where I am at right now.
+++
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This is copied straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is saying two things primarily, one is a recognition that we do not fully understand some things about same sex attraction. I think that is important. Two, is that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law, meaning that two persons of the same sex cannot bring forth the gift of life. In a way this is a direct comparison to teachings of the sacrament of marriage and the Church's opposition to so called "birth control." It should be noted that sex between a man and a woman not married is a sin and not approved either.
What I think is different now than before is the biological understanding of LGBTQ+ persons going past a previously held idea that they were just "choosing" a lifestyle. I would link studies for your reference, but I think you can do the research yourselves. This goes back to the first point and brings up a new dimension:
If being lesbian/gay is not unnatural, then what would that mean to the love experienced between lesbian/gay persons?
That is where I am at right now.
Captain Pablo said:BluHorseShu said:After reading what was written back in May and the what was brought up again, it seems like PS really really hopes/wants the understanding of Church teachings over the last 2000 years to change to accommodate same sex relationships. While I believe it is intrinsically dangerous to start down that path of changing Church doctrine/scriptural teachings...I can understand the desire to want it to be more inclusive, particularly if one has a family member who is in that situation and the idea that they are living outside of Christs teachings is extremely disheartening. I think its somewhat comparable to the universal salvation argument for ones loved ones who might be agnostic. It can be a very painful experience and I understand the need to find resolution.Captain Pablo said:The Banned said:PabloSerna said:
"Therefore, you are asking the oldest intellectual traditional in the West to change one of its core dogmas - the Holy Sacrament of Marriage"
+++
I'm not on this board enough to respond to every misunderstanding. This however, is a complete miss. I have been clear from the beginning that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was never a target. So if you have arrived at this misunderstanding, hear me know and let me be very clear - it is not.
In my opinion, there are hierarchical aspects not unlike the choirs of Angels in heaven that reflect the love of God. Par Excellence is the love between a man and a woman in a sacramental bond, which love can bring forth new life. This relationship most perfectly reflects the love of God. Just under that, and some may say "no greater love" is the love between friends. I would add, what husbands and wives should aspire to become, namely each other's best friend. After 35 years of marriage, my wife and I move concurrently in each of these aspects of love- so it has me seeing something more about the greatness of God.
We know from scripture that God IS love (1 JN 4). This is my touchstone. In my line of work, I meet couples of all walks of faith and sexual orientation. They have the same dreams; a nice home for them to grow old together, raise kids, relax from a hard of work, and reflect their life story. The LGBTQ+ couples I have known and have become friends with are some of the most loving and caring people. They share a love and commitment not unlike the love my wife and I have in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I know it is not the same and by nature cannot bring forth life in the same way my wife and I have been blessed by God (8 times).
Still, I can sense God in their midst. My hope for them is that their relationship can be recognized at some level and they can find a place at the table of the Lord.
How do you hope their relationship can be squared with 2000 years of church teaching and the Bible itself without the church flat out saying "we were wrong about a core teaching on morality for this entire time"?
Seems to me PabloSerna doesn't care
He wants it changed because he doesn't like it
It's that simple
Yes, I figure that's what he wants, i just want him to confirm or deny it but he refuses
And you are spot on. It's a cognitive dissonance that must be resolved by either him changing his mind, or the Church changing its mind
I'm not being hateful, I'm not being aggressive
But yeah, when m I see Catholics advocating for fundamental change in the way the Church treats sin, sexuality, etc, I want to know where they're coming from and why? And what they advocate for
I've seen what this fight does to other churches. I've seen what woke liberalism has done to other Churches. I'll be damned if it's gonna happen to the Holy Catholic Church without at least asking some questions
I agree. We all have issues that we have to submit on. I'll be the first to say life would easier with contraception. But with each kid we have beyond what we ever thought we would "want", it proves the wisdom of the church's teaching. I've listened to about a dozen podcasts of homosexuals that have repented and turned back to church teaching saying the same.
Not only is it potentially damning to the soul, but temporally it does a person a disservice to change teaching to allow for sin to remain.
PabloSerna said:
"Recognizing homosexual relationships goes well past that."
+++
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This is copied straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is saying two things primarily, one is a recognition that we do not fully understand some things about same sex attraction. I think that is important. Two, is that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law, meaning that two persons of the same sex cannot bring forth the gift of life. In a way this is a direct comparison to teachings of the sacrament of marriage and the Church's opposition to so called "birth control." It should be noted that sex between a man and a woman not married is a sin and not approved either.
What I think is different now than before is the biological understanding of LGBTQ+ persons going past a previously held idea that they were just "choosing" a lifestyle. I would link studies for your reference, but I think you can do the research yourselves. This goes back to the first point and brings up a new dimension:
If being lesbian/gay is not unnatural, then what would that mean to the love experienced between lesbian/gay persons?
That is where I am at right now.
Why not bold the last line that says under no circumstances can it be approved? You're still changing a moral teaching.
Alcoholism has genetic markers. Wrath/rage does as well. I've known workaholics that say they can't help it. You don't see this opening Pandora's box? And that's all if I grant you the studies are accurate, but there are plenty of studies to refute them. One thing about science is that it's always easy to find a counter study claiming the exact opposite.
Its not about me or my immediate family. It is about us as a church, a people of God and this universal call to holiness. Personally, because I have family who are LGBTQ+ it has had me look deeper. On the surface it looks simple as some on here approach it - just stop being gay or doing gay things and you will go to heaven, right?
