Cardinal Nichols: synod's final document insufficiently welcoming toward homosexuals [CC]

When the history of people has been to shun them, persecute them, harm them, despise them, etc…

Then they do need to make an effort to correct that.

Saying, “they were always valued as humans” doesn’t cut it because it is just not true. They were not always valued…in fact quite the opposite.

The vast number of threads regarding this issue, and the tons of people I have talked to who speak derogatorily about this subject as well as the many who have said quite the opposite of you regarding homosexuals, is proof to me that people are no where near able to not ostracize.

Look throughout the threads.

Thread after thread of, people worrying about the “gay looking person” in the pew in front of them.

If you want to prove that you feel they have worth as humans, then invite them into your parish, your home. Befriend them, talk to them, interact with them.

Otherwise, sorry but they are very very empty words.

What would they prefer it be called?

I’m not sure. Gay, maybe. I’ve seen objections to the term ‘disordered.’

Ummmm, how do you equate the physically or mentally disabled with those suffering from a particular temptation?

I suspect it may be that the CCC uses the word disordered. Some people suffer from a disorder, but here the word means something different. In secular terms a disorder is when there is a physical or mental problem.

WRT people who suffer from homosexual temptations, the word means something else. A man may suffer heterosexual temptations, bit these would not be disordered, because it is a temptation to do something which is not in and of itself wrong. Because the temptations of the homosexual person are directed towards members of his or her own sex, the inclination itself is seen as disordered, because it is facing the wrong direction, the inclination is not “ordered” to something correct but to something incorrect.

I find your post most uncharitable.

Perhaps at the door to your parish you quiz people on if they’ve masturbated or used birth control so you can call out there sin and describe them as not valuable.

While I fully agree homosexuals should be chaste, I do not seem to understand the fear of saying they are as valuable as any other sinner.

No one has suggested that they are not. But they are not valuable *because *of their sin but *despite *their sin, which was the point of my post.

**Some **people have treated homosexuals badly. **Some **homosexuals have treated heterosexuals badly.

I do not ask that every homosexual I meet somehow “make up for” the evil that some homoseduals have done, and I do not understand why I am supposed to do something (not sure what?) to make up for what others have done.

Saying, “they were always valued as humans” doesn’t cut it because it is just not true. They were not always valued…in fact quite the opposite.

The Catholic Church has always taught that people are to be treated well, and valued contributions of homosexuals. How does the fact that **some **people who were *disobeying *Church teaching treated homsexuals badly impose an obligation on the Church to do anything other than to correct people who do the wrong thing?

The vast number of threads regarding this issue, and the tons of people I have talked to who speak derogatorily about this subject as well as the many who have said quite the opposite of you regarding homosexuals, is proof to me that people are no where near able to not ostracize.

I can’t speak to the “tons of people you have talked to,” but mostly what I see here at CAF is people discussing policy–firings of teachers at Catholic schools who publicize their simulation of marriage; legally allowing the simulation of marriage, etc.

To say that homosexuals should not be allowed to attempt marriage is the Catholic viewTo ddefend Church teaching in this area has nothing ti do with the treatment if individuals with homsexual inclinations.

Thread after thread of, people worrying about the “gay looking person” in the pew in front of them.

Can’t say that I have seen any of these… but seriously, people are going to be confused about how to handle certain situations and they come here to ask.

If you want to prove that you feel they have worth as humans, then invite them into your parish, your home. Befriend them, talk to them, interact with them.

Otherwise, sorry but they are very very empty words.

You do understand that at most only 4% of the population is homosexual? Thet would never have any time to themselves if everyone else had to interact with them so much! They might be more confortable being treated like everyone else than having everyone eye them to use them to prove that they are not somehow against homosexuals.

Sorry, but the Church can’t say, “We value because you are gay,” any more than the Church can say to me, “We value you because you are a white male,” or to some dude in prison, “We value you because you are a prisoner.”

What??

He had to deal with so-called gay masses in London - a few parishes did that. I think they were shut down.

WHAT??? :confused:

Perhaps at the door to your parish you quiz people on if they’ve masturbated or used birth control so you can call out there sin and describe them as not valuable.

While I fully agree homosexuals should be chaste, I do not seem to understand the fear of saying they are as valuable as any other sinner.

How do such gross distortions like this even begin? Read and understand the Church Exhortation. We love and respect them NOT because they are gay, but for the same reason as we love and respect all. Because they are made in the image of God.

So what does that look like in real life for you. When you see a gay couple at the parish carnival, or at the store? When a gay person wants to go serve in a soup kitchen with you.

It is nice to say, but I sense a lot of empty words

Really?

Our former next door neighbors were in a SS relationship and we were friendly toward them, waving when we saw them and engaging in casual conversation across the back fence. We in no way ever disrespected them as human persons. Had I got to know them better, and if the Spirit had initiated it, I might have tried to gently evangelize, although the opportunity to do so never occurred. I also had a gay accountant co-worker in the next cubicle to mine and he frequently came to lunch with us girls. As my work load was usually heavier than his, I sometimes asked him to help me with special projects.

But since you asked, can you tell us what this cardinal is saying, indeed, what was initially in the working document of the Relatio before it was scrubbed? The part Archbsp Forte did not answer, even though the question was directed to him by a reporter. The part that suggested we had to value, not just the person themselves, but their sexual orientation as well. To my knowledge, church officials have yet to answer this and the article in the OP does not explain it either. Can you link to an interview with Cardinal Nichols where he expounds on his statement that we are insufficiently welcoming gays?

