How about friends to friends? I think you limit the scope of fraternal correction too much. All your examples are ones where the correction comes by way of a difference in authority level. I think there is a place for fraternal correction among equals too.
It is not the attitude of the sinner that is up for discussion here. It is our attitude. We cannot excuse our rejection of someone just because they have a bad attitude. Love is required of us, even for bitter liberals who reject the Church.
But as aTraditionalist said, some of these things you rule out can be expressions of love. You say “Just love”. So what is love without any visible expression?
And what about uganda president signs anti-gay laws ??
Why is it , or how comes that homosexuals do exist ??
Are you inferring that because homosexuals “exist” we must recognize their actions as good? What about pedophiles?
I don’t see how that disagrees in any way with what I said.
Note, I said “duty”.
Given a sufficiently grave condition of spiritual distress calling for succour in this way, this commandment may exact fulfilment under pain of mortal sin. This is reckoned to be so only when
the delinquency to be corrected or prevented is a grievous one; there is no good reason to believe that the sinner will adequately provide for himself; there is a well-founded expectation that the admonition will be heeded; there is no one else just as well fitted for this work of Christian charity and likely to undertake it; there is no special trouble or disadvantage accruing to the reformer as a result of his zeal.
Practically, however, individuals without any official capacity are seldom impeachable as having seriously transgressed the law in this matter because it is but rarely one finds the coalition of circumstances just enumerated.
Friends should, but only if it is likely that the person being admonished will actually heed it.
As long they’re not pedophiles , i don’t mind they’re gay !!
Well , nobody says you have to approve their actions ,
Nobody says you have to be friends or not or receive them home or not !!
But other ones are allowed to approve their actions ,
and are free to be friends or not , or receive them home !!
Who of those 2 is right ??
I guess some people do have a visual problem with them ??
The same would also count for:
What about pedophiles?
Pedophiles are really sick !!!
I really disapproved pedophilia or other forms of sexual abuse !!
Well then your own logic defeats your argument.
You condition of confusion does not have to be permanent my friend, submit to Jesus, He is waiting. You came to this forum for a purpose.
The distinction between duty and “a good thing we should do” is not relevant here because you criticized aTradionalist’s analogy:
Love is not a fix all. It’s love that compels us to preach, teach and convert. We can judge right from wrong. We do not condemn. That’s the Lords business. This is modernist garbage and false ecumenism. Would you let your children go wild and do whatever they wanted? You would just love them into submission? If I was wallowing in mortal sin, I would hope that someone actually loved me enough to correct me and save me from damnation. Love means doing and saying the hard things sometimes. Your philosophy would have us holding their hands on the road to hell. If people get offended then so be it. Our Lord did not bring peace but a sword.
on the grounds that “only some people in certain relationships have a duty to practice fraternal correction (parents to children, teachers to students, priests to the flock, etc.” But aTraditionalist was not appealing to duty as much as to a sense of “a good thing to do”. So if you are going to speak only of what duty demands, you are not weakening aTraditionalist’s analogy. It does not “fall flat” as you say, when you consider that strict duty was not the issue in the first place. It was, as the title of the thread says, “How should we receive those in the gay and lesbian community”. The topic was not “What strict duty do we have toward gays and lesbians”.
Well then your own logic defeats your argument.
It is not good to do it in such a way that it hardens hearts and drives them further from God. That is what so many Christians wind up doing out of incompetence.
We should receive them like anyone else. I am not going to assume what anyone who attends church is doing in their private lives. How do you know for certain that someone who ‘appears’ gay, really is? How can you possibly know whether or not they have an active lifestyle just by looking at them? You don’t.
I am still in RCIA and not in full communion with the church yet. I’m certain that there are many gays and lesbians attending mass and in full communion because they have decided to live in chastity.
Now, if someone brings up the issue of same sex marriage, that’s when the church’s position should be explained in a gentle, loving way. I had a very difficult conversation with my aunt (I have a cousin who is gay). I expiained the church’s position and what is expected of people who are gay, but I also explained how the church has empathy for people who are struggling with homosexuality and that there is no room for hate. At the end of the conversation, she said that she respects the church’s position, even if she doesn’t agree with it.
If someone is gay, that is a heck of a cross to bear. No need for us to make it any heavier.
^^^ I think this is right on point and I like the comparison with adultery as I think it should go the same way. Remember love the sinner reject the sin. Treat them exactly how you would do to someone you appreciate dearly but found out he is being adulterous. Don’t condone the sin but treat them with respect.