The Church needs to change - but not in the way they all say

[dUSt]

I read the article. There are a lot of good points and truths in it. There is also an overall tone of condoning same-sex marriage. When I was reading it I felt it was written by a sheep, but then after, I felt like it was written by a wolf. Final conclusion: Meh.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I saw that overall tone too and I wasn't sure if it's due to the language or for real... But if the article is saying that its ok to have homosexual "civil marriage" I don't think that's the Church teaching. It goes right against what I read from a Pope on relation of Church and society. 

Maybe it made me uncomfortable because of the huge stress on everything "pastoral" - but how is this meant?. for example... Its not "pastoral" to allow practising homosexuals, or people in any sinful situation, etc, to have Communion or even absolution if they aren't willing to change their situation.

Its actually presumption.. Like saying "I'm sorry I robbed a bank" while intending to rob another bank tomorrow rather than - stopping robbing banks, and removing occasions of sin to rob banks. (Lol sorry not sure why I chose that analogy). 

Edited July 15, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Ice_nine]

I read the article. There are a lot of good points and truths in it. There is also an overall tone of condoning same-sex marriage. When I was reading it I felt it was written by a sheep, but then after, I felt like it was written by a wolf. Final conclusion: Meh.

Where exactly did this condonation (I don't think that's a real world but it should be)?

I think people get uncomfortable when people say "gay relationships have positive things and aren't 100% horrible." I mean even though two gay people may love each other and be loyal to one another there's that nagging thought that illicit things are likely happening, and will perpetually happen in the relationship. But does that mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater?  I kind of saw how the articlae was referring to that but I didn't see an endorsement of gay marriage anywhere really.

[Peace]

It is truly sad and frustrating to me that so many Catholics are so completely utterly clueless about Theology of the Body. Forget the normals. You Catholics don't have a clue.You cannot even ridicule it properly, you are so ignorant. Reject it if you want but don't you think you should get it before you reject it?

HOW MANY YEARS HAS IT BEEN since John Paul II died? HMMM??? And we have had this Theology of the Body stuff packaged, and marketed, and smacked on lunchboxes. And you still don't get it.

arrrrghhhhh

Why is contraceptive sex wrong according to the Church, friends? Is it because the Church thinks its icky? Is it because it is *impossible* for God to make a baby when the sex is contraceptive???

p.s. you know why people are suspicious whenever people talk about showing love for homosexual individuals? Because the people who are loudest about that so often turn out to be frickin traitors to the cause.  E.g. the Deacon who gave the homily after the Supremes decision. Long arse homily on how we haven't been welcoming of gay people and how we need to love them. "Yes" thought me. "A challenging sermon. Exactly what we need to hear." The he ends the thing by remarking that although the Church's teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage hasn't changed,no doubt we will be wrestling with moral dilemmas on the subject in the future. In other words, earth to congregation, the Church is one day going to bless gay relationships, so get used to it!

 

 

 

 

 

Theology of the what now was it?

[CrossCuT]

I went to a seminar on Theology of the body waaaay back in high school when I was a prim and proper Catholic lady. Ill admit to not remember much other than the general "bodies are special; love is cool; sex feels good! but you can only do it under these circumstances: x, y, z, 1 ,2 3 otherwise youre a lustful heathen going to hell!" 

How much infallibility do we attribute to Theology of the Body? Is it the fruit directly from the mouth of God that must be obeyed as plainly as the commandments?

[Papist]

This article has it backwards.  The culture is at war with the Church. Not the other way round.

[CrossCuT]

This article has it backwards.  The culture is at war with the Church. Not the other way round.

Oh I thought we were going to go an entire conversation without bringing that point up. The author calls this out too:

Catholics must be careful not to develop a “Masada complex” that would reduce our self-understanding to that of a besieged minority. Such a narrow self-perception is contrary to the generous, expansive nature of the good news we seek to share.

I was actually quite surprised that Lillllabetttt didnt chime in with how oppressed she was.

[franciscanheart]

Actually according to philosophers like Dietrich von Hildebrand its not true that "anything goes" in marriage. Marriage acts can be lustful and incorrect too. Even theologians who allow more than him typically might not allow sodomy in a marriage. (Sodomy referring to your example... I just don't like using those words).

Am I correct, anyone??

