Since We've Been Talking About Lgbtq Stuff A Lot Lately...

[Apotheoun]

If you aren't pastoral with this particular population you're likely to drive them away from the Church, not towards Her. It's on thing to tout cold hard facts until you're blue in the face, another to reinforce love and compassion alongside Church teaching.

Stating the truth is pastoral, and many times you have to confront evil directly, as Christ did when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple. Christ, in doing that, was being pastoral.

[Aloysius]

what kind of earthly vengeance is demanded by these cries for vengeance? 

[arfink]

Stating the truth is pastoral, and many times you have to confront evil directly, as Christ did when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple. Christ, in doing that, was being pastoral.

 

Unless you're planning on literally finding gay men and barging into their sexytimes, I don't think that's an apt comparison at all.

[HisChildForever]

Stating the truth is pastoral, and many times you have to confront evil directly, as Christ did when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple. Christ, in doing that, was being pastoral.

 

If you tell a gay couple that they've embraced evil, that their actions cry to God for vengeance, and that they're going straight to Hell, you're going to get a black eye, not new Catholics or chaste gays. There's a better way to approach people.

[KnightofChrist]

KofC, it is not the cry part, but the vengeance part that I have taken issue with. Vengeance in this context is vengeance on earth, not eternal damnation. What exactly is this vengeance that needs to be enacted? Should homosexuals be stoned, imprisoned? What is the earthly vengeance that is demanded by their sins when nature cries out for it as you assert? It makes very little sense to me. I understand that there is hell as punishment, but exactly is the earthly vengeance being cried for?

The passages from Genesis do not mention vengeance, only that the sins or the people of Sodom by their sins cried up to God. But I still believe that yes sodomy (both types) is among the four that cry out to God for His justice. I must decline answering you questions because you didn't answer my questions to you first and because your questions are ridiculous. At no time in this thread have I stated anything about earthly vengeance, and certainty nothing that would justify the need to even ask me if I would support homosexuals being stoned or not. The only answer I'll bother to give is vengeance is mine sayth the Lord.

Good Night and God Bless

[Apotheoun]

I didn't say we can't. But I think we also need to be aware that forcefully preaching this will not be effective on its own. There needs to be more to our approach. Not something different, something more.

 

Saying we do not approve of sin, and shouting it as loudly as possible, and voting to prevent people from sinning, will do nothing to keep them from sinning. We can do more, with individuals, to break them out of their sins. We must do it. That is what I'm talking about.

 

Prohibition did nothing to stop people from drinking. Outlawing homosexual sex will also not stop people from doing it, not the way our society is set up now. We need to do other things too.
 

Did I say that stating the truth unequivocally would be "effective on its own"? I don't recall doing that. But we must not hide the light of truth under a bushel. One of the first things that Catholics need to do is to stop using the politically correct terminology that pervades Western culture. In other words, we need to stop saying that a person is gay, because no one is essentially homosexual, any more than a person is essentially a thief. Activities do not determine nature; instead, they reveal the person who acts, and by that I mean that actions reveal a man's moral character, or the lack thereof.

 

I am not saying that anyone needs to "shout" out the truth, but simply and calmly state it without trying to mince words and find ways to say things so that the Church's opponents are satisfied (by the way, they never will be satisfied). That approach has failed over the past forty years.

 

Finally, although the Church has traditionally supported legislation that criminalizes homosexual acts, and has supported the punishment of those who publicly commit such vile crimes, I am not saying that that approach must be followed at the present moment. But the Church must do all it can - and not just the hierarchy, but each individual Catholic - to resist the attempts to legalize and promote homosexual activity as normal.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[CatholicsAreKewl]

what about masturbation? Isn't that use of the sexual faculty contrary to nature? Why doesn't it cry to heaven, because almost everyone has done it?

 

I'm so proud of you.

 

[Apotheoun]

what about masturbation? Isn't that use of the sexual faculty contrary to nature? Why doesn't it cry to heaven, because almost everyone has done it?

Yes, self-abuse is a grave sin, but it has not been described in the Church's theological and devotional tradition as a sin that "cries to heaven for vengeance." But just because it is not described in that way it does not follow that it is "okay." Self-abuse is a grave sin, and like any other grave sin  it separates a human being from God. Thus, the need to confess it.

[Aloysius]

that's alright kofc, I think my questions work better rhetorically anyway.

