Bishops Pass Guidelines on Gay Outreach

[slobone]

If you meant that I ought to visit that priest...NAH!

I meant your friend, but it got garbled.

 

[slobone]

Slobone, a lot of Catholics don't go to confession before receiving communion. Ultimately, you're supposed to, but now people go up for communion regardless of if they've confessed their sins or not.

I went to midnight mass on Christmas Eve with a Catholic friend. When they got to communion he said, "let's get out of here." I thought he just wanted a smoke, but he explained that he couldn't take communion because he hadn't been to confession. Since he had a bf, I wondered if he ever went to confession.

Although it doesn't look like much, the Conference of Bishops is being more "progressive" than other churches (ie. Evangelicals). However, it still has a long way to go.

In fact I'm kind of wondering what the purpose of the announcement was, if nothing's really changed. Maybe they wanted to emphasize the "outreach" part, whatever that was.

I have no doubt that attitudes vary considerably from parish to parish. I'm sure no priest in West Hollywood is going to give a sermon condemning all homosexuals to hell. Whereas you might hear something quite different in West Virginia.

 

[hawkia]

Catholic don't as don't tell. LMAO

 

[Roland00]

I went to midnight mass on Christmas Eve with a Catholic friend. When they got to communion he said, "let's get out of here." I thought he just wanted a smoke, but he explained that he couldn't take communion because he hadn't been to confession. Since he had a bf, I wondered if he ever went to confession.

Good luck with your friend. It appears he believes too much in the Church authority as an insitution.

In fact I'm kind of wondering what the purpose of the announcement was, if nothing's really changed. Maybe they wanted to emphasize the "outreach" part, whatever that was.

I have no doubt that attitudes vary considerably from parish to parish. I'm sure no priest in West Hollywood is going to give a sermon condemning all homosexuals to hell. Whereas you might hear something quite different in West Virginia.

Nothing changed. It was just a collection of the United States Bishops get together. It is a yearly conference type thing. Since they got together they put together positions of the issue of the day to be given to bishops and priests who will then incomporate them into their teaching/counseling/whatever.

Here are the events they covered in this meeting

Statements
Statement on Iraq: Most Reverend William Skylstad, November 13, 2006
Married Love and the Gift of Life: November 14, 2006
Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care: November 14, 2006
Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist: November 14, 2006

Press Releases
U.S. Bishops Call For An Examination Of ‘Alternative Courses Of Action’ In Iraq; Cite Human, Moral And Financial Costs Of The War Communications, 11-13-06
U.S. Bishops Vote Unanimously To Release Money For Research On Sexual Abuse By Clergy: Communications, 11-13-06

 

[CuriousMonkey]

The Catholic churh are masters of the mea cupla, but always too late to matter. Galileo is condemned since the 17th century, and cleared about 300+ years later - becuase the dumbass had the nerve to suggest that the earth moves around the sun. Another millenium and the Holy Sea may recognize that sex isn't only for procreation, but in the meantime I'd suggest a CHRISTIAN congregation instead, such as: Metropoitan Community Church, the united church of Christ, or even the lutherans or anglicans.

Whether we understand it or not, God has created us gay for good reason. Don't let ANY church try to tell you otherwise.

 

[eddielee]

The Baptist churches in NC voted on whether or not to allow gay members to join the congregation. The "position" of the Baptist Church is that all Churches who accept gays in the congregation, should be thrown out of the conference. As one person put it "It is to benefit society."

After hearing about that, The Catholic Church's position on Gays doesn't seem so bad. At least they will let them in the Church.

 

[Roland00]

The Baptist churches in NC voted on whether or not to allow gay members to join the congregation. The "position" of the Baptist Church is that all Churches who accept gays in the congregation, should be thrown out of the conference. As one person put it "It is to benefit society."

After hearing about that, The Catholic Church's position on Gays doesn't seem so bad. At least they will let them in the Church.

Which Conference of Baptist Churches? Southern Baptist or another group?

Of course the Southern Baptists are against it.

 

[eddielee]

Which Conference of Baptist Churches? Southern Baptist or another group?

Of course the Southern Baptists are against it.

Southern Baptists, here's a link to the story http://www.onlinegreensboro.com/~matthillnc/?p=1610www.onlinegreensboro.com/~matthillnc/?p=1610

 

[slobone]

http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.asp?ID=6

Yeah, Ratzinger was the enforcer for the last Pope. One of many reasons why his elevation was greeted with such joy -- not.

 

[Kulindahr]

With all respect for Thomas Aquinas brilliance, in some ways he was about as intelligent as a toad. His greatest failing was that he took everything he learned and crammed it into and through the philosophy of Aristotle -- and that's where his "natural law" scheme comes from.
As I recall, with sex, he is arguing that its use (usus) is limited by its goal (telos). Since the obvious function of sex, to someone who never has any, is babies, Aquinas decided that was the goal, and thus concluded that the only proper use is for procreation.
Clearly, he never read the Song of Solomon!
In my view, if you've never had any, you shouldn't be writing theology about it; but that's not the biggest problem with St. Thomas. Recall this line from what the bishops decided:

"On another matter Tuesday, bishops overwhelmingly adopted a statement encouraging Catholics to obey the church's ban on artificial contraception."

That's based on his Aristotelian approach to sex. But he was, in my opinion, one crappy scholar, because the "end", the goal, of sex is stated clearly in the Bible; it doesn't have to be guessed at:

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth."