The difference is it contradicting God's moral law. 

I wish you wouldn't use the word Sodomy to mean anal sex. It's accepted definition actually also involves oral sex. I don't know how old you are, but I assume if you're in these discussions, you're old enough to call it what it is.

 

yes the good is in God's response and action, not in the event itself

I think why people including me got cautious is because there's a whole movement in the Church trying to make the Church accept things it doesn't just to be "pastoral" and a lot of the heterodox movements have used this language before too... Like people who wanted to use V2 in any way they want without tradition. I have no problem with kindness to individuals.. Just it needs to be with doctrinal purity. I don't know what the article meant but it sometimes ambiguous and didn't clarify if it agrees with those sub movements or not? 

ok! And yes I agree about talking to a good priest. 

So you assume the worst about anyone who suggests love and charity? So when I say that a more pastoral approach is needed, you're going to assume that I'm asking the Church to change something which She cannot? You're going to label me a heretic and heathen because I am gay and I am waving a flag about the treatment of people like me in the Church?

Forgive me for thinking that most unwise. Forgive me for thinking that a cowardly and un-Christlike approach.

 

It is truly sad and frustrating to me that so many Catholics are so completely utterly clueless about Theology of the Body. Forget the normals. You Catholics don't have a clue.You cannot even ridicule it properly, you are so ignorant. Reject it if you want but don't you think you should get it before you reject it?

HOW MANY YEARS HAS IT BEEN since John Paul II died? HMMM??? And we have had this Theology of the Body stuff packaged, and marketed, and smacked on lunchboxes. And you still don't get it.

arrrrghhhhh

Why is contraceptive sex wrong according to the Church, friends? Is it because the Church thinks its icky? Is it because it is *impossible* for God to make a baby when the sex is contraceptive???

p.s. you know why people are suspicious whenever people talk about showing love for homosexual individuals? Because the people who are loudest about that so often turn out to be frickin traitors to the cause.  E.g. the Deacon who gave the homily after the Supremes decision. Long arse homily on how we haven't been welcoming of gay people and how we need to love them. "Yes" thought me. "A challenging sermon. Exactly what we need to hear." The he ends the thing by remarking that although the Church's teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage hasn't changed,no doubt we will be wrestling with moral dilemmas on the subject in the future. In other words, earth to congregation, the Church is one day going to bless gay relationships, so get used to it!

So because there are some bad eggs, we're going to interrogate and crucify every person who is asking for love, kindness, and compassion? Forgive me for not thinking that an acceptable response. I'm going to call [i][color=#ff0000]the essence of cow[/color][/i] on that. Never once have I asked for the Church to change her ways. Never once have I asked you or anyone else to say it's okay for me to have gay sex. Never ONCE have I challenged the Church's teaching on sex and sexual morality. But I won't shut up. I won't stop pleading. And I won't stop calling out [i][color=#ff0000]the essence of cow[/color][/i] when I see it. Because I am no less deserving of compassion than anyone else.

 

I saw that overall tone too and I wasn't sure if it's due to the language or for real... But if the article is saying that its ok to have homosexual "civil marriage" I don't think that's the Church teaching. It goes right against what I read from a Pope on relation of Church and society. 

Maybe it made me uncomfortable because of the huge stress on everything "pastoral" - but how is this meant?. for example... Its not "pastoral" to allow practising homosexuals, or people in any sinful situation, etc, to have Communion or even absolution if they aren't willing to change their situation.

Its actually presumption.. Like saying "I'm sorry I robbed a bank" while intending to rob another bank tomorrow rather than - stopping robbing banks, and removing occasions of sin to rob banks. (Lol sorry not sure why I chose that analogy). 

oh my goodness (don't blasphemy). Maybe I walked away from the article seeing a call to compassion and not all the lurking wolves because I'm so desperate for someone to see that when I suggest a more "pastoral" approach, I'm not asking for approval to have all the gay sex I want. Can none of you let down your guard for one second? Can you not see that the Church is not going to crumble because some people do not yet understand in their hearts the sexual morality the Church teaches?

Do you not see how many people you are ostracizing by your paranoia? Do you not see how you fail to hear what people are really saying when you assign meaning to words that do not exist?

