www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Unrepentant Practicing Homosexual Received Into Catholic Church In Fort Worth, Texas

Good question.

I think they should be welcome in the Church, as all sinners are but when they have unrepented grave sins they should abstain from the Eucharist, as we all are called to do.

They should not be treated any differently than anyone else within the Church.

The Church is not with holding anything from them, they are doing it to themselves.

I think it is a lie to allow someone in these cases to recieve the Eucharist as the person recieving it is commiting a great sacrilege and so is the priest who knowingly gives them this communion. No to mention the scandal this creates.

It is easy for us to assume we know why some people "choose" homosexual behavior. Of course, it is a choice to be an active homosexual. The actual cause of homosexual orientation itself is so incredibly complex, and let's not pretend we understand when we haven't been there.

My life was changed forever when I found out that some one very near and dear to me was gay. It changed everything. I no longer could talk about "those" kind of people, because "those" people had a face.

There are still too many in the Church who do not have compassion. Many who will silently accept an unmarried straight couple living together will come unglued at any talk about homosexuality, ranting and raving and fuming all sorts of curses.

Let's recognize this for what it is, a tough situation that we can't even begin to imagine unless we've been there ourselves, much like drug addiction or the loss of a child. It is a struggle unique in many ways.

It is a sin when acted upon, true. It is a sin that can lead souls to hell. So can gossip.

There you have it. I am tired of people trying to analyze those who carry this cross when they haven't a clue...

In closing, may I recommend Fr. Thomas Hopko's book, "Same Sex Attraction and Christian Faith," available from Conciliar Press. I've read it. It's awesome. Will help many who are dealing with this issue. Anyone else read it??

Unless their dissent is public and unremitting, I think it best to guide them pastorally to see and understand and accept the Church's teaching. I think it is helpful to encourage them to offer the prayer, "Lord I believe. Help my unbelief!"

In the Eastern Church, are not the priests granted the power of minor excommunication? (It may only be within Eastern Orthodoxy...) There must be a similiar power granted to Latin priests as well. To me, such things should be reserved for the unrepentant.

For the public dissenters, especialy where there is risk of scandal to the faithful, the pastoral power of full excommunication can be exercised.

But I would argue for caution in exercising such canonical power.

Gordo

Respectfully, I'm not clear on your point.

How is our discussion "gossip"? We are talking about a public article by someone who knowingly and openly dissents from Catholic teaching. We are talking about someone who talks about his sexual attraction to Jesus Christ. The core issue is that he was received into the Church with these views instead of being asked to remain a catechumen, which would have been the better pastoral option.

No one is saying that we should reject those who struggle, or even act on their homosexual impulses. In fact, we should welcome them and show them true compassion and Christian hospitality. But that does not mean we should admit them to Holy Communion.

And please don't act as if you are the only one here who has ever known anyone who was "gay". I too have known and befriended many gay men and women. I look upon their struggle with sadness and pray for their conversion, but am always clear never to reject them or their friendship, following the example of Jesus Christ.

Gordo

I disagree with you, Gordo. The only people Christ drove out were the money changers in the Temple. Everyone else was welcome . . . even the apostles who later betrayed Him, denied Him and abandoned Him. We should be likewise welcoming of all.

The man who wrote that website is "dissenting" in public and causing "scandal." So are the 95% of married Catholics who reject the birth control teaching. So are the 90% or so of heterosexual singles who have sex before marriage. Their public "dissent" is in their conduct, and the "scandal" that they cause is a culture that is pathologically suffused with sex. But should they be excommunicated ? No. They need the clear teachings of the Gospel, and the graces of the mysteries, and the opportunity to apply and advance in the Gospel on their own -- just like everyone else.

Christ is open to all, especially sinners (of whom I am the first) and outcasts. He didn't spare His doctrine, but He also welcomed people. Christ's Church should be likewise: firmly teaching the truth of the Gospel and welcoming people. And because Christ especially welcomed and sought out sinners and outcasts, we should do likewise. That should be especially true for the Catholic Church because "Catholic" means "Here comes everybody."

