The Synod And Our Approach To Gay People

[Credo in Deum]

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.

 

It should also be mentioned that cutting the family member off is not an uncharitable action.  Excommunication is not meant to be uncharitable, but to help the person realize just how far they have strayed from the path and what awaits them if they continue on it. 

[Vitamin]

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

And if I was a priest it would be completely different, right?

[Vitamin]

It should also be mentioned that cutting the family member off is not an uncharitable action. Excommunication is not meant to be uncharitable, but to help the person realize just how far they have strayed from the path and what awaits them if they continue on it.

That only works if they care.

Oh, and mom and pop ain't the Pope.

[Credo in Deum]

That only works if they care.

Oh, and mom and pop ain't the Pope.

 

It actually works for both.  While they might not care right now, this does not mean they won't care later on.   

[Lilllabettt]

And if I was a priest it would be completely different, right?

 

 

no. if you're a priest who doesn't understand the concerns of catholic parents on this issue you are, in addition, bad at your job. 

[blazeingstar]

It should also be mentioned that cutting the family member off is not an uncharitable action.  Excommunication is not meant to be uncharitable, but to help the person realize just how far they have strayed from the path and what awaits them if they continue on it.

 

 

This is very true but hard, and it can be different for everyone.

 

One of my mom's  siblings is a serial adulterer and has had 4 or 5 marriages by now, (in about 20 years) and only appears to the family when he wants or needs something. 

 

My mom and grandmother embrace him with open arms and have gone to his multiple marriages, etc.  They just don't give him money.  My brother, on the other hand, never quite felt comfortable with him.  He always saw that Uncle X only came around when it was convenient. 

 

My brother has written off Uncle X and considers him immoral and a jerk for what he's done to his wives and ex-wives.  He has estranged himself.  For my part, I don't see what difference it makes as Uncle X makes no effort and so I don't, either...as does another brother.  Brother 3 puts him on every invitation, goes on his FB and activity tries (quite frankly with no reward).

 

Point being, my Uncle is not going to change.  Estrangement hasn't changed him, letting him decide the terms haven't changed him, and actively trying to be a good example hasn't.

 

I must admit, once I have kids, I'll be far more tempted to be more like brother 1 than 3, mostly because kids get attached and I think the the charade of marriages is cruel thing to expose a child to...not only that but like my brother I dearly loved my "step cousins" and as my Uncle was the one "in the wrong" it was devastating to loose several family members because he one day decided that their mother wasn't doing it for him anymore.

 

I think that's the same way with homosexuality.  It really depends on how a person acts, carries themselves and is, if I'd subject my kids to that.  Someone who's discreete, SURE! Bring it on.  You know, the Uncle who's lived with his college buddy for 10 years and goes everywhere with him.  As long as there's no inclination given to me it's anything besides roommates (no matter what they are) it really dosn't matter.  And really, that's the same for co-habitating couples.  Once married light PDA is fine...but again, I would distance myself (and any future children, or my "nieces/nephews") away from even a married couple that had too much PDA.  Light kisses, hugs, and other affection is fine, but overt sexual behavior is not ok in outside the bedroom.

 

That's how my friends raise their children, that's how I plan to raise mine.  And I will probably tolerate less when I do have kids, mostly because its not fair to make them live in a world with adult information and need to make adult decisions.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

cold shouldering doesn't have to mean no contact, though sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder and when they hit rock bottom like the prodigal son they repent and come home perhaps.

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

[Ice_nine]

I do think it poses an interesting question. There's a very widespread attitude amongst Catholics that it's okay to be gay if you're celibate but I don't want to hear about it. It's okay to have that orientation, but you shouldn't tell anyone about it. In theory we're very accepting of gay Catholics, but the failure to practice of that acceptance leads to people feeling alienated. We're struggling to support gay people in the Church, and something clearly needs to be done - and it can be done without compromising doctrine.

 

Amen to the bolded part. I think if we're really being honest with ourselves, there is a serious compassion problem with some segments of practicing Catholics. I think perhaps it's a human tendency for humans to over compensate. The world says there's nothing wrong with sodomy (which str8 people can engage in too bt dubbs) and even some believers say gay unions should be blessed so we must fight twice as hard to make damn sure that people know this is NOT the case. Rather than trying to dexterously walk that thin line where compassion and truth meet, we tend to use more blunt tools and bludgeon others with truth more often. Jesus said many tough things that need still to be said today, but look how he treated sinners. He conversed with them, ate with them, and allowed the broken to come to Him without breaking them any further.

