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

[CrossCuT]

I do believe that at some point, peoples hatred of the sin runs so deep it starts to cloud how they perceive the people. We start to see instances like a few comments in this thread that are just riddled with disdain and even hope that certain sinners suffer for their actions. Is it really getting so far past Gods mercy that we twist it into wishing bodily harm on others?

Is this a Catholic forum?

Christians always point fingers at the Atheists for being these barbaric, hate filled monstrosities. I see that in THIS thread.

Edited July 15, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Credo in Deum]

 

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 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

So much I want to say, but I think I can sum up everything in one piece of advice; Please for the love of Holy Scripture and Tradition, pick up a Catholic Commentary.  Preferably Haydock.  

I do believe that at some point, peoples hatred of the sin runs so deep it starts to cloud how they perceive the people. We start to see instances like a few comments in this thread that are just riddled with disdain and even hope that certain sinners suffer for their actions. Is it really getting so far past Gods mercy that we twist it into wishing bodily harm on others?

Is this a Catholic forum?

Christians always point fingers at the Atheists for being these barbaric, hate filled monstrosities. I see that in THIS thread.

It always fascinates me how you're so good at seeing these things in other people but never yourself.

[MarysLittleFlower]

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.

I get really confused by that train of thought to be honest. I mean let's say there are two gay people who love each other. But they do love each other romantically... which is an acceptance of their same sex attraction and they're not removing themselves from an occasion of sin. Isn't this different than if they were to have feelings for each other and then say "my expression of chastity in the Church is celibacy, this will not help me to be celibate, so I don't want these feelings". I'm sure that is very hard to do.. but I mean this concept is not just for homosexuals, I don't want to single them out. In many other situations it can happen too, like having feelings for a person married to someone else. Then you also should say "No" to the feelings. When people say that "gay relationships have positive things", the difficulty is not that the people have positive traits in them that they use in a relationship with another person, but that the nature of the relationship is romantic which is an acceptance of homosexuality in their case, isn't it? I'd rather say something like... the person has many good traits. But the relationship is not allowed in the Church and they could still use these traits in other relationships like friendships.

[franciscanheart]

I do believe that at some point, peoples hatred of the sin runs so deep it starts to cloud how they perceive the people.

This part I can get behind. Or maybe, they get so riled up about the law -- the affinity for law itself runs so deep -- that it clouds their perception of the humans standing in front of them, often without them realizing it.

[Era Might]

So much I want to say, but I think I can sum up everything in one piece of advice; Please for the love of Holy Scripture and Tradition, pick up a Catholic Commentary.  Preferably Haydock.  

It always fascinates me how you're so good at seeing these things in other people but never yourself.

I have a Haydock Bible...what makes you think I don't love Holy Scripture and Tradition?

Edited July 15, 2015 by Era Might

[CrossCuT]

 

It always fascinates me how you're so good at seeing these things in other people but never yourself.

I invite you to quote all the times I've wished for bodily harm on people I disagreed with so i can personally apologize to people I've hurt.

[Amppax]

I invite you to quote all the times I've wished for bodily harm on people I disagreed with so i can personally apologize to people I've hurt.

Where exactly has someone in this thread wished bodily harm on someone? 

[franciscanheart]

I get really confused by that train of thought to be honest. I mean let's say there are two gay people who love each other. But they do love each other romantically... which is an acceptance of their same sex attraction and they're not removing themselves from an occasion of sin. Isn't this different than if they were to have feelings for each other and then say "my expression of chastity in the Church is celibacy, this will not help me to be celibate, so I don't want these feelings". I'm sure that is very hard to do.. but I mean this concept is not just for homosexuals, I don't want to single them out. In many other situations it can happen too, like having feelings for a person married to someone else. Then you also should say "No" to the feelings. When people say that "gay relationships have positive things", the difficulty is not that the people have positive traits in them that they use in a relationship with another person, but that the nature of the relationship is romantic which is an acceptance of homosexuality in their case, isn't it? I'd rather say something like... the person has many good traits. But the relationship is not allowed in the Church and they could still use these traits in other relationships like friendships.

There's one of the things I find issue with. The feelings are just that: feelings. I can't change them. I can't will them away. Feelings are one of those tricky things in life that you just have to learn to deal with. You have to let them happen and keep moving. That's true of sexual feelings, romantic feelings, sadness, grief, anger, happiness. Feelings are not things we can change.