"Fruitful and multiply" means sex and babies -- so far, St. Thomas seems right. But then there's that last part: "fill the earth". What does that mean? Well, the same command is given to all living creatures; they're all supposed to be fruitful and multiply. So as I've said before on this board, "fill the earth" can't go so far that humans start crowding out the other creatures who are supposed to be fruitful, and multiply.
We reached that point a long time ago! So, sticking with Aquinas' argument based on Aristotle, the goal of sex is no longer babies; we've got too many of us now. In fact, in order to obey that command, it seems to me that Ratzinger (current pope) ought to tell everyone they have to use contraception!

So as far as I can see, the Pope and the bishops are in rebellion against God.

Now, what does that say about their ability to get it right on being gay?

 

[fuckmuscle52]

How come the Catholic Bishops keep claiming the right to their freedom --- so that they can deny freedom to any one they don't like . How dare they re-impose the Inquisition on gay people !!!!!

Can I suggest their current teaching on homosexuality be dismissed in the same way that the teaching on contraception has been ?? ie. ignore it and get one with llife in the modern world, which the Catholic Hierarchy has never caught up with in their teachings.

 

[thewiz]

I have to admit that I was disappointed when I read the full text of the bishops' statement; I had hoped that some of the dissenters that have been very vocal may have been able to inject some level of intelligence to the final document. However, remember that the majority of the bishops (the vast majority) were appointed by a very conservative John Paul II and they are only going to relate that viewpoint in their documents. While Ratzinger was much more liberal in his younger years; he has been under the conservative influence and seems to have comfortably fit the mold.

It is interesting that the gay choice, while "disordered" is not under the control of the individual. The fact that they admit counseling is of dubious use probably follows from the disaster that has followed priests. For years the church would take priests that were gay, pedophile, or otherwise "not of the norm" and sent them to intense counseling. After billions of dollars of lawsuits it is clear that some human situations are not reversable.

As to receiving communion and confession; I believe that if God created me this way, he did not do so accidentally. He has a plan for my life and desires happiness. I know many gay priests, brothers, and church leaders; several are very close friends. They said Paul VI had the chance to actually begin clearing up some of the Thomas Aquinas bullshit but at the end gave in and banned contraceptives. Having sat through training on pre-marriage counseling and counseling couples as well, I can say that you tell them the church position and then give them the choice. I know of but a few priests who take the hard line and say "absolutely, never, ever, none!" I can also say that of those that I knew that took that position: one was "laitized" because he had sex with a 15 year old boy and one has had two heart attacks and has considered leaving the priesthood to live with his housekeeper!

I'll continue to go to communion; one only has to remember the words that are said before communion, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you (under my roof); but only say the word and I shall be healed." That to me sums it up; no one is worthy to truly receive the perfection of God. I admit like everyone else that I'm sure there are shortcomings to perfection. But He has the final word and I trust that he says "yes." The Eucharist was actually the fulfillment of the Passover Feast celebrated in the First Covenant. Having studied both from the Jewish as well as Catholic side: the only sin would be to NOT consume in which case there was no saving. But that's a heady topic in and of itself and I've talked long enough!

 

[slobone]

With all respect for Thomas Aquinas brilliance, in some ways he was about as intelligent as a toad. His greatest failing was that he took everything he learned and crammed it into and through the philosophy of Aristotle -- and that's where his "natural law" scheme comes from.
As I recall, with sex, he is arguing that its use (usus) is limited by its goal (telos). Since the obvious function of sex, to someone who never has any, is babies, Aquinas decided that was the goal, and thus concluded that the only proper use is for procreation.
Clearly, he never read the Song of Solomon!
In my view, if you've never had any, you shouldn't be writing theology about it; but that's not the biggest problem with St. Thomas. Recall this line from what the bishops decided:

"On another matter Tuesday, bishops overwhelmingly adopted a statement encouraging Catholics to obey the church's ban on artificial contraception."

That's based on his Aristotelian approach to sex. But he was, in my opinion, one crappy scholar, because the "end", the goal, of sex is stated clearly in the Bible; it doesn't have to be guessed at:

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth."


"Fruitful and multiply" means sex and babies -- so far, St. Thomas seems right. But then there's that last part: "fill the earth". What does that mean? Well, the same command is given to all living creatures; they're all supposed to be fruitful and multiply. So as I've said before on this board, "fill the earth" can't go so far that humans start crowding out the other creatures who are supposed to be fruitful, and multiply.
We reached that point a long time ago! So, sticking with Aquinas' argument based on Aristotle, the goal of sex is no longer babies; we've got too many of us now. In fact, in order to obey that command, it seems to me that Ratzinger (current pope) ought to tell everyone they have to use contraception!

So as far as I can see, the Pope and the bishops are in rebellion against God.

Now, what does that say about their ability to get it right on being gay?

It's no big mystery where the Church changed course -- it started with St. Paul.

Jesus implicitly blessed marriage by performing his first miracle at the wedding at Cana (so it says in the marriage service, but of course it's all legendary anyway). But Paul only condoned marriage through gritted teeth, you could say. Clearly he thought very little of sex, gay or straight, married or not.

But then he also thought the apocalypse was coming any day now. So there wasn't any great reason to have kids. "Be fruitful and multiply" was clearly obsolete.

But the apocalypse didn't happen after all, so people went back to raising families.

Aquinas breathed new life into theology by incorporating what was state-of-the-art science of his day -- Aristotle. But didn't that put the Church on a slippery slope? If science was worthy of respect, what would happen if scientific research contradicted Church doctrine? Fast forward 700 years...

Growing up Protestant in an average American town, I couldn't help noticing that all my classmates with big families were Catholics. My parents had no trouble coming up with an explanation -- "the Pope wants them to have more little Catholics."

Today you don't see that -- I wonder if there's any difference in family size now? Maybe among immigrant groups.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Baptist Church should be ignored, to benefit society.

But... but... but they're 'compassionate conservatives'!

​