The Synod And Our Approach To Gay People

[Vitamin]

I'll be honest, my inclination in these matters is to be kind, charitable, and inviting. I remember reading somewhere that Mother Teresa once said we should "err on the side of charity," or something like that.

But then I second guess myself; am I being complacent? Cowardly? Am I really just being a coward, afraid of conflict and what other people would think of me, which is so unlike the courageous faith of the martyrs who died horrible deaths for the sake of their Faith? Am I hiding my lukewarmness behind a facade of a false sense of "charity"? Because that's a very real possibility. Am I going to reach the pearly gates and hear God tell me that I should have "instructed the ignorant" better among my family members, that if I had said more in defense of the Church's teaching in regard to their situations, it may have prevented them from complacency in their own sin? Am I complicit in their sin because I didn't do more to correct their errors? I don't know. I pray I'm doing the best thing whenever an issue comes up; they do know how I feel about their situations. I always pray to the Holy Spirit and sometimes even seek counsel in these matters, but no matter what, I always end up feeling like I'm doing it wrong.

It can be a hard balance to strike. And I agree; I don't even know why non-Catholics feel they would need to weigh in on a matter that is specifically dealing with how Catholics are supposed to live out their own Catholic morality.

 

The thing I find most difficult to understand is what is it you hope to accomplish by removing these family members from your life?  How are you instructing the ignorant?  At most it seems to say "maybe you didn't believe me", but what makes you think they didn't?

 

If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't go to a gay wedding.  But cutting off gay family members just because of their realtionship status seems needless. 

[Lilllabettt]

The thing I find most difficult to understand is what is it you hope to accomplish by removing these family members from your life?  How are you instructing the ignorant?  At most it seems to say "maybe you didn't believe me", but what makes you think they didn't?

 

If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't go to a gay wedding.  But cutting off gay family members just because of their realtionship status seems needless. 

 

 

wild guess here. you don't have kids you're trying to raise Catholic. correct me if I'm wrong.

[Aragon]

Family synod midterm report stirs controversy among bishops

Posted on October 14, 2014

By Francis X. Rocca
Catholic News Service

 

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The official midterm report from the Synod of Bishops, which uses strikingly conciliatory language toward divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabitating couples and same-sex unions, has proven highly controversial inside and outside the synod hall, with some synod fathers saying it does not accurately reflect the assembly’s views.

 

Following a nearly hourlong speech Oct. 13 by Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, who, as the synod’s relator, has the task of guiding the discussion and synthesizing its results, 41 of the 184 synod fathers present took the floor to comment the same morning, the Vatican said.

Cardinal Wilfrid F. Napier of Durban, South Africa, arrives for the morning session of the extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family at the Vatican Oct. 14. (CNS/Paul Haring)

 

According to the Vatican’s summary of their remarks, which did not quote bishops by name in accordance with synod rules, a number of synod fathers objected that Cardinal Erdo’s text lacked certain necessary references to Catholic moral teaching.

 

“In regard to homosexuality, there was noted the need for welcoming, with the right degree of prudence, so as not to create the impression of a positive valuation of that orientation,” the summary said. “It was hoped that the same care would be taken in regard to cohabitation.”

 

Bishops also remarked on the midterm report’s scarce references to the concept of sin, and encouraged the assembly to emulate the “prophetic tone of Jesus, to avoid the risk of conforming to the mentality of today’s world.”

 

Regarding one of the synod’s most discussed topics, a proposal by German Cardinal Walter Kasper to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, at least one bishop argued that it would be “difficult to welcome some exceptions without in reality turning it into a general rule.”

 

Some members of the synod made their objections public.

 

U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, told Catholic World Report that the midterm report “advances positions which many synod fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of synod fathers found it objectionable.”

 

Cardinal Burke accused leaders of the synod of giving the public a distorted image of the proceedings, almost all of which are closed to the press.

“All of the information regarding the synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the synod, which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed” in the midterm report, the cardinal said. “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the church.”

 

Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan, Poland, president of the Polish bishops’ conference, told Vatican Radio that Cardinal Erdo’s speech was not acceptable to many synod fathers, because it departed from the theology of St. John Paul II and reflected an ideology hostile to marriage by seeming to approve of same-sex couples raising children, among other ways.

