www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage

AMDG
Dear K-L,

With regard to immoral sexual actions putting one outside the kingdom, I suggest you take a good hard look at St. Paul. Those who commit sexual sin (and do not repent etc.) have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

----I repeat, however, that we are NOT judging anyone, and we are NOT assuming that anyone on the forum commits sexual sins.------

Jesus Christ said to his Apostles that every man who heeded their words was heeding Christ, and every man who heeds Christ heeds the Father. Our brother Lemko is refusing to heed the words of the Apostles, of the Old Testament, of the orthodox Fathers, and of the Magisterium of the Church, endowed by Christ with the charism of Truth. He is embracing error. Error is not good for one's salvation--St. Paul speaks scathingly of those who replace the Truth about God with a lie. Error as an honest mistake is one thing; error as a rejection of the truth is another.

I sincerely pray that God's grace will move brother Lemko to assent to the Truth, without which we are neither free nor happy.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Of course it doesn't make you "unworthy" of salvation -- none of us is "worthy" of salvation.

However, a person can certainly put their own salvation into jeopardy by distancing themselves from the Church that Christ founded, and making light of her teachings.

Dear L-T:

I never said you were accusing anyone of anything. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Second, you misunderstand my question. Where does it say that "doubting" is a sin that puts one outside the kingdom? I do not ask about outright rejection, I ask about doubt.

The struggle between our limited intellect and our faith is an element of the human condition. I can't see God punishing us and banishing us from his Kingdom for having questions in our minds about what the authors of scripture had in mind when they wrote what they did.

You also ignore my question about Matthew's account of Christ's teachings regarding the Last Judgment.

Yours,

kl

Dear Theist Gal:

I beg to differ with your suggestion that anyone is "making light" of the Church's teachings.

The very fact that people are having a difficult time reconciling what their human intellect is telling them and what the Church is telling them is proof positive, IMHO, that no one is making light of anything.

Yours,

kl

Uncle!!

(I did not say that anyone here was making light of the Church's teachings. But please don't tell me that no one in the world does exactly that.)

Wow, 2 thunder storms!
One moved through my area and prevented me from logging on to the forum.

The other was occuring on this forum!

I agree with Lemko, that it is difficult to correct someone. That was my whole point. Some say too casually, you have to correct those living a homosexual lifestyle. Are we all equipped to do this without causing more harm to someone who already had a difficult life? Is it our place to correct someone in the workplace?

The way this forum has heated up, even over-heated on this subject, I am sorry I even put in my two-cents. We could all find scriptural quotes to support our side, whether black-and-white, or for compassion and mercy. How many threads are there currently going on the subject of homosexuality? three? four?

I agree with the Church's authority, and duty, to call us to a life of high morals, but also feel called to having compassion for individuals that I happen to meet along the way.

When my co-worker told me he says the Rosary every night, I gave him one of those pocket Rosaries -- you know, the little metal ring with the ten beads. He didn't say much at the time -- I thought perhaps I'd overstepped the boundary by giving him a religious item. A year later he calls me aside, out of his pocket he pulls the rosary. He said he carried it with him ALL the time, he always has it on his person! So I pray to St Mary that she speak to him, somehow, as he prays the Rosary to her.

And I regret that there may have been opportunities to gently say something to him, and I let them slip by. I also pray to St Mary to give me discernment as to the proper words to use at the proper time.
denise
(to LatinTrad, you are very humble to accept a reprimand, I could learn from you )

Dear Denise,
Now that's spoken like the true Godly woman you have otherwise shown yourself to be!

For all this talk about God's power to change people from homos into heteros, are we forgetting the most intimate relationship He has with each of His beloveds directly? The deep communication through prayer? If in the case of Denise's co-worker, if this person is open to God, he prays, attends Church, isn't it at least as likely that God is speaking to him already? If his life isn't pleasing to God, I think God has already put it in the guy's heart that something is awry. I would be content to trust God's power to show through prayer what is His will.

Now, if there is somebody who denies God, who blasphemes and hates God, or just outright ignores Him, that's a better starting place for gentle correction--through love. Not for the sake of correction.

So you are saying that our subjective personal experience takes precedence over the teachings of the Church?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Krylos Leader:
[qb] Dear L-T:

I never said you were accusing anyone of anything. Please don't put words in my mouth.
[QUOTE]
[qb]

Sorry, K-L. Earlier the Admin thought I was makng assumptions, so I was just clarifying.


[QUOTE]
Second, you misunderstand my question. Where does it say that "doubting" is a sin that puts one outside the kingdom? I do not ask about outright rejection, I ask about doubt.
[QUOTE]

God does not condemn us for struggling to accept his teaching. You are correct about doubt, provided that one tries to understand the Church's teaching and accept it. Brother Lemko, however, claims to "disagree" (his word) with the Church's moral teaching. That is different.

[QUOTE]
You also ignore my question about Matthew's account of Christ's teachings regarding the Last Judgment.

Yours, kl


I tried to answer that question with the reference to St. Paul. St. Paul teaches clearly that sexual sin separates us from God.