I think what you're suggesting is that someone should deny their sexual impulse. That's very different than having feelings for someone. My feelings about women will likely never go away. I will continue to have feelings for people all the time. Whether or not I entertain the thoughts that can accompany those feelings is something else entirely. But I have every reason to acknowledge the feelings, acknowledge the reality, and move forward in chaste celibacy.

And no, having feelings for someone who is married is not the same as having feelings for someone of the same sex.

[Credo in Deum]

I have a Haydock Bible...what makes you think I don't love Holy Scripture and Tradition?

You should read it.  I never said you didn't love Scripture or Tradition.  

[MarysLittleFlower]

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.

 

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.

 

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 the essence of cow 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 the essence of cow when I see it. Because I am no less deserving of compassion than anyone else.

 

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.

Franciscanheart, I'm sorry if I said anything unhelpful but I'm trying to navigate this topic so that both charity and truth are respected. I'm not saying you aren't! I think we're maybe talking past each other. I'll address the points you brought up..

- I used the word 'sodomy' because regardless of my age, I don't feel it's modest using certain words. This is my own conscience. I also don't support anything and everything in marriage. I actually tend to believe the most ideal for marriage is just the marriage act itself.

- No I'm not going to label you as anything if you use the word "pastoral". It depends how you use it. Since I read your past posts, if you use that word I'll assume you're meaning it simply as it is. If a person I don't know at all uses it, again I don't actually want to assume the worst about them. I don't believe in assuming bad about people. It was some other things mentioned in the article that made me uncomfortable with their use of "pastoral". I have no problem at all with charity though.

- Franciscanheart, I'm going to address your past paragraph now. Firstly please forgive me if what I said made things worse for you. But I think we are just approaching the topic from different perspectives. As you said, you saw the article as a call to compassion because you want people to understand that when you ask for a pastoral approach you're not trying to change Church teaching. I came to the article after my own struggles which are different. I interpreted it based on my own past with such language. I don't mean charity. I don't mean kindness. I mean people who DO try to change the church teaching. I'm not saying that is you..

Is the Church going to crumble because of some people not understanding sexual morality? No, but I would rather they understood... for their souls. Just like with every other topic.

I'll tell you what I think more clearly if this will help.

I do love you and I don't at all think that you or any person with SSA is trying to corrupt the Church. I don't see you as any sort of "different" Catholic than me. In fact, you are probably a much better Catholic. The fact that you have SSA doesn't mean you're a different, or lesser Catholic. NOTHING I said applies to people in the Church with SSA. I was speaking of law makers who are trying to have 'gay marriage' and all the rest. ONLY them and people who support that. I don't see you as the lepers either. I am more of a leper than you because of things I struggle with, which I don't speak on this forum.

[Era Might]

You should read it.  I never said you didn't love Scripture or Tradition.  

Ok.

[CrossCuT]

This part I can get behind. Or maybe, they get so riled up about the law -- the affinity for law itself runs so deep -- that it clouds their perception of the humans standing in front of them, often without them realizing it.

that has been the overwhelming majority in my experiences. I get tired for the "hate the sin, love the sinner" deal. I've referred to it as the ripple effect. When we become cool with allowing any type of hatred in, it seeps into other areas. I don't think people realize it, I dunno. But it's hard when they equate poor behavior towards fellow sinners as tough love or Christian chairty. It's a real funny thing when the hatred is referred to as concern for their soul. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

There's one of the things I find issue with. The feelings are just that: feelings. I can't change them. I can't will them away. Feelings are one of those tricky things in life that you just have to learn to deal with. You have to let them happen and keep moving. That's true of sexual feelings, romantic feelings, sadness, grief, anger, happiness. Feelings are not things we can change.

I think what you're suggesting is that someone should deny their sexual impulse. That's very different than having feelings for someone. My feelings about women will likely never go away. I will continue to have feelings for people all the time. Whether or not I entertain the thoughts that can accompany those feelings is something else entirely. But I have every reason to acknowledge the feelings, acknowledge the reality, and move forward in chaste celibacy.

And no, having feelings for someone who is married is not the same as having feelings for someone of the same sex.

Franciscanheart, yes I know what you mean because though I don't have SSA I get tons of thoughts and feelings that I'm supposed to avoid. I mean it literally happens to me all day. It's not a sin if a person doesn't consent or entertain them. Regarding romantic rather than lustful feelings... I only meant about people who entertain and accept them by being in a romantic relationship. NOT people who just feel them. Please don't take my posts to be at all about people who just get these feelings. I'm ONLY talking of those who not only agree with the feelings, but want to change laws in society. That is not any person with SSA in the Church. I'm talking about the super liberal politicians... not other Catholics. I just wanted to make that very clear.