 

The midterm report “should be an incentive to fidelity, family values, but instead seems to accept everything as it is,” the archbishop said.

 

The controversy over the report prompted the synod’s General Secretariat to issue a statement Oct. 14, lamenting that a “value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature” and emphasizing that it is a “working document, which summarizes the interventions and debate of the first week, and is now being offered for discussion by the members of the synod.”

 

The bishops were to work in small groups of about 20 each, discussing Cardinal Erdo’s speech and presenting their conclusions to the entire assembly Oct. 16.

 

Speaking to reporters Oct. 14, Cardinal Wilfrid F. Napier of Durban, South Africa, said his group had found in the midterm report “quite a lot of things which are expressed in a way which we certainly wouldn’t feel that are very helpful to giving a clear idea of where the church stands on some of the issues that are being raised.”

 

“Individual things that were said by individuals, may have been repeated a couple of times, are put in here as if they really do reflect the feeling of the whole synod. They’ve been picked up by the media then and made to be the message of the synod. I think that’s where the upset is,” he said.

 

The cardinal would not specify the statements or topics in question. When asked about media reports that Cardinal Erdo’s speech represented a new overture to divorced Catholics and homosexuals, he said, “That’s one of the reasons why there’s been such an upset among the synod fathers, because we’re now working from a position that’s virtually irredeemable. The message has gone out, ‘this is what the synod is saying, this is what the Catholic Church is saying,’ and it’s not what we are saying at all.”

 

The cardinal said the midterm report accurately reflected bishops’ calls to drop “very harsh language that alienates people,” such as cohabitating couples, who act in conflict with church teachings, but he said Cardinal Erdo had not suggested the teachings themselves would change.

 

“My worry is that the message has gone out — and it’s not a true message — that this synod has taken up these positions, and whatever we say hereafter is going to be as if we’re doing some damage control, which is certainly not what is in my mind,” Cardinal Napier said.

 

 

Could you please create your own thread if you want to act as a running news reel on the Synod. You're distracting from the conversation.

[Cherie]

The thing I find most difficult to understand is what is it you hope to accomplish by removing these family members from your life? How are you instructing the ignorant? At most it seems to say "maybe you didn't believe me", but what makes you think they didn't?

If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't go to a gay wedding. But cutting off gay family members just because of their realtionship status seems needless.

See, you're jumping to the worst possible conclusion. I didn't say I was necessarily going to "cut them off" in order to "instruct the ignorant." Cutting them off is an option, yes, and not one I am particularly inclined toward, as I mentioned. Perhaps, in order for it to be morally acceptable for me to see them (especially if it's in the presence of my children), I'm supposed to find a way, each time, for the discussion to come around to Church teaching, wherein I make clear (gently, charitably) my thoughts on their situation, so they know my feelings haven't changed and I don't somehow now tacitly approve of their sinful situation, and kids see me reiterating what's right and see their parents standing up for Church teaching even when it's uncomfortable.

[Aragon]

See, you're jumping to the worst possible conclusion. I didn't say I was necessarily going to "cut them off" in order to "instruct the ignorant." Cutting them off is an option, yes, and not one I am particularly inclined toward, as I mentioned. Perhaps, in order for it to be morally acceptable for me to see them (especially if it's in the presence of my children), I'm supposed to find a way, each time, for the discussion to come around to Church teaching, wherein I make clear (gently, charitably) my thoughts on their situation, so they know my feelings haven't changed and I don't somehow now tacitly approve of their sinful situation, and kids see me reiterating what's right and see their parents standing up for Church teaching even when it's uncomfortable.

 

Cherie, I struggle with the same thing. Several of my really close friends are either heterosexual couples cohabiting or gay couples. I too err on the side of charity. I don't think you have to worry about it being cowardly or using charity as a false cover. In today's context very little is gained by "instructing the ignorant" in a direct way, especially because many people in today's society reject several of the basic presuppositions necessary for our moral world view to even make sense to them (such as the importance of sex, our final end being God, even the existence of moral absolutes). There's not much point making a big deal about a moral issue if the Faith that precedes it isn't there.

I think the best thing we can do in these situations is be honest about our beliefs concerning marriage in a non-judgmental way, be good friends, provide a good example in our practice of the Faith, and pray for them. I imagine that will accomplish a lot more than getting into potentially heated discussions over their living situations.

