Lgbt Ministry?

[Archaeology cat]

Fun fact: Table cloths exist because men in the Victorian era thought table legs resembled actual woman legs too much, and they covered them to avoid people having impure thoughts.

pretty sure that's actually a myth.

[PhuturePriest]

pretty sure that's actually a myth.

 

Your face is a myth.

[cmaD2006]

Before things continue on this thread:

 

a) this is Transmundane (not Open mic, not debate table).  So keep that in mind while posting. 

b) please keep things civil.  There are people involved, not just anonymous faces on the net.  Please treat everyone in a respectful manner.

 

Thanks,

 

-- cmaD2006

[Lilllabettt]

 I personally think post #16 walks the line tighter than #13

but just uh ... how can I make sure to put this respectfully ...

I am disturbed by the spiritual perspective on ministry as presented in post #12 and would be personally grateful for further explanation that will ease my mind, and the mind of anyone else like me who stumbles on this thread randomly on the internet.  okay? if it is not kosher to question Father maybe the 6 non clergy people who gave props for that post can expand on why they chose to do so. Or anyone else who  "gets it" since I emphatically do not. I find it disturbing in the context of this thread.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[tinytherese]

I personally think post #16 walks the line tighter than #13
but just uh ... how can I make sure to put this respectfully ...
I am disturbed by the spiritual perspective on ministry as presented in post #12 and would be personally grateful for further explanation that will ease my mind, and the mind of anyone else like me who stumbles on this thread randomly on the internet. okay? if it is not kosher to question Father maybe the 6 non clergy people who gave props for that post can expand on why they chose to do so. Or anyone else who "gets it" since I emphatically do not. I find it disturbing in the context of this thread.

That goes ditto for me.

[CatherineM]

Here's my take on it that might help. I always describe SSA as one of the heaviest crosses we can be given. My experiences in the 80's during the Aids crisis I believe prepared me well for my current ministry to the seriously mentally ill.

Schizophrenia is also a very heavy cross. Within 10 years of diagnosis 10% are dead of suicide. 40% attempt suicide. Those rates are comparable to teens who struggle with SSA or gender issues. The cross for those with schizophrenia is the illness itself, the medication, and the stigma.

For a gay teen it is also the stigma. The idea that they are going to be hated by their family and friends. We have to find a way to love people while still not believing that their life choices are good for them. We must ultimately leave judgements to God though. That's a hard one.

Why is it so much easier to get this point across with something like smoking. My brothers smoke. I love them but hate their smoking. Most will say that smoking isn't a sin. There are lots of people who think it is, a form of self mutilation. We can discrimate against smokers. They can have their insurance cancelled, be excluded from buildings or jobs.

How can we love and judge gay teens at the same time? Are their actions a sin? That is way above my pay grade. If I acted in that matter, it would definitely be a sin For Me. I can't make that decision for anyone else but me.

[Lilllabettt]

Thanks Catherine. So ... Ok ... I get that clearly we cannot know about the culpability of someone who is embracing a gay lifestyle.  We cannot judge people, ever. And maybe in a lot of situations we should not tell people about the objective reality of sin. But does that translate to it simply not mattering, in terms of ministry, whether we recognize the objective reality of sin?

 

This is what was said before:

 

The fact of the matter is, it doesn’t matter whether or not you think homosexuality is a sin. Let me say that again. It does not matter if you think homosexuality is a sin, or if you think it is simply another expression of human love. It doesn’t matter [...]  When faced with the choice between being theologically correct…and being morally responsible, I’ll go with morally responsible every time.

Let me be clear. It is definitely not okay to tell people living a gay lifestyle (or any people, actually) that they are going to hell. It is imprudent, wrong and maybe even sinful to intimate to people living that lifestyle that gay sex is objectively sinful in a first conversation. Depending on the individuals it may be wrong to do that in the 500th conversation. But if Christian ministry is at bottom an effort to help people draw closer to God isn't an understanding of sin as sin, on the ministers' part, critical to that endeavor?

Mother Teresa, who I mentioned in my post that got Moded, always insisted her Sisters were NOT mere social workers. Their ministry was about bringing suffering people closer to God. Sin being an impediment to that, sin "mattered" to Mother Teresa, it mattered to her Sisters --- their ministry was explicitly Christian. Now if the primary goal is not to bring people closer to God, then an understanding of the objective reality of sin is not necessarily important. But that would seem to be not-Christian ministry. That would be secular social work, which is a noble undertaking. But the OP was inquiring about a Catholic approach to LGBT ministry, correct?