 

the "vengeance" part of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance is earthly vengeance, otherwise you'd have to place all mortal sins on the list because all mortal sins call for final justice.  ultimately I do not see any way in which my position is directly contrary to the consensus of the Fathers or to tradition, although it's not the way it has traditionally been framed and isn't going to be exactly in line with many traditional sources, just like saying Hurricanes aren't direct punishments for homosexuality or saying homosexuality shouldn't be illegalized/discriminated against (as the CCC says) would also be contradictory to many things many of the Fathers have said.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Aloysius

[KnightofChrist]

that's alright kofc, I think my questions work better rhetorically anyway.

the "vengeance" part of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance is earthly vengeance, otherwise you'd have to place all mortal sins on the list because all mortal sins call for final justice. ultimately I do not see any way in which my position is not directly contrary to the consensus of the Fathers or to tradition, although it's not the way it has traditionally been framed and isn't going to be exactly in line with many traditional sources, just like saying Hurricanes aren't direct punishments for homosexuality or saying homosexuality shouldn't be illegalized/discriminated against (as the CCC says) would also be contradictory to many things many of the Fathers have said.

You say rhetorically I still say ridiculous. Nothing in the Genesis passages I posted earlier imply earthly vengeance, but rather clearly the justice or vengeance of God.

[Apotheoun]

that's alright kofc, I think my questions work better rhetorically anyway.

 

the "vengeance" part of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance is earthly vengeance, otherwise you'd have to place all mortal sins on the list because all mortal sins call for final justice.  ultimately I do not see any way in which my position is not directly contrary to the consensus of the Fathers or to tradition, although it's not the way it has traditionally been framed and isn't going to be exactly in line with many traditional sources, just like saying Hurricanes aren't direct punishments for homosexuality or saying homosexuality shouldn't be illegalized/discriminated against (as the CCC says) would also be contradictory to many things many of the Fathers have said.

Actually it is primarily divine vengeance, but of course divine vengeance can have earthly effects, and that is why St. Paul says that God gave the governing authorities the power of the sword (see Romans 13).

 

Al, as far as natural disasters are concerned, the biblical tradition does promote the notion that the sin brings about physical destruction (after all, sin brought death into the world), whether that destruction is wrought by natural disasters or by human actions (e.g., the Babylonian conquest of Israel).

 

I thought I would post the following from a friend of mine at the Byzantine Forum:

 

 

"The Byzantine perspective sees man's sin as the ultimate cause of all evil in the world, because it was through our sin that the cosmos was broken in the first place. Every sin committed by each and every individual man causes further damage to creation.

 

That being the case, God alone preserves us from the consequences of our folly, and when disaster strikes, one can view it anthropomorphically as an act of divine wrath--though God being impassible is incapable of an emotion such as wrath--or as a withdrawal of divine favor in response to our turning away from Him.

 

Thus, a natural disaster does have a moral dimension, or rather, two: sin is the ultimate cause of all natural ills, but God is fully capable of allowing us to suffer the consequences of our actions, rather than staying the evil with His protecting hand."

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[cappie]

37 years ago I joined the Capuchins and began my study in the seminary. It was a revelation at the time to be "filled" with Scripture, Dogma and Theology. To "have it all together" so to speak. Just before my ordination I went on retreat,there was an old minister also making a retreat. He was an Anglican. He had had an interesting life as a chaplain at Oxford University, a missionary in India and New Guinea, his brother was the Anglican Archbishop of New Guinea. Anyway we got to talking and I expounded the truths of the Catholic Faith and the answers to the great moral questions of the age. (These were and still are correct). The point was he was patient with this young firebrand and he spok to me of a method of studying the Scripture that I had forgotten but became reacquatinted with a few days ago. I need to remind myself of this and I offer it to anyone interested in the current discussion.

 

There are two different ways you can read the Bible. The first is to interrogate the Bible. This involves using any of a number of lenses and styles of criticism in order to analyze what Paul actually meant, or whether the gospel of Luke borrowed parts of the gospel of Mark, or how many different ways you can translate “logos,” or what Jesus thinks about women, or whether David and Jonathan were more than friends. The second is to invite the Bible to interrogate you. This involves an act of faith in God’s ability to speak through an ancient book into your present circumstances. It feels intensely risky and personal and is wholly unpredictable, and it’s often gut-wrenching or breathtaking.

