The "papal Honeymoon" Is Over

[Lilllabettt]

Remember: he has a lot of maturing to do, too. He's in that "MUST PROVE MANLINESS. MUST BE BUTTHEAD TO BE DEVOUT," stage that so many of us had to go through to get where we are now.
 
 

 

 

lol. 

yes, you have come so far, FH.  Once you were like FP but now you are far far beyond FP.

between you two he is the one who is immature.

lolz

[franciscanheart]

lol. 
yes, you have come so far, FH.  Once you were like FP but now you are far far beyond FP.
between you two he is the one who is immature.
lolz

I'm glad that's the one thing you took from everything I posted. :like:

[Lilllabettt]

well unfortunately no matter how great your message is it gets lost if your delivery stinks. 

 

...

 

 

the irony should be approaching lethal levels at this point. 

[franciscanheart]

Mea culpa? Still, I don't see how your commentary helps progress the conversation at all. :huh: For what it's worth, I have shown extreme restraint. :like:

[Basilisa Marie]

The Church in her infancy did not come to peace with (aka accommodate) popular sins of the time, she gave the peace of Christ to persons who would except it. Pagan Rome at the time was much more sinful than today. There were many odd unions which were sexual in nature between persons then, as well as many other strange sins. She didn't come to peace with those sins, in fact she was so 'confrontational' against the world to the point that many of the faithful at the time were martyred. Perhaps our generation is just more enlightened and the blood of those martyrs was somewhat meaningless.

 

Yeah, lots of people were martyred, and that was heroic witness to the truth. But that same Church also decided that the ones who chose not to be martyred because they denied the faith were to be allowed back into the fold, many without any sort of major act of reparation (i.e. years of literal sackcloth and ashes). And how did some people respond to that show of mercy? By leaving the Church and doing their own thing. 

 

No one's calling to change any of our doctrines, people are trying to figure out the best way to help people grow in their relationship with Christ. Maybe for some people they really need that kick in the pantaloons. But that's not going to work when they already have a hostile view of the Church, or if they already know that their situation is bad. 

Edited October 28, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[PhuturePriest]

Remember: he has a lot of maturing to do, too. He's in that "MUST PROVE MANLINESS. MUST BE BUTTHEAD TO BE DEVOUT," stage that so many of us had to go through to get where we are now.
 
YES. This. (A person with a brain! And a heart! That communicate! AMEN!)
 
No one is suggesting we should change the teaching of the Church. You say you're all for empathy and compassion, and then demand that we present a reality in words which convey, immediately and without mercy, the bottom line. Should we present the bottom line? Sure. Should we acknowledge sin for what it is? Of course. So where does God's Infinite Mercy come in? The way you have presented things, mercy is removed from the discussion.
 
Most of what you're saying (over and over again) is that homosexual acts are sinful and disgraceful in the eyes of God and therefore the Church. We know that. There's no need to keep repeating it to sound faithful or dominate the conversation with Truth. We're all on the same page, and so far, all in agreement about the gravity of those sins. But that's not the focus on the conversation here, or there. The issue is how we address these things, and how we evangelize. In your perspective, as presented by you, we tell people straight up that God wants you in Heaven so you better quit that gay poo; it's an abomination.

Do you see where this might not be an effective means of conversion on the global scale?
 
 
Storing this one away for future reference. :like:
 
It doesn't interest me, but then, I don't much care for people who are like, "I have a black friend. He's okay with me making racist comments. So, what's your problem?" Kinda the same thing.

On the whole, we've seen as a Church, I think, that our approach isn't working. Not because our teachings are wrong or mean or anything like that, but because the tone is all wrong, and people can't hear the mercy. I've struggled with it here at phatmass for years, and I'm a faithful Catholic. :like:
 
No one is suggesting it's strange for you to be loyal to the Church. In fact, if anything, your passion for being right blinds you. Where is the compassion of Christ? You lack it sometimes, though I'm sure it doesn't feel that way.

 

I've never said or implied (at least intentionally) that anyone here wishes the Church would relax its teaching. However, I don't see how watering down language will help. Watering down language to make people take the bite will only make them bitter when they learn the Church still sees these sins as something which cries retribution from heaven.

 

One of my best friends is a gay Wiccan Hindu. We talk about this quite a bit, and you would be amazed that even though I am not shy around charitably telling him the truth about his acts (Not in a "You're going to hell and crying out to heaven for retribution!" type of way, but in an actually tactful manner that does mention the gravity of what he does), he still likes me a lot and we speak on a daily basis. He is, I would venture to say, the closest and best friend I have at this moment. He is both fully aware of God's love for him, and fully aware of the gravity of his acts (He was raised Catholic, for the record). That is what I am getting at: We either go too far one way or too far the other. Liberals sometimes speak solely of how God loves us, and traditionalists sometimes speak solely about how God hates your sin and what you're doing. Both are just as damaging, and both are only one side of the whole truth. I am for telling all of the truth, not just half.

 

All I've taken from your last paragraph is a reaffirmation that I am right. :|

[blazeingstar]

I've never said or implied (at least intentionally) that anyone here wishes the Church would relax its teaching. However, I don't see how watering down language will help. Watering down language to make people take the bite will only make them bitter when they learn the Church still sees these sins as something which cries retribution from heaven.

 

One of my best friends is a gay Wiccan Hindu. We talk about this quite a bit, and you would be amazed that even though I am not shy around charitably telling him the truth about his acts (Not in a "You're going to hell and crying out to heaven for retribution!" type of way, but in an actually tactful manner that does mention the gravity of what he does), he still likes me a lot and we speak on a daily basis. He is, I would venture to say, the closest and best friend I have at this moment. He is both fully aware of God's love for him, and fully aware of the gravity of his acts (He was raised Catholic, for the record). That is what I am getting at: We either go too far one way or too far the other. Liberals sometimes speak solely of how God loves us, and traditionalists sometimes speak solely about how God hates your sin and what you're doing. Both are just as damaging, and both are only one side of the whole truth. I am for telling all of the truth, not just half.