 

In terms of secular social work, of course it is not necessary to be theologically correct.  Moral and ethical responsibility are the only parameters. But in terms of Christian ministry ... I would think that there is NO choice between being theologically correct and morally responsible. Can Christian ministers be theologically correct if they are not also morally responsible? Can they be morally responsible if they are not theologically correct? I think the answer is NO. Christian ministry has to be both.  The idea that in some situations we may be forced to choose between Catholic theology and moral responsibility --- this is something proselytizing atheists put out on our religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[beatitude]

I was one of the people who propped that post and I did it because I have a friend who very nearly did die through suicide because of the bullying and abuse she faced over her sexuality. That torment lasted for nearly twelve years, beginning in high school.

 

She was an observant Catholic (she isn't any more). She lived an orthodox Catholic life all those years. But when she tried to reach out to Catholics (mostly online, as she was frightened to share this with most people IRL for fear that they would turn on her) for comfort and support, she got the sugary-sweet little speeches about how we hate the sin, never the sinner, and providing she's not ACTING on her thoughts and desires, she's doing nothing wrong.

 

In other words, the first concern was not, "You're suicidal and you're being abused? We must help you," but, "Are you sleeping with women? You're not? OK, you're in the clear." And this is what passes for grace and comfort and charity with many Catholics. It's not a one-off. It happens regularly. And after this had been happening for several years to my friend, both online and IRL, something hit me.

 

I have never, ever heard anyone speaking about bullies who drive a young girl to attempt suicide with, "We hate the sin, never the sinner!" That phrase and the little sermons that accompany it are reserved for kids who have a crush on other kids of the same sex. And in many Catholic minds this passes for being loving. "I make a distinction between them and their lifestyle, I don't understand why they think I'm being hateful..." It's not hatred that's the issue here, it's the blindness to pain and the role that our own indifference or lack of understanding can play in exacerbating that pain.

 

If any of you, God forbid, are ever in a position where you are being bullied and dehumanised to the point of trying to kill yourself, you may find out why getting a quiz on your sexual ethics and moral theology isn't enough to make you want to live. That's not loving. Good respectful pastoral care requires far more than that. And unfortunately, for many LGBT Catholics, that's all the 'care' they ever get. I get the sense that Fr Cappie in his ministry has come across many people who have had this experience.

 

There should not be a dichotomy between moral responsibility and theological correctness, but often there is. That dichotomy is established by the people who think that a quotation from the catechism is all that a bullied and insecure LGBT teen needs, and who are frightened to offer so much as a hug or a cup of tea without emphasising that same-sex relationships are wrong for fear that they may come across as unorthodox. I have seen orthodox Catholics comforting divorced heterosexual partners in time of need, or cohabiting couples who aren't married, and never is there the same rush to hammer home what they're doing wrong. Yes, it's mentioned, but not with the same intensity and not in the same way, and not to the exclusion of basic kindness and companionship, which is so often sorely lacking in this case. Rather than choosing between theological correctness and moral responsibility, it seems to me that many people are choosing between moral responsibility and the need to look theologically correct. (Which is often a bit different from being theologically correct.)

[NotreDame]

There should not be a dichotomy between moral responsibility and theological correctness, but often there is. That dichotomy is established by the people who think that a quotation from the catechism is all that a bullied and insecure LGBT teen needs, and who are frightened to offer so much as a hug or a cup of tea without emphasising that same-sex relationships are wrong for fear that they may come across as unorthodox.

 

Just to be precise, the above is not in any way "a dichotomy between moral responsibility and theological correctness."  It's just a poor implementation of moral responsibility. 

 

di·chot·o·my noun \dī-ˈkä-tə-mē also də-\

: a difference between two opposite things : a division into two opposite groups

 

plural di·chot·o·mies

 

Full Definition of DICHOTOMY

1

:  a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also :  the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>

2

:  the phase of the moon or an inferior planet in which half its disk appears illuminated

3

a :  bifurcation; especially :  repeated bifurcation (as of a plant's stem)

 

b :  a system of branching in which the main axis forks repeatedly into two branches

 

c :  branching of an ancestral line into two equal diverging branches

4

:  something with seemingly contradictory qualities <it's a dichotomy, this opulent Ritz-style luxury in a place that fronts on a boat harbor — Jean T. Barrett>

 

Edited December 27, 2013 by NotreDame

[Lilllabettt]

" It's not hatred that's the issue here, it's the blindness to pain and the role that our own indifference or lack of understanding can play in exacerbating that pain. [...]

 

 

There should not be a dichotomy between moral responsibility and theological correctness, but often there is. That dichotomy is established by the people who think that a quotation from the catechism is all that a bullied and insecure LGBT teen needs, and who are frightened to offer so much as a hug or a cup of tea without emphasising that same-sex relationships are wrong for fear that they may come across as unorthodox.  [...]