What are they telling us to do? There’s another thread on welcoming SS couples into our parishes. I assume that by the word couple, it means two people engaging in homosexual behavior. If they come to Mass demonstrating their affection for each other (such as wearing wedding bands) and clearly pronounce they are in a relationship, in what manner are we to welcome them? No one has answered this question. Being gay is not a sin, but if the church is now telling us we are to identify them by their sexual orientation, that would be a serious departure from previous church exhortations. So you can see our general confusion.

Actually, you are making St. Frances’s point for him. We do not have language in our Church documents that says that we value the actions that flow from all types of disorders. We don’t value the violent behavior of some persons with low IQ; we don’t value the theft conducted by someone suffering from kleptomania. We don’t reach out and value the acts of the mentally disordered; we focus on the person. Why do we need special “welcoming language” for one category of people in the Church? Why is a sexual disorder supposed to be treated differently than, as you mention, a mental disorder?

Let’s see, maybe anything but “disordered”. Clinging to stereotypes from fifty years ago does no one a service. In my small brain I picture an overly straight person congratulating themselves because they are not disordered, except, of course I do believe that any kind of irrational prejudice is most certainly more disordered and a challenge in one’s life.:rolleyes:

Where do you live? They must be horrible to Gay people there and you’ve confused the rest of us with them.

I live in an Atlanta suburb and it is estimated that nearly 13% of the population of Atlanta is Gay. I’ve worked for them, with them and employed them. They have been guests in our home and we’ve been guests in theirs.

Like many, I do have my judgey moments and that is something I’m looking to lose. When I’m in Church, I’m usually only worried about one person’s sin and that is mine. I’m a horribly sinful person and that is my concern. The sins of someone else are not my concern and that is something for which I am grateful.

As far as I’m concerned, I wish everyone could partake of the Eucharist. Married, Gay, Divorced, Remarried, and whatever. However, I don’t make the rules and wanting to see that the Church continues in truth concerns many. It’s not about trying to feel like I’m better than anyone or judging anyone. Quite frankly, I know several gay people that love God and it is evident. I have a hard time disliking anyone that loves the Lord so much.

Are you suggesting that all gays are ACT Up or other activists and therefore should be treated the same? My experience, which spans a long time, is that gay activists are a small minority of all gays. Some of their goals and objectives have merit but their antics leave much to be desired.

This is a major problem because gays are NOT disordered. So many, especially, in the CC have little or no understanding or differences of the terms “disordered” and the coined term “intrinsically disordered.” Shortly after the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a disorder the terms “intrinsic disorder” and “objective disorder” gained popularity in the CC theology. Labeling a gay person disordered is derogatory at best. Even the use of “intrinsic disorder” outside of theological circles is derogatory because of the near meaninglessness and ubiquitous misunderstanding of the terms outside of those circles.

I believe Pope Francis is pushing for dignified language in welcoming homosexuals as I am sure he is aware of the harm that the present language is causing. Eventually the rest of the church will catch on.

Fr. Z asked the same question

Does “welcome” for gays and remarried mean just avoiding any words that might be imagined by some to be off-putting? Does it mean admittance to Holy Communion? I think it does, ultimately. If that is the case, then I think we just have to say “game over”. Think about it. What does Communion become, through the open admission of those who are objectively and often openly in the state of mortal sin? Communion becomes that white thing someone puts in your hand to make you feel “welcome”, like you “belong”. Then you sing the song and go on your way. You don’t have to think about how you live, or what you are doing with you receive the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians is a dead letter. Why bother going at all? One you have obtained the victory of self-affirmation, of deciding for yourself about Communion without any regard for the Church’s perennial teaching, why even bother with Mass?

At any rate, what does it matter if the leading UK prelate’s view the Synod language as not welcoming enough? The CoE in essence gave up the fight against gay marriage.

,

Yes.Really.Does The Church need to be more welcoming to Homosexuals than they do other sinners?

That is a misunderstanding on the part of many, actually, including Catholics. It leads to misplaced hostility and bitterness towards Catholic teaching.

In discussing the tendency to engage in homosexual acts, the Church is referring to a moral disorder. Not the persons, but such acts, are intrinsically disordered from a moral standpoint. This is why Catholics say “love the sinner, not the sins,” which is unfortunately received as trite or empty by most homosexuals.

The Church’s teaching about homosexual inclinations is proposed with ample awareness of modern psychological and biological research into the origins of these inclinations. But it does not rely on the judgment of those researchers who are convinced that homosexuality is a “psychiatric disorder.” Nor does is it contradicted or challenged or unsettled by the opinion of those who hold that it is not a psychiatric disorder. Read further explanation here. The Church in fact states that the psychogenesis of homosexuality remains unknown.

The Church’s teaching about these inclinations rests instead on the Catholic doctrine about the choice to engage in homosexual acts. This is a moral doctrine, a teaching about what is right (or wrong), good (or worthless and harmful), and choiceworthy (or sinful).

I know an older man who married a Catholic over 50 years ago, and he still brings up the fact that he is not permitted to receive the Eucharist. Unfortunately, he is neither homosexual nor divorced and remarried: no one is looking out for the group of non-Catholics married to Catholics.

Maybe we shoukd have no restrictions on who receives the Body and Blood of our Lord? Maybe the Church should not concern Herself with the condemnation one reaps by receiving unworthily?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.