www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Synod on the Family

I've often wondered about why it has become so important to wear "sexual oreintation" on one's sleeve. ISTM that there are certain things that ought to remain one's private business. With this need to shout this to the heavens, we've had a cultural shift where it's suspect if two men or two women share an apartment for any number of reasons. But it seems that the almost knee-jerk assumption now is that something morally wrong is going on.

My wife, a sixteen year product of Catholic schools, is a bit more than disturbed by this. It's shaken her to wonder if all that she's been taught is about to be jettisoned and where that leaves us.

Bob

Let's look at it this way:

The sacrament of marriage is understood by the Church to fundamentally and necessarily be between a man and a woman. That has not changed.

Sex is a gift that is reserved for and fully realized by married couples. That has not changed.

This is the foundation of the family, and it has not changed.

All that has changed is how the Catholic Church will interact and give pastoral care to those that find themselves outside of marriage; be they divorced couples, single parents, couples "living in sin", homosexuals, bachelors and bachelorettes that sin sexually, etc.

Will they be admitted into the hospital for healing, or will they be left on the sidewalk to die?

The Catholic preoccupation with sexual sins vs any of the other myriad sins that happen in on a daily basis in any given person's life is detrimental to the message of the good news of Christ, and this is an appropriate adjustment in my opinion.

The standards and ideals of the Catholic family haven't changed. But how the Catholic Church interacts with those that are not a part of that sacramental family will change, and I think that Christ approves of this and that it follows the clear example He left for us.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich is the one who spoke of the dark church. I don't recall which book that is in. You can ask St. Google who knows all. ;-) That one is off the top of my head. I do recall others, including saints, have predicted a loss of faith in the church but don't remember details.

Prior to Pope Francis, did the Catholic Church denounce faithful Catholic organizations such as Courage? Courage exists to shepherd to those with same sex attraction. Were they ostracized?

Oh, there are changes coming. The relatio calls for us to become "welcoming," but most Catholics and clerics will translate that as affirming.

Will this false translation lead to openly gay, sexually active couples receiving communion in numberous parishes? We've seen a proclivity amongst Western liberal Catholics to exploit vague language to promote heresy.

I am afraid this will be the usual ambiguous Vatican-speak we have come to expect since Vatican II. It will be an inch given to the liberals who will certainly take a mile. Nothing surprising there!

It's my understanding that no organization which has promoted same sex attraction has prior to this had any Church support.

On another note, I'd like to hear from our brethren on this board who are not currently in communion with the Church of Rome. How does this strike you? What are your bishops saying? What does this do to ecumenical relations?

Bob

In 1970, the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders. Since that time, more and more people have interpreted this action as meaning that "science" has "proven" that homosexuality is "perfectly normal." Now, once this proposition is accepted as "true," it necessarily follows that *everything* society does to honor and celebrate love between man and woman should now apply equally to "love" between two men or two women.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, I understand now that "relatio" is only a draft, and was never intended for publication. Nevertheless, I just can't believe they would ever include the phrase "accepting and valuing their sexual orientation," even in a draft.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

My understanding is that Courage is orthodox. It has operated in my diocese (Bridgeport, CT) for at least several years, long before Cardinal Bergolio became Pope Francis. I have never heard any denunciation of Courage from within (or without) the Catholic Church and have always understood it to be concordant with Catholic doctrine.

I think we Orthodox have traditionally been less obsessed with individual sexual matters (including divorce related issues) than our Catholic friends. Obviously we hold the same positions about gay marriage, cohabitation and so on, but as to individuals we seem less interested unless they openly flaunt the Church.

To me,regarding yesterday's document, the use of the phrase 'valuing their homosexual orientation' is the most troublesome of the sections being tossed around as it seemingly conveys a legitimacy to their status that is at odds with traditional Apostolic Christian teachings.

Parsing the other commonly discussed "quotes" being reported, it would be folly and naive for the Orthodox to deny that homosexual individuals indeed have "gifts and qualities" to offer the Christian community or to smugly claim that folks with such sexual orientations have never been part of the clergy, monastic communities or hierarchy of the Church. Of course they have. BUT the draft goes on to state that such an orientation may be accepted and valued 'without compromising' traditional teachings and doctrine. That is - for lack of a better word - absurd.

I agree that this document is designed to be wrapped in correct dogma, but leaves a lot of wiggle room for deviation (yes, pun is intended here) at the pastoral or local or national level.

How exactly did that 'wiggle room' work out on the 'New Mass' ? Well, that should answer just how much this 'wiggle room' WILL be exploited.