 

Rather than choosing between theological correctness and moral responsibility, it seems to me that many people are choosing between moral responsibility and the need to look theologically correct. (Which is often a bit different from being theologically correct. 
 

 

 

What I am  getting from this is: in post #12 the idea that knowing what is a sin "doesn't matter" is an inarticulate expression, maybe an emotional hyperbole.

 

because in the problems you describe, sin does matter. blindness and indifference to other people's suffering is a product of sin. If someone is afraid to comfort a suffering gay person for fear of coming across as unorthodox, that person has crummy theology.

 

If a minister is making a choice between theological correctness and moral responsibility, and they choose moral responsibility 'every time' - what will that mean for the effectiveness of their ministry in leading suffering people closer to God? If someone is involved in LGBT ministry and feels that in that role "it doesn't matter" what ministers think about sin, how will that impact their efforts to help people? I really think that if post #12 were taken for a program for LGBT ministry, it would be a disaster.

[NotreDame]

What I am  getting from this is: in post #12 the idea that knowing what is a sin "doesn't matter" is an inarticulate expression, maybe an emotional hyperbole.

 

because in the problems you describe, sin does matter. blindness and indifference to other people's suffering is a product of sin. If someone is afraid to comfort a suffering gay person for fear of coming across as unorthodox, that person has crummy theology.

 

If a minister is making a choice between theological correctness and moral responsibility, and they choose moral responsibility 'every time' - what will that mean for the effectiveness of their ministry in leading suffering people closer to God? If someone is involved in LGBT ministry and feels that in that role "it doesn't matter" what ministers think about sin, how will that impact their efforts to help people? I really think that if post #12 were taken for a program for LGBT ministry, it would be a disaster.

 

This is interesting, I've been trying to put my finger on the root of some of the irrational responses I've seen here recently and your "emotional hyperbole" comment gave me an idea. 

 

I think what's happening is that people often have poor understandings of the roots of certain problems.  When faced with these problems, even hypothetically, if it evokes an empathetic, emotional response.  Because they don't properly understand the problem, their response will likely be irrational at some level.   Anyone exercising restraint, if only because they appreciate the complexity of the issue, will not be understood by the first group, who simply see that person as lacking empathy for not sharing their reaction.

Edited December 27, 2013 by NotreDame

[CatherineM]

I saw in his expression that it doesn't matter, a bit like a triage nurse saying it doesn't matter how the knife got stuck in your heart, let's get it out of there first.

We have to keep them alive in order to have a chance to heal their souls.

[arfink]

Seeing as Cappie's post is now long gone, and I can't quote it and am working entirely from memory, and since I propped his post, I will say this:

 

When I read his post, and he said it didn't matter if homosexuality is sinful, I read it in this light:

 

Homosexuality can be defined in a couple of ways. If you mean by homosexuality that one has disordered inclinations to have sex with people of the same gender, that inclination of itself is not a sin qua "freely chosen, fully willed, grave matter." When I hear someone say sin, I'm thinking culpability, not mere concupiscence.

 

If you define homosexuality as merely one who does gay sex then I can see why you'd be horrified by the assertion.

 

I read it this way because, frankly, when I hear someone say they are gay, I do not think immediately that they are going out for gay sex all the time, and I certainly don't feel the need to remind them "now now, we can't have you going out for gay sex, lols." I wouldn't ever do that sort of thing to a person who confided in me that they were struggling with any kind of sin.

[NotreDame]

I read cappies post as "morality be damned, I'm going to be compassionate with gay people regardless."  Which I see as irrational, since it is morality itself that demands both compassion and prudence in dealing with anyone who is suffering. 

 

Anybody that walks up to a gay person and tells them they are going to hell for having gay sex is an idiot, because telling them that is obviously a really stupid thing to do.  In the same way, walking up to a gay person and saying "morality doesn't matter, go ahead and have gay sex" is also stupid.

 

I've personally had a ton of gay friends, both guys and gals.  I've crashed at their places and vice-versa.  I somehow managed to share many, many, many drinks with them without judging them or condoning their behavior.  It's shockingly easy.  If they ever asked for spiritual advice it wouldn't be much different than the advice I'd give any single friend. 

 

Why this is so hard for people to get, I don't understand.  Trust me that if someone is suicidal, their sexuality might play a role, but there is a whole lot more going on as well.  You don't need to condone or to judge in order to help them through that trying time.

[tinytherese]

It looks like Fr. Cappie's post was ambiguous or easily misinterpreted. Wouldn't be the first time a poster has been misunderstood.