[KnightofChrist]

Could you please create your own thread if you want to act as a running news reel on the Synod. You're distracting from the conversation.

Sorry for having caused offensive. I did not believe another thread on the Synod and the Church's approach to homosexuality was needed. It is my belief that what is actually happening at the Synod is very important to this conversation, since it effects the Church's approach to homosexuality. The news reel jab was unneeded.

[Aragon]

Sorry for having caused offensive. I did not believe another thread on the Synod and the Church's approach to homosexuality was needed. It is my belief that what is actually happening at the Synod is very important to this conversation, since it effects the Church's approach to homosexuality. The news reel jab was unneeded.

 

Sorry if I came off as overly harsh, I didn't intend to. I simply meant it'd be good if you'd join in the discussion too :)

[Cherie]

I imagine that will accomplish a lot more than getting into potentially heated discussions over their living situations.

I tend to agree, but it really is a struggle. I never want to be so PC that the Truth is muddled, or stay quiet during a time when I should be proclaiming the Truth. It can be hard to know what is right.

Which is why this conversation is a good one to be having, both here and Church-wide.

[Vitamin]

wild guess here. you don't have kids you're trying to raise Catholic. correct me if I'm wrong.

All Catholics who can name a Bishop at the Synod who's raising kids muster here, and say "Aye!"

*crickets*

[Vitamin]

See, you're jumping to the worst possible conclusion. I didn't say I was necessarily going to "cut them off" in order to "instruct the ignorant." Cutting them off is an option, yes, and not one I am particularly inclined toward, as I mentioned. Perhaps, in order for it to be morally acceptable for me to see them (especially if it's in the presence of my children), I'm supposed to find a way, each time, for the discussion to come around to Church teaching, wherein I make clear (gently, charitably) my thoughts on their situation, so they know my feelings haven't changed and I don't somehow now tacitly approve of their sinful situation, and kids see me reiterating what's right and see their parents standing up for Church teaching even when it's uncomfortable.

Perhaps I should have used less personal pronouns in my post, but it was more directed towards people here who seem angry that the Church seems no longer wants to treat gays like the bathwater. I quoted you, because you seemed the most open. Sorry for the confusion. :)

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i voted b because holy scripture tells us to cold shoulder brethren who are un repentent of sexual sin, one should have a deep profound sorrow when trapped by such sins including masturbation, and go to confession, have elders lay hands on them and pray for there healing, recieve the annointing of the sick regularly and hope to be made holy. something like that anyway.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

And barb just to point out pagans of jesus time had absolutely no idea they where sinning, but brethren do. I guess a homo sexual outside of the flocks i could be a friend to to some degree if they aren't anti thiest or anti organised religion, if they where open minded and honest. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

though also not being a friend with a person outside of the faith homo or not doesn't mean i dont love them and will refuse them charity if asked although at times like the good samaritan they need not ask i see the need and offer.

Also st paul states brethern 1st all others second, in that if there is a brother or sister in need you must address there need 1st before the pagans than address the pagans depending on how much reserve you have, perpetually and material etc. Though there are usually exceptions to the general rules.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Cherie]

All Catholics who can name a Bishop at the Synod who's raising kids muster here, and say "Aye!"

*crickets*

I can't speak for Lilllabettt, but I think what she was responding to was your statement that it seems "needless" to cut off unchaste gay or cohabiting family members. When you are raising children and need to teach them the Faith, protect them from occasions of sin, and also show them how to battle the sin they encounter in the world while still keeping them from insidious bad influences (because they are so easily influenced when young!) ...that they are immortal souls entrusted to your care specifically in order to help them to Heaven, you would realize why cutting off family members who are publicly sinning may become a viable option.

[Lilllabettt]

All Catholics who can name a Bishop at the Synod who's raising kids muster here, and say "Aye!"

*crickets*

 

 

Lets play a game.

in a world

where lack of experience does not make understanding impossible

but misunderstanding is frequently rooted in lack of experience ...

there is a childless poster on a catholic message board (me) who does understand why catholic parents would have concerns re: friends who choose a gay lifestyle

and there are other posters on the same catholic message board (see assortment) who can't fathom why there would be an issue ... most likely because they lack experience in the catholic and/or parenting department