 

For the purposes of teaching me Fr Peter proposed John 8:2-11. That’s the story of the woman caught in adultery, of course, and it’s a story that’s as scorned among scholars as it is lauded among laypeople. I have thought long and hard and bringing it to the present as a participant who’s lodged himself into ongoing talks about homosexuality, it wasn’t hard for me to predict where I’d locate myself in the narrative: Maybe I’d identify with the woman herself, wounded as collateral damage in a culture war that often feels more concerned with arguing about laws than it is about empathizing with humans. Or maybe I’d place myself in Jesus’ shoes, growing frustrated with people who want to narrow down big narratives about faith and identity into simple Yes/No questions, and I’d brazenly refuse to play that game. Unfortunately for me during this particular reading, again I wasn’t interrogating the Bible. I was letting it interrogate me, and I was thus rather surprised to find myself standing in line with the Pharisees holding stones. Because, you see, as I’ve invested more time and energy lately into actively engaging our culture’s discussion around homosexuality, I’ve found myself more prone to gather stones of criticism and disapproval for those with whom I disagree.

 

Maybe what’s most shocking about the John 8 story is how little anyone actually says. After Jesus levels the crowd with his shrewd suggestion—that the guiltless ones should be the first to punish the most visibly guilty one—the other Pharisees and I have nothing to say, because even we can see how far we’ve missed the mark. Gradually, they start to walk away, and in one of the story’s most dazzling details, it’s the older folks who leave first. (We might not feel surprised they’re quickest to acknowledge their own faults.) Eventually, I’m the only chump left standing in the row with a rock in my hand, and I’d rather like to slam my Bible shut so I don’t have to feel so anxious waiting all alone in the dusty silence.

Here’s what I’m supposed to do now: I’m supposed to turn and walk away. Jesus isn’t waiting for a biblical argument, a poignant confession, or even a tearful apology from me. I merely need to walk away and wordlessly acknowledge my own wickedness alongside the other Pharisees. But here’s why I don’t: I’ve learned that it’s awful strategy to admit my fault if I’m hoping for any kind of victory in our culture war. Those who demonstrate humility or even awareness of their own flaws lose face and come across as wishy-washy and impotent. Those willing to concede the deficiencies of their position might as well raise a white flag. In the John 8 story, walking away means letting Jesus get the last word in an argument that didn’t go nearly as well as I had planned it to go.

 

One need not look far to find stones ripe for the throwing. One need not look much farther to find potential targets for those stones. What’s increasingly rare in our culture—and what the simple, piercing suggestion of Jesus calls us to—is walking away when we find ourselves poised to strike.

 

BTW Fr Peter became a Catholic after 49 years as an Anglican priest and was ordained into the Catholic priesthood and continued to challenge me long past my ordination. He now challenges me from heaven. :hehe2:

 

People, the good news is that we can do this differently. It involves listening and gentleness and compassion, and it never, ever results in a woman standing exposed in the courts with her accusers thirsting for blood. We don’t win or lose, because Jesus already broke the game and initiated a kingdom in which the blessed ones are the poor in spirit, the meek, and the peacemakers. We taste the tender goodness inherent in God’s moral imperatives, and that means we neither dismiss them nor hurl them at others as a means of diverting attention away from ourselves.

 

It begins, I think, when we acknowledge our guilt in the midst of crises that have long ago escalated past grace and mercy, when we lay down our stones and walk away. It continues when we move from acknowledging our general guilt to naming more specific areas of imperfection, verbalizing those flashes of self-awareness to the people in our lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dominicansoul]

If you aren't pastoral with this particular population you're likely to drive them away from the Church, not towards Her. It's on thing to tout cold hard facts until you're blue in the face, another to reinforce love and compassion alongside Church teaching.

 

 

Stating the truth is pastoral, and many times you have to confront evil directly, as Christ did when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple. Christ, in doing that, was being pastoral.

 

 

I propped both of these because I believe both are true.  You cannot be compassionate if you throw out doctrine.  You cannot be doctrinal if you throw out compassion.  You truly cannot preach the Gospel without both.  They do not exist one outside the other.

 

I can't help but keep emphasizing the approach Fr. John Harvey took in his apostolate to Catholics with SSA.  He was strong in Church Teaching and very compassionate with his flock. They still look up to him as their Shepherd even 2 years after his death.   http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/cis/cis385.pdf

 

 

Edited May 25, 2013 by dominicansoul

[Lil Red]

I can't even

 

me neither 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

me neither 

 

You two need to stop doubting yourselves.