 

There needs to be a balance, and I think people are just not paying attention if they truly believe there is a balance. I've seen well meaning Catholics insinuate that gays shouldn't have other gay friends because, you know, they may lust after them. And they shouldn't get too close to straight people either because, they may lust after them. Actually refrain from any intimate personal relationships of any kind because we all know that you won't be able to keep it in your pants. Occasion of sin and all. P.s. be celibate.

 

Our collective unwillingness to admit fault in being overly judgmental/not compassionate enough is a bit frustrating.

 

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.

 

This is really hard to me. I get really anxious in lot of social situations, almost physically ill when they approach matters that are extremely person (e.g. my faith). Maybe I use that as an excuse, I don't know. I haven't even really taken having children into account being single and a little self-centered. Yikes.

 

When I was younger I knew I had an uncle on the family tree, but I never saw him or knew anything about him, only that he lived far away. In my teenage years I started putting pieces together (he lives with another man) and assumed he was gay and it was just one of those family secrets. When I was 16 is when they told me that my uncle, well, was not really my uncle, but an aunt, sort of. I was shocked, a little miffed that they kept it from me, but looking back I think I was able to process it way better at 16 then I would have been at age 5. Children lack the ability to nuance. You don't have to shelter them forever, just long enough where they're able to handle an idea that just because person x does something wrong doesn't mean we don't love him, or just because person x is generally a good guy doesn't mean everything he does is moral.

 

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.

 

I tend to agree with this, and I hope you're right. I hope I'm not making excuses. Talking about these things in person is really difficult for me, even if people might agree, but especially if they get confrontational. I've made the mistake of voicing my opinion through social media (Lord have mercy on me) which of course only invites a maelstrom of ZOMG YOU BIGOT and LOVE IS LOVE WHY DO YOU HATE LOVE?!

 

I don't know, I think other people think I feel really good about saying I don't think gay marriage or birth control etc. is moral. As if by making such a proclamation I must believe I'm better than them or something. They don't see how I wrestle and writhe under the weight of my own sin and imperfections, how many times I ask God for mercy because I KNOW durn well how often I fail, and how often I must fail without even being conscious of it. How I pray that, even if only at the hour of death and by the skin of their teeth, they will be salvated. How I grappled with my sexuality when I was younger, but came to a different conclusion, people don't see that. How I still struggle often in vain to maintain a pure heart and a pure mind. I can't imagine I'm the only one who goes through this, but people tend to jump the gun and assume a superiority-complex if you take a firm moral stance.

[Ice_nine]

blah blah, words and such

 

that was a long post dang ain't nobody got time for that

[Not The Philosopher]

that was a long post dang ain't nobody got time for that

 

For what it's worth, I basically agree with your sentiments.

 

But, indeed, it is true that I have a paper due tomorrow plus readings and hence I probably don't actually have time for that.

[Benedictus]

Apparently some bishops are wanting a policy whereby the difficult and contentious social issues are dealt with in a gradualist approach, basically treating them as secondary 'later' issues. Issues that are tackled and unfold once the person is adequately formed and faithful. I agree that some of these are secondary points, and said so on here some time ago.

 

However, I don't think the argument being used by these bishops to advance this approach is being realistic. Firstly, the people to benefit most from any changes coming out of the synod are Catholics that are already in the pews, and have been for years. I don't think any changes in style will make droves of people come back. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm sceptical on that. So, in terms of this gradualist approach, how are diocese going to help shift people along, well, gradually? It seems to me that since the 1960's parishes have done very little to challenge, educate or dialogue with the laity. Where is the success of this gradualist shift of Catholics towards the official position been occurring all these years?

I think this idea is a ploy to placate those who have misgivings, trying to convince conservative bishops that the people will get more orthodox over time. I can't say I believe they think people will suddenly alter their positions when there's little evidence it has ever happened in the last forty years on any issue, at all, within the church. If anything, on some points at least, it has gone the other way.

 

My personal view is that the gradualist change they are talking about means more about the church moving its positions over time and not the other way around. It is merely laying the ground for this to happen within a generation or so, when the social and political situation allows, or propels it, to happen.

 

Do bishops really think this strategically? Yes, I think they do. The current Archbishop of Canterbury said in a news interview recently, if you read between the lines, that most of its bishops don't object to same sex marriage on theological grounds. They object the changes at home because it causes tension and unrest in other parts of the world, often where Christians are vulnerable. I also imagine they don't want to lose face and gain opposition with the more conservative elements in their communion. They favour unity over integrity. So they oppose progress in the short term out of compassion for overseas issues, but using theological reasons as the means to do it. I understand the challenges they have but it means they lose some integrity and have to face the reality of throwing some other people under the bus. I don't doubt the Catholic church does the same.