The gay guy who wrote his public "dissent" about Church's teachings on homosexuality should be corrected in his views but he should also be kept welcome at Church. He should be kept welcomed just like other public "sinners" are kept welcome in Christ's Church, including the vast majority of heterosexuals who reject part or all of the Church's teachings on sexuality.

This is going to be my last post on this topic, because I have nothing more that is constructive to add.

-- John

John,

Your post is so full of assumptions, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Assumption #1. I advocate for excommunication of the "gay guy" from the article.

Umm...no, I never said anything of the sort. The categories I used may not even be in the canons, but since I did not have any Canon Law books with me thousands of miles from home, I could not cite the precise language. I was going based on memory, which may not be that great right now because I am jet lagged.

If anything, I urged restraint in the use of that power. Did you not read my whole post?

Assumption #2. Jesus driving out the money changers in the temple has relevance to our discussion.

If there is a connection between that Gospel story and this discussion, I'm not seeing it. Are we to assume that only people who try to profit from the Church should be kicked out? Are we to assume that Jesus was just so merciful you would basically have to be Adolf Hitler (or a money changer - not sure which is worse!) to merit excommunication? What exactly is your point?

Assumption #3. 95% of married couples use contraception.

Ok...source please?

Assumption #4. 90% of unmarried heterosexuals fornicate.

You must work for Homeland Security... Do you have access to some information we do not know about?

Assumption #5. Contraception (non-abortifacient) and heterosexual fornication are morally equivalent to homosexual activity.

Not if you and I are reading the same Sacred Scriptures. There was once a hotel in Sodom...

Assumption #6. Heterosexual couples who contracept and/or commit fornication are creating a public scandal.

Not unless they are on the Opey and Andy show. And more often than not, they don't write articles about it or relate how their fantasies involve our Savior.

Assumption #7. "Catholic" means "here comes everybody".

I thought it meant "fulness" and "universal". It certainly refers to the Church's global mission to "go out into all the world" and make disciples of all nations bringing them into the Kingdom of God - to be the New Israel of God.

But tell me, do you ever read the Church fathers? I'm not sure they would buy your "here comes everybody" rendering, at least not when you studythe early catechumenate.

Assumption #8. I don't think the Church should be welcoming to people - especially the "gay guy" in the article (hence the rousing sermon on how Jesus welcomes everybody).

Well, considering I have repeatedly said exactly the opposite, either you have not read my posts or you have not understood them.

Here's a Cliff Notes summary: The doors should be open, but not the Chalice.

Assumption #9. You have nothing more constructive to add.

I'm not sure what if anything was constructive about your last post. All you did was preach platitudes about how Jesus welcomes everybody, including sinners, of whom you and I are competing for first place. Thank you. Did you think I did not realize that fact or argued the opposite?

Bottom line: The guy who wrote the article should not have been initiated as a Catholic. He was. What do we do now? I leave it to his parish priest (although I'm not sure where he falls on the wise judgement scale) and his bishop. All evidence in his article points to the fact that he is a wayward and confused soul. I do NOT wish him evil or harm or anything that involves flogging him with a rubber chicken or excommunication. I wish him to be C-O-N-V-E-R-T-E-D, something that was very clearly neglected during his RCIA process...A FACT that he has chosen to splash all around in his article, which some here have regarded as cute and hilarious. But I just see it as pathetic and sad. This does not make me mean, viscious, pharisaical, homophobic or lacking in compassion.

Just an Orthodox Catholic.

Gordo

Oh gosh Gordo! I was just cleaning of the rubber chichen now I will have to pack it way again.

You can save it for Great Lent!