 

All I've taken from your last paragraph is a reaffirmation that I am right. :|

 

Yeah, I don't think you're seeing the point or comprehending the issues as they often play out in the world today.

 

We're not talking about one lapsed Catholic gay wiccan hindu vegetarian martial artist, we're talking about a vast population who's often very hateful and very militant against Catholics.

 

And the Pope is saying that both sides have to come to a middle ground.  Part of that middle ground, however, does involve changing some language that is not divine (eg from the Bible) so that people can understand it better.

 

Language is a powerful tool but gets dated.  I mean just look at when people begin the Our Father or Hail Mary.  I know traditionalists who just about loose their top if you say "the" and "your" rather than "thee" and "tho".   And "thee" is not really Biblical, the Latin/Aramaic dosn't add up...its just how it was translated into English back in the 1500's.  Those languages don't even have classifiers.   So to change our language, weither it be thee's or anything else is part of a natural evolution of culture and language and, yes, even feeling.
 

[CrossCuT]

FP so then are you like a big fan of the Westboro Baptist church? Cuz they sure dont water things down. 

Edited October 28, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Kateri89]

I wonder if I'm missing the point of this thread.  Lots of debate going back and forth about not "watering down" teachings of the Church vs. being charitable and relying on gradualism but has anybody given any concrete examples of what we should be doing?  For instance, would it be good for parishes to have support groups for their parishioners with homosexual inclinations or would that be counterproductive since it would single them out?  Should priests be giving more homilies on the Church's teachings about homosexual acts while also emphasizing God's mercy?  Forgive me but it seems that this thread would be much more productive if instead of arguing over someone's intent (words can be interpreted very differently when read instead of heard) we actually floated some solid ideas around.

[blazeingstar]

I wonder if I'm missing the point of this thread.  Lots of debate going back and forth about not "watering down" teachings of the Church vs. being charitable and relying on gradualism but has anybody given any concrete examples of what we should be doing?  For instance, would it be good for parishes to have support groups for their parishioners with homosexual inclinations or would that be counterproductive since it would single them out?  Should priests be giving more homilies on the Church's teachings about homosexual acts while also emphasizing God's mercy?  Forgive me but it seems that this thread would be much more productive if instead of arguing over someone's intent (words can be interpreted very differently when read instead of heard) we actually floated some solid ideas around.

 

That's what the whole sinoid was all about.  To come up with those ideas.  The issue is that many people are against changing the language and the outreach at all because they feel it would water things down.

[Not The Philosopher]

Peeps in this thread should have a glass of wine and maybe take a bubble bath and then resume the discussion. (FP can have grape juice or some such thing)

[Credo in Deum]

I think one thing which could help would be to reach out to homosexuals and to let them know they're not alone. While all of us may struggle with different things, the one common denominator between all of us is that we all do struggle and that we are all struggling in order to have a relationship with the Risen Christ. Hopefully this will help us discover or even re-discover Christ's lovableness and how this has helped us stay faithful to Him and His Church.

[PhuturePriest]

Then maybe you shouldn't start off your contribution to a thread with a rather callous quip, if you intend to be understood with more nuance? 

 

Perhaps you should read closer?

 

The most charitable thing you can do for a person is tell them the truth. Not telling them the truth is uncharitable. As I said before, it is true that homosexual acts are a sin that cry out to God for retribution. It is also true that God loves us all regardless of inclination and wants us in heaven. It is just as harmful to be selective and only tell the nice part of the truth as it is to be selective and tell only the negative side of the truth.

[PhuturePriest]

FP so then are you like a big fan of the Westboro Baptist church? Cuz they sure dont water things down. 

 

Not only do they not water things down, they take things further than Church teaching does. God does not hate people with gay inclinations, as they so ardently profess. And again, though I feel having to say this on four separate posts is overkill, it is apparently needed to once again say what I have since the beginning: Telling only one side of the truth is harmful, be it the positive side or the negative side. The Westboro Baptist Church takes only the negative side, and it one-ups it by making it even more negative than it actually is.

 

I'll look past the fact that you suggested I like the Westboro Baptist Church, which is an ad hominem you should know better than to make.

Edited October 28, 2014 by FuturePacker

[blazeingstar]

I think one thing which could help would be to reach out to homosexuals and to let them know they're not alone. While all of us may struggle with different things, the one common denominator between all of us is that we all do struggle and that we are all struggling in order to have a relationship with the Risen Christ. Hopefully this will help us discover or even re-discover Christ's lovableness and how this has helped us stay faithful to Him and His Church.

 

I am not going to speak for homosexuals, but I'm going to say it because FH has mentioned it.

 

I think that "we all struggle" is really, really dismissive of what they are going through.  Its just like how biological sexual purity is often harder for males.  They think about sex all the time because of their hormones.  To tell a man who's dealing with sexual thoughts he dosn't want, "well, we all struggle" is hugely dismissive.  I'm not going to tell my husband, "well we all have our issues" because he through no fault of his own aroused in a public and he was embarrassed at that.  Even if I just tripped over my own feet and caused a scene.  I would tell him to take a deep breath, and try to relax and think of something that will help him regain downstairs normality.  I'm not going to make his struggle something I cannot possibly relate to.

 

They can no more change being homosexual, as one can change being Pakistani or German.  To say "well we all sin, we all struggle"  Most of us don't struggle on a daily basis with something that flies in the face of ordered behavior.  We struggle with sins that are more or less typical.  Most of our sins couldn't get us killed or ostracized 100 years ago.