 

The balancing act this synod is trying to do could backfire and upset the various camps within the Catholic world. Either way I doubt it will serve to turn the pace of decline around, at least in the Western world. The church can only move at a slow pace to keep face and I don't think this pace is going to get anywhere close to a point where it can really keep up, at least officially, with the pace of change and expectation in the west.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Benedictus

[Norseman82]

To put your quotation from 1 Corinthians into its context which is a matter of scandalous behaviour by leadership and the same boasting of the matter and spreading it as something to be accepted as sound moral behaviour, creating a terrible indeed schism within the community in Corinth and one that evolved from within that community and by religious leadership.  It seems to be (Haydock's Catholic Commentary) about a leader of the community of believers in Corinth who was involved in a matter of incest and boasting about it.  He was a strong orator and so the matter (and a matter WITHIN the community of believers) took hold as acceptable moral behaviour and it spread and became a schism within the Corinth community.

 

 

 

I have never heard that interpretation before (just as I never heard the interpretation by a liberal protestant radical feminist pastor that the warning against being unequally yoked really referred to some Marxist class struggle).  I will let Nihil or someone who studies Patristics more comment. 

 

But the point I was responding to was to CrossCut's assertion that it doesn't harm anyone, whereas I was showing how the Bible states otherwise.   

Edited October 16, 2014 by Norseman82

[veritasluxmea]

Actually though, gradualism is a effective and legit way to evangelize and bring people to God. I think it's actually the most effective way to evangelize in a post-Christian society. I know there are concerns of compromising truth and all that during the synod, but that aside, but you can bring someone in gradually without compromising what's true. 

 

Sure, *sometimes* people have a Pauline conversion and that's it for them. Most people, God draws them in gradually. The story of the woman at the well is a good example and model of gradualism, and also the story of the woman caught in adultery. Meet people where they are and don't push, invite. 

Edited October 16, 2014 by veritasluxmea

[BarbTherese]

On the subject of relationships with gay family members or close friends.

 

If there is some sort of gathering where children will be present.  If my children were not old enough to understand, I would ask my gay relations or friends to introduce their partner as a friend and not to engage in signs of affection that would be confusing to children not yet old enough to understand.  I think that gay relations or friends should be mature enough to understand the situation and respond accordingly and I would be explaining to them that the children are not yet old enough to understand same sex relationships, nor then old enough to explain to them Church Teaching and why it exists.

 

If my children were old enough to understand, I would invite my gay relations or friends and take the opportunity prior to the event to explain things to my children and that gay relationships are against Church Teaching - and answer honestly any questions that may flow from that.  I would be explaining to those attending who are gay what I will be explaining to my children - and I would be asking them not to engage please in overt signs of mutual affection. 

 

In raising my own children, now independent adults, both my then husband and I both thought it was better that sexual matters of all kinds would be better first heard from us rather than in the playground or from strangers.

 

I think if my gay relations or friends respect me and therefore my religious beliefs, they will understand.  If they refuse to understand and object to observing what I have asked, then I might need to ask them not to attend.  I might loose their friendship.

[Benedictus]

Actually though, gradualism is a effective and legit way to evangelize and bring people to God. I think it's actually the most effective way to evangelize in a post-Christian society. I know there are concerns of compromising truth and all that during the synod, but that aside, but you can bring someone in gradually without compromising what's true. 

 

Sure, *sometimes* people have a Pauline conversion and that's it for them. Most people, God draws them in gradually. The story of the woman at the well is a good example and model of gradualism, and also the story of the woman caught in adultery. Meet people where they are and don't push, invite. 

 

The gradualist approach assumes most people in the pews hold orthodox positions and 'some' people haven't made it there yet. But in what sense is that really true? On contraception, on views towards homosexuality, on the role of women, on communion? These are all the things, by and large, deemed as secondary issues. But, especially in the west, large factions of Catholics refute the gradualist idea as it applies to some points.

 

Sure, people hopefully grow in holiness. In that sense I accept that people change and grow over time; you can't necessarily expect a full knowledge and maturity at the start.  But it doesn't mean they necessarily change views on certain issues as they go.  I personally reject the idea that a person is more liberal minded on doctrine issues because they don't yet fully understand the Catholic position. I welcome a more 'open church' engagement but I don't think anyone should deceive themselves that masses of people will grow more in tune with Vatican teaching as a result of time and effort.

 

In terms of post Christian society - yes we need to be more willing to engage. But we also have to recognise that most people see the church through the prism of the major contentious issues, and we need to be able to handle these or people won't be interested.

 

At the minute I know Catholics who either dodge the issues, tell people they reject those teachings fully (and tell others to ignore them also) or they give the person a dogmatics lecture. None of these is necessarily a good way to go with non Catholics. But what do most parishes do to train, lead and enable the laity to have the skills necessary to evangelise in a post Christian world? In my experience not very much.