Gordo

Unfortunately this is so true--many cousins (in fact most of them now that I think about it) in my extended family live with partners outside of wedlock and some have had children, even multiple children, outside of wedlock. There've been baby showers for them, "house" warmings for them, invitations to holidays, picnics, etc for them and their partners. Talk of "how wonderful it is that so and so has finally found someone and they're moving in together!" Never a rebuke, a correction in love, or pointing out of the church's teaching is made. Yet my gay cousin and his partner of many years are placed on the fringes of the family--"and what a dissapointment he is." I've heard that more than once at family gatherings. Double standard?

Perhaps, but again, I don't see any moral equivalency between heterosexual fornication and cohabitation and homosexual activity. At least on a natural level (yes - I used the "n" word...) there is at least sexual compatability and capacity for life-giving union...coupled with the possibility of eventual marriage. It is certainly NOT ideal, and I would never endorse it. But there are differences in the two situations.

That being said, I think the first situations you mentioned are sad and all too common. As far as your other cousins, it is a difficult call. My wife has a distant cousin who is gay and adopted a young Chinese boy with his partner (who eventually left him). When they were together, it was difficult as a father to address the issue with my kids and I was concerned about appearing to endorse something immoral (on two levels - the relationship and the adoption) for their sake and for his.

If I had a cousin who was gay, he or she would also be invited, but I'm not sure that I would invite his or her partners to family gatherings. Part of my role as a father is to protect my younger kids, and that is a boundary I do not want to have crossed as much as possible.

Interesting tidbit on the "forgotten" passages regarding homosexuals in lectionary readings during the year...


http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0606-editorial

http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=34

PAX
james

"Who would choose," opined T, "to be a homosexual when they are so despised by the majority of people?" Without missing a beat J said, "For sex without any responsibility or rejection. The chicken hawk can always find a chicken. Women can be tricky. But if all one is looking for is sex...it's easy."

My above post was a response to this. Here is an attempt by someone who doesn't understand to "explain" why people go gay. I highly doubt that any man who does not have at least some inclination towards same sex attraction is going to sin with a man, because women are tricky.... it is much more complicated than that. That post upset me very much at the time.

Am I guilty of getting too worked up at the time and bringing in things that do not pertain to the topic at hand? Perhaps I am. Show me a thread where that hasn't happened.

As far as man/man or woman/woman sins being less natural than woman/man sins... my Orthodox priest taught me sin is sin. What does "naturalness" of the sin count when it lands one in hell?

Once again, I recommend Fr. Hopko's book. It will educate many Christians.

Was the chicken wearing leather? Inquiring minds want to know... Pavel, you are wicked!

Gordo,

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

Westerner,

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the causes of homosexuality and SSAD are very complex and should not be reduced to one of "convenience". This is an interesting topic, but it should really be its own thread.

Here are a couple of good books that help address this topic. I had an interest in it some years ago for reasons of friendship, and read a few books on it. I have not seen Father Hopko's book, so that may end up on my reading list.

Books:

The Battle for Normality: A Guide for Self-therapy of Homosexuality (Ignatius) [amazon.com]

Setting Love in Order: Hope and Healing for the Homosexual [amazon.com]

The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care by Father John Harvey (Ignatius) [amazon.com]

Roman Redneck, whom I'm surprised has not posted on this thread, is very articulate on this issue as a supporter of the Courage movement to help men and women with SSAD.

As to the "naturalness" of sin, yes - all sin is "unnatural" in that it contradicts our fundamental call to be in the image and likeness of God. All sin is a distortion and disfigurement of our nature. Some sins are more in keeping with the natural order of things however than others. Sexual relations between a male and a female reflect the natural inner complimentarity of the sexes and our God given instinct to pro-create. Sexual activity between males or between females runs counter to that intrinsic complimentarity or natural orientation.

In that regard, someone told me once that St. Thomas Aquinas saw masturbation as having more sinful gravity than fornication (I do not think he said adultery), since it is less in keeping with the natural use of our sexual faculties which are meant for the union of a male and a female and not for self-gratification. Certainly that is a point which is somewhat debatable given the added dimension of causing another to cooperate in an evil, but I have no desire to descend any further into casuistry in this thread!

Peace,

Gordo