Instead I have seen something else, can you be gay and go to heaven? I more convinced than ever that you can! It then comes down to expressing that love between two people in a free, loving, committed relationship. Can they be gay, express their love for each other, and go to heaven?
These questions are being asked now. I want to hear from the Church. I know I am not the only one asking this very question. If I were in Germany, they have not only asked, but answered this question in the affirmative. But I know that we all need to be on the same page.
Yes, I am a nice guy, BTW.
Instead I have seen something else, can you be gay and go to heaven? I more convinced than ever that you can! It then comes down to expressing that love between two people in a free, loving, committed relationship. Can they be gay, express their love for each other, and go to heaven?
These questions are being asked now. I want to hear from the Church. I know I am not the only one asking this very question. If I were in Germany, they have not only asked, but answered this question in the affirmative. But I know that we all need to be on the same page.
Yes, I am a nice guy, BTW.
PabloSerna said:
"Recognizing homosexual relationships goes well past that."
+++
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This is copied straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is saying two things primarily, one is a recognition that we do not fully understand some things about same sex attraction. I think that is important. Two, is that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law, meaning that two persons of the same sex cannot bring forth the gift of life. In a way this is a direct comparison to teachings of the sacrament of marriage and the Church's opposition to so called "birth control." It should be noted that sex between a man and a woman not married is a sin and not approved either.
What I think is different now than before is the biological understanding of LGBTQ+ persons going past a previously held idea that they were just "choosing" a lifestyle. I would link studies for your reference, but I think you can do the research yourselves. This goes back to the first point and brings up a new dimension:
If being lesbian/gay is not unnatural, then what would that mean to the love experienced between lesbian/gay persons?
That is where I am at right now.
So basically the Church misunderstood homosexuality, was wrong, and needs to change accordingly to accommodate the newly acquired understanding
Should the Bible be re-written as well?
Perhaps you like me, have encountered the question of whether a person is "born gay" before. I have had people say things like "No one would choose to be gay, so they must be born that way." The "theory" implied by this question is that homosexuality is an immutable genetically determined outcome and therefore any moral prohibition is misguided and indefensible.
I came across an article this morning that sheds some light on this question.
As a matter of fact, the available science analyzing the human genome clearly says there is no genetic basis for a homosexual identity. A large-scale study (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693) of the human genome concluded there is certainly no single genetic determinant of same-sex sexual behavior. The study concluded that "all tested genetic variants accounted for 8% to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior … and do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual's sexual behavior." The lead author of the study told The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html) that it is "basically impossible to predict one's person's sexual activity or orientation just from genetics." Ruth Institute senior research associate Father Paul Sullins, professor emeritus of sociology at The Catholic University of America, summarized the results (https://mercatornet.com/the-gay-gene-myth-has-been-exploded/24683/) of this very technical paper as follows:
"The study found that a person's developmental environmentthe influence of diet, family, friends, neighborhood, religion, and a host of other life conditionswas twice as influential as genetics on the probability of adopting same-sex behavior or orientation. The genetic influence did not come from one or two strong sources but from dozens of genetic variants that each added a small increased propensity for same-sex behavior. A genetic arrangement based on a large number of markers across the genome means that virtually all human beings have this arrangement, or large portions of it. In other words, not only did the study fail to find some controlling gene for gay identity, it also established that gay persons are not genetically distinct from all other human beings in any meaningful sense. Gay persons, we might say, have a perfectly normal human genome."
Numerous studies of identical twins are inconsistent with the idea that being "gay" is genetically determined. If it were, we would expect 100% "concordance" between identical twins: that is, if one twin is "gay," the other should be, as well. The actual concordance is closer to 1/3, according to a study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2016.1139665?journalCode=hjsr20) that reviewed research conducted about this issue and stated as follows:
"Despite the fact that identical twins share 100% of their genes, gay/gay twins are less common than gay/straight twin pairs. The twin data clearly show a genetic contribution to sexuality (because even a twin concordance as low as 25% is significantly greater than would be expected by chance), but not genetic determination (which would produce perfect concordance in identical twins.)"
There may be a genetic contribution to these feelings and activities, but not strict genetic determinism.
Are you saying that being homosexual is or is not biological?
PabloSerna said:
Its not about me or my immediate family. It is about us as a church, a people of God and this universal call to holiness. Personally, because I have family who are LGBTQ+ it has had me look deeper. On the surface it looks simple as some on here approach it - just stop being gay or doing gay things and you will go to heaven, right?
Instead I have seen something else, can you be gay and go to heaven? I more convinced than ever that you can! It then comes down to expressing that love between two people in a free, loving, committed relationship. Can they be gay, express their love for each other, and go to heaven?
These questions are being asked now. I want to hear from the Church. I know I am not the only one asking this very question. If I were in Germany, they have not only asked, but answered this question in the affirmative. But I know that we all need to be on the same page.
Yes, I am a nice guy, BTW.
So do want the Church to change accordingly? And to recognize and bless same sex relationships?
And just because Germany has gone one way, does that mean everyone else must follow?
What if everyone else doesn't want to follow? Should Germany change its position and concede? You know, so they'll "be on the same page". Why shouldn't they?
Featured Stories
See All
38:51
1d ago
8.0k
22:46
41m ago
1.5k
Tom Hart discusses commentary made during A&M-Texas game
by David Nuño
5 Thoughts: Texas 70, No. 13 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
77:19
1d ago
1.7k
Video Replay: Student Bonfire 2025
by TexAgs