Also, to respond to the article in general.. I don't focus on the "homosexual issue" as a main or only issue the Church is facing. The Church is facing tons of stuff. Mostly I think about the things and sins I'm facing myself. I spend much more time on that than on analyzing the society because I myself struggle with tons of sins. It's not at all about "Catholics vs homosexuals" because someone could have these feelings but be a good Catholic. It's rather the Church dealing with people who want to legalize 'gay marriage' and all the rest. If it wasn't for them, I wouldn't even mention homosexuals... if there wasn't this situation, and all we had were Catholics who have SSA and trying to live chastely, there would be zero issue at all because they're just people trying to live the Catholic life like we all are, - we just have different struggles. This would just be something for them and a confessor. I'm talking about the aggressive law makers,, not you or anyone who is Catholic and supporting Catholic teaching.

that has been the overwhelming majority in my experiences. I get tired for the "hate the sin, love the sinner" deal. I've referred to it as the ripple effect. When we become cool with allowing any type of hatred in, it seeps into other areas. I don't think people realize it, I dunno. But it's hard when they equate poor behavior towards fellow sinners as tough love or Christian chairty. It's a real funny thing when the hatred is referred to as concern for their soul. 

CrossCuT, if someone is behaving poorly towards others and calls it charity and excuses it as concern for their soul, that is not charity. But if someone is not behaving poorly, and loves the people, but really feels concern about how society is accepting sin... this doesn't mean necessarily they hate the people. I'm sorry if I've said anything on this thread that is hateful but that wasn't my intent. I wasn't talking about Catholics in the Church but things like laws and ideas. If I met a Catholic with SSA I wouldn't treat them differently, and I'd be their friend.

Edited July 15, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[franciscanheart]

Franciscanheart, I'm sorry if I said anything unhelpful but I'm trying to navigate this topic so that both charity and truth are respected. I'm not saying you aren't! I think we're maybe talking past each other. I'll address the points you brought up..

- I used the word 'sodomy' because regardless of my age, I don't feel it's modest using certain words. This is my own conscience. I also don't support anything and everything in marriage. I actually tend to believe the most ideal for marriage is just the marriage act itself.

- No I'm not going to label you as anything if you use the word "pastoral". It depends how you use it. Since I read your past posts, if you use that word I'll assume you're meaning it simply as it is. If a person I don't know at all uses it, again I don't actually want to assume the worst about them. I don't believe in assuming bad about people. It was some other things mentioned in the article that made me uncomfortable with their use of "pastoral". I have no problem at all with charity though.

- Franciscanheart, I'm going to address your past paragraph now. Firstly please forgive me if what I said made things worse for you. But I think we are just approaching the topic from different perspectives. As you said, you saw the article as a call to compassion because you want people to understand that when you ask for a pastoral approach you're not trying to change Church teaching. I came to the article after my own struggles which are different. I interpreted it based on my own past with such language. I don't mean charity. I don't mean kindness. I mean people who DO try to change the church teaching. I'm not saying that is you..

Is the Church going to crumble because of some people not understanding sexual morality? No, but I would rather they understood... for their souls. Just like with every other topic.

I'll tell you what I think more clearly if this will help.

I do love you and I don't at all think that you or any person with SSA is trying to corrupt the Church. I don't see you as any sort of "different" Catholic than me. In fact, you are probably a much better Catholic. The fact that you have SSA doesn't mean you're a different, or lesser Catholic. NOTHING I said applies to people in the Church with SSA. I was speaking of law makers who are trying to have 'gay marriage' and all the rest. ONLY them and people who support that. I don't see you as the lepers either. I am more of a leper than you because of things I struggle with, which I don't speak on this forum.

I don't have SSA. Saying I have SSA sounds like I have AIDS. Or malaria. Or the plague. I am a homosexual woman. If I asked that you just called me homosexual or gay, would you take issue with that? Knowing that I'm not trying to wave a rainbow flag or assume that my attraction to women defines me above and beyond being a child of God?

[Papist]

I don't have SSA. Saying I have SSA sounds like I have AIDS. Or malaria. Or the plague. I am a homosexual woman. If I asked that you just called me homosexual or gay, would you take issue with that? Knowing that I'm not trying to wave a rainbow flag or assume that my attraction to women defines me above and beyond being a child of God?

I don't understand. Why add the the quantifier?