In Jesus and Mary,
Lt

Isn't formation of conscience a Catholic principle? If all we do is follow what others tell us -- whether it is our parents, the Church, our spouse, or whoever -- we are nothing but automatons. We must guard ourselves againt prelest, of course, but the opposite can be as destructive. And the Church in Her wisdom does not begrudge us of our minds.

Part of the formation of conscience is through prayer.

AMDG

LEMKO!!

We must form our consciences according to objective criteria, which are revealed by God. The conscience does not *produce* moral norms, it *employs* moral norms that conform to Faith and Reason (which never contradict one another).

LT

I think it is both the conscience and the teaching of the Church. The Holy Spirit speaks to us through our conscience as well as the Church. Even societies that do not have the benefit of the Church know that murder, for example, is wrong.

When we are praying, the Holy Spirit can "remind" us through our conscience, of our sinful actions.
Haven't you ever had that experience? Sure you have. But sometimes we fight with our conscience, and it is most uncomfortable and, what would be a word for, not-peaceful?
denise

Yes - but you're supposed to *educate* your conscience!

I want to thank Denise for her kind words; it's true, I'm always tending to do the "compassion" thing. I see so much pain and suffering, I don't want to produce any more for folks.

LatinTrad states: "AMDG LEMKO!! We must form our consciences according to objective criteria, which are revealed by God. The conscience does not *produce* moral norms, it *employs* moral norms that conform to Faith and Reason (which never contradict one another). LT "

The Church has taught that the ultimate guide is conscience. And one is morally obligated to follow one's conscience and is morally obligated to pray for the formation of a conscience that is in conformity with the graces given by the Holy Spirit.

The issue of "objective criteria" is theologically extremely difficult. For two reasons:

First: circumstances must always be taken into consideration - ask any licensed confessor. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear, but when Hitler's Army is coming down your road, out come the guns. And nobody but the Quakers raises an objection.

Second: The implication of "objective criteria" is that the Holy Spirit cannot "overrule" the objective criteria. And theologically, that is REALLY thin ice. It implies that the "law" is of more importance than God the Spirit, Himself. The implication is also that what man's one-time perspective was, must be immutable. God alone is Immutable; anything human is not. To suggest otherwise contradicts the Church's clear teaching on the nature of God.

It seems to me that a lot of this approach of "that's it" is based either upon the comfortable mindset of we've got the rules and we'd all better live by them, or else, or on the so-called theology of the fundamentalist preachers, whose perspective is preach what the people currently believe and we'll keep them coming back. (The Prohibition Era provides an excellent example of this: "drink is always evil". So anyone who drinks alcoholic beverages is alienated from God. Despite the fact that the Lord Himself blessed both the bread AND the cup of wine of the Seder in giving us our Eucharist. "It was really only grape juice" they say. "Jesus wouldn't EVER drink wine." Can you say: "ra-tion-al-i-za-tion"? Fit the dogma to the mindset of the faithful of a given time and place.)

I am coming to suspect that the real issue is not morality, but rather a debilitating fear of both interpersonal intimacy as well as (gasp!) sexuality. Once an individual has found another human being who dares to say: "Wow. You're great. I think I love you.", the perspective changes.

Finding another person who loves you changes a person's whole perspective on human relationships.

That's scary enough. But when there is the possibility of another person putting his/her arms around you and holding you, it gets really scary. And many folks run away from the experience and swathe themselves in cold, starched linen proclaiming themselves to be "above" such unchaste reality.

Without being overly judgemental on this, I think that this Jansenist/Puritan/Fundie perspective flies in the face of our Eastern/Byzantine history. I think that it is no accident that we Easterns have always felt more comfortable with priests who have a spouse.

It makes our priests more aware of the incredibly wonderful gift of having someone who loves them and who gives both back-rubs and/or a kick-in-the-butt when one or the other is required.

It also provides a dual perspective of two people who must deal with the back-and-forth of two people. And not just one person's perspective, because the arrogance of the "one" is thereby mitigated by the other who is in love.

Our Latin friends, have NO experience with this. And their "priests must be celibate" perspective is quite nice, but as useful to us as giving a bicycle to a paraplegic. It just doesn't work.

The point is: Subjective (well-formed, not parroting) conscience is the primary rule to be followed. Our relationship to God is not mandated by a law or rule book - it comes through revelation, but revelation interpreted through prayer and the graces of the Holy Spirit. And: East is East; and West is West; and never the twain shall meet.

Blessings - and lots of graces to all!!

This example is not relevant unless one is forced at gunpoint to engage in a wrong sinful sexual act to save one's own life. In such a case the act would still be wrong but not sinful since there was no choice involved.

Dr. John�s post is clearly missing something in his post. The Holy Spirit does not give people a blessing to engage in activity that God has told us is immoral.

We do have rules. They are called the Commandments. We pray daily to understand them and for God�s help to live up to them. The New Commandment of love does not repeal the OT Commandments (they are reinforced throughout the New Testament). To think otherwise is moral relativism.

No. The real issue is definitely morality. Too many people supporting the homosexual agenda make this claim and such a claim is false.

A well-formed conscience is paramount to living the Christian Life. To believe that God would purposely lead one of His children into a relationship that He has told us is sinful is wrong.