I'm suggesting (and have long suggested) compassion. Love. Kindness. Respect. Dignity. EQUALITY in treatment within the Church -- not in granting gay marriage but in how we are talked to, talked about, and included in parish life.

Take off the gloves and hold my HAND. Be Christ to me the way Christ was with the lepers.

SEE THAT WE ARE HURTING AND FIND IT IN YOUR HEART TO LOVE US, NOT ASSUME WE ARE TRYING TO CORRUPT THE CHURCH.

[Not The Philosopher]

iunno I think it's fair to say that the culture at large wants to talk about sex ad nauseam, particularly same-sex-sex, and wants to pick a fight with the Church about it because she's the biggest kid in the playground. Nobody (except maybe Richard Dawkins) cares about, say, our quaint beliefs about the Real Presence, and so you don't get a lot of op-ed pieces about that.

I was talking with my godfather the other day, and agreed that most of the, "gays are gross and icky and let's go lynch them," stuff we've heard came out of the mouths of people who were irreligious. I'm sure there are jerks who say stuff like that in the Church, but you can find jerks everywhere, and you're likely not gonna convert their hearts with a pastoral program.

Anyhow, when the Church has condemned same-sex relationships, I've typically read her as condemning, you know, the sexual/erotic part. Not the fact that Tim looked after Jim during his struggle with cancer, or that when the Church condemns the use of contraception, they're not condemning the fact that the contracepting spouses really love their 1.5 kids, but rather the fact that they're contracepting.

[franciscanheart]

iunno I think it's fair to say that the culture at large wants to talk about sex ad nauseam, particularly same-sex-sex, and wants to pick a fight with the Church about it because she's the biggest kid in the playground. Nobody (except maybe Richard Dawkins) cares about, say, our quaint beliefs about the Real Presence, and so you don't get a lot of op-ed pieces about that.

I was talking with my godfather the other day, and agreed that most of the, "gays are gross and icky and let's go lynch them," stuff we've heard came out of the mouths of people who were irreligious. I'm sure there are jerks who say stuff like that in the Church, but you can find jerks everywhere, and you're likely not gonna convert their hearts with a pastoral program.

Anyhow, when the Church has condemned same-sex relationships, I've typically read her as condemning, you know, the sexual/erotic part. Not the fact that Tim looked after Jim during his struggle with cancer, or that when the Church condemns the use of contraception, they're not condemning the fact that the contracepting spouses really love their 1.5 kids, but rather the fact that they're contracepting.

I'm not sure I follow. Also, I think the "pastoral program" is geared more toward the homosexual in the pew and less toward the homophic parishioners.

[superblue]

Miracle OR IS IT A WITCH ! 

[Era Might]

She means that man and woman, husband and wife, are called to a vocation [marriage] which cooperates with God in the work of creation. Homosexual unions cannot fulfill this requirement even if they wanted to; however, infertile couples still do, since if by God's will a miracle [children] was to be granted to them, it would not be one which is opposesed the very reason for why He created us male and female.

I agree.  Also loved the addition of those all too familiar words "pastoral" and "dialog".  Makes me wonder what Christ words "those who aren't with me, are against me" would be met with today.  Maybe some would tell Christ he needs to be a little bit more pastoral and a little less black and white.

I think Christ's words are met today the same way they have always been met: if not with hostility, then complacently.

This line from the article stood out to me:

"In crafting a new pastoral approach, we should dispense with the facile and dangerous assumption that the 'culture war' is in large part a battle between Christians and gay people."

This is always a problem when you have religious people. They tend to take Christ's phrases like "those who aren't with me, are against me" complacently, because everyone wants to be on the right side, and what better side to be on than God's. But Christ's words are not about setting up a line between the Correct and the Incorrect...he deals just as harshly with the Correct as the Incorrect, because both are far from the heart of God. Note the context of his words about being with him:

 

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

--Matthew 12:30-32

He is not setting up a division between the Correct and Incorrect or even the Good and the Bad. He's actually condemning those who "scatter" rather than gather, and the Correct are those who scatter even worse than the Incorrect, because the Correct drive out those who God's mercy is visiting.

The American-style "faith and family" Christianity is facile and complacent. It wants to keep up appearances. The zealousness to save society from homosexuals is a self-exorcism...Christians want to drive out what they are trying to escape in themselves, their own lusts and their own failures to live a radical life. But in early Christianity, Christians did this by avoiding society, whereas today, Christians want to do this by creating the perfect society. In early Christianity, they drove demons out of people and escaped the world.

To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is essentially to give up hope and faith that the Spirit is at work in the world...the more Christians try to keep up appearances and create the perfect society, the more they blaspheme against the Spirit, because they deny that he is at work in sin. How can Christ gather unless something has been scattered, how can he forgive a sin unless it has been committed and recognized?

To me, the root of the problem here is the very Christian ideals of chastity and purity...they are radical, and Christians are complacent. There are two options: use society as a proxy exorcism where we drive out that which we do not want to acknowledge lives in our own hearts and our own marriages (lusts, boredom, complacency, routine), or make a new commitment to Christ's words as a path to a radical way of life? In other words, to recognize the mercy of God at work in us, and through us, in the world, rather than scattering all that the Spirit is at work gathering and building toward redemption.

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God" --1Peter 4:17

Edited July 15, 2015 by Era Might

[Not The Philosopher]

I'm not sure I follow. Also, I think the "pastoral program" is geared more toward the homosexual in the pew and less toward the homophic parishioners.

I wrote my post before yours went up, so it isn't meant as a response or anything. I'm just kinda firing thoughts and comments that popped in my head, which may or may not make any sense.

 

[Era Might]

Are people who poison themselves with food really "eating" in any genuine sense of the term? They are ingesting objects but deriving no nourishment from them. In fact the opposite, they are actually poisoning themselves.  They are "feeding" not eating. In the same way people merely "screw" when they have gay/contraceptive/unmarried intercourse. They aren't having real sex they are poisoning themselves for the fun of it.

I wish corrupt sex made people as visibly, physically, unwell as corrupt eating does. It would be less attractive that way.

I don't like the argument from nature, but I'll leave that for another thread. I appreciate the point about food as a spiritual/cultural act and not merely physically gorging. BUT, I think this is not a great analogy with sex. I don't think people really have any idea what sex is, neither religious people nor non-religious people. We know how to do it (probably based on various ideas in our heads about "how" to do it), maybe we do it with spouses, maybe with men, maybe with women, but I don't think people are generally self-aware enough to know what they are doing. And I think that's precisely what makes sex so powerful...it is a way of discovering ourselves with another person. There are plenty of people in the world who have done everything with everyone, and they come to a point where that doesn't hold the same appeal. Why? Because they have gained self-knowledge and they know what sex is and isn't. I don't think being in a loving/committed sexual relationship is necessarily an advantage. It has certain advantages in terms of creating a healthy balance, but people who have never gone over the edge don't know what lies beyond...and EVERYONE'S sexual desire is bound up with what lies beyond, the unknown. When a mistress ceases to be a mistress, it gets boring. Why? Because the unknown is gone...now it's just another woman in your life that you have to spend time/money on. Married couples going through their sexual routine year after year are having "lawful" or "natural" sex, but are they gaining self-knowledge? Probably not...and it may take a crisis in their marriage to realize what sex is, and what it isn't.

So, I'm not so much arguing your point as extending the question: not just are people who "poison" themselves "eating" in a genuine sense, but whether people who have "normal" or "healthy" sex are really having sex in any genuine sense. That's a question people don't feel the need to ask...sex serves as a useful "outlet" in the routine of life, and there is a certain satisfaction in that UNTIL you are faced with a crisis, personal or in the relationship, and the routine is disrupted, and you are tempted to see what lies beyond the line that you have never crossed.

[franciscanheart]

I wrote my post before yours went up, so it isn't meant as a response or anything. I'm just kinda firing thoughts and comments that popped in my head, which may or may not make any sense.

Totally understand and assumed as much. Sorry if my response came across as aggressive. I rather disregarded the first couple of paragraphs since it seemed a muse and not really anything to which I should respond. The last part is what I didn't really follow -- at least as far as a point to be made was concerned. I see the Church (big C) as condemning the sexual acts but I don't see the compassion and care in the church (little c) when dealing with those who would even be inclined towards such actions. Make sense?

And yes, for those wondering, even I tire of talking about it sometimes. ... And then I have another interaction with someone lacking compassion and my little heart breaks all over again. And when my heart breaks, a fire starts up inside. So.