I wonder how much the traditionalists (not the "sedes" or the SPXX crowd - but men like Cardinal Burke and others) will be able to take before a 'branch' breaks.....

Due to the relative ease by which annulments are granted in not a few quarters of the Latin CC, the caricature of annulment as "Catholic divorce" is perhaps well-deserved (though IIRC, the Vatican had overturned thousands of annulments from the U.S. in the 1990's).

Be that as it may, we should never forget that annulment per se is a traditional Church practice. In my own Coptic Tradition (specifically, the COC), annulment is granted for reasons such as consanguity, deceit, lack of full consent in marriage (i.e., forced marriages), and even impotence. I know for a fact that annulment is practiced in all the OOC's, and from my understanding, it is also practiced in some EOC's. Annulment is not divorce. It's almost a shame, IMO, that Catholics often have to try to persuade their Orthodox brethren that there is a real doctrinal difference between the two.

Blessings

"valuing their homosexual orientation"

This is very disturbing. What have the Eastern Catholic Bishops said about this?

This development has caused a lot of consternation among friends here in the Philippines, because I believe one or two of the hierarchs involved in the production of the document was from the Philippines. I just wanted to inform members here that the atmosphere in the Philippines is very different from America (and maybe other Western countries), as far as homosexuals are concerned. Homosexuals (particularly transvestites) are very open about their lifestyle here (not in terms of sex, but in terms of effeminacy). But the thing I noticed is that you see them faithfully attending Mass, and being very respectful of the Faith. It's a very different culture. At the same time, I know that the Catholics here are very conservative doctrinally. I'm wondering if the backlash this issue has created has a lot to do with culture more than religion.

Brother BenjaminRH's comments are particularly well-balanced, I believe. The document IS ambiguous - granted - but, on the positive side - there is also nothing heterodox about it. I think the worst criticism is that it has the possibility of inspiring the heterodoxy of certain liberal elements, but the document itself is certainly not heterodox.

Bottom line, folks - this is an advisory panel that was intended to debate hot-button issues. There is nothing doctrinally authoritative that will come out of this synod. I believe it is ridiculous to prognosticate any sort of darkness befalling the Church (i.e., as a whole) just because a few bishops expressed a greater concern for the human rights of homosexuals in (admittedly) ambiguous language.

...And I agree with brother DMD that the phrase "valuing their homosexual orientation" is problematic. But I have to wonder as well if this might be a matter of translation (I don't know if the original was in Latin or not). "Valuing" could simply mean nothing more than "respecting."

Blessings

Well, there hasn't been a link to the Cardinal's comments on divorce and remarried couples (and I've looked online but could not find it). So I'll just express what's on my mind.

As many of you probably know, there was a pastoral agreement on marriage signed between the COC and the EO, Alexandrian Patriarchate. It's almost identical to the one between the Syrian Orthodox and the CC. There is one difference. The COC-EO agreement contains an implicit recognition that the standards of the COC is stricter than the EO's. Despite the agreement, the COC will not recognize second marriages that are not lawful according to the marriage canons of the COC, even if they are lawful according to the canons of the EOC, Alexandrian Patriarchate. I really dont' know how that works out (let the bishops do it!).

Anyway, it got me thinking -- second marriages are rare anyway, and marriage/second marriage between a CO and EO even rarer; the rarity of such cases was probably a factor in the go-ahead with the agreement. If the COC and EOC, Alexandrian Patriarchate, can come to an agreement on the matter, I am wondering if the CC and EOC (or individual EOC's) cannot come to a similar agreement, despite the standards of the CC being much stricter than the EO's (take note that divorce is not really the issue - it is the remarriage that is the issue).

I also wanted to comment on a poster's statement that the EOC has found a way to handle the matter of divorced and remarried persons. I should point out that second marriages (as we know the practice today) were not canonically proper in the Eastern Church until the early second millenium. I agree with the usual Catholic apologetic that in the time of the united Church, second marriages were only contracted by widows or widowers, not when the other spouse was still alive (with exceedingly rare exceptions). I believe that fact should temper any criticisms about the standard of the Catholic Church. If you criticize the apparent lack of oikonmia in the CC regarding divorce and remarriage, it is really tanatamount to criticizing the Tradition of the undivided Church of the first millenium. Society has changed, and the unspoken doctrine of oikonomia helps the Church adapt to those changes. But we should be more careful and discerning about criticizing those whose intent is to preserve the earlier Traditions of the Church.

Blessings

Still, one wonders why they bother spending an inordinate amount of time and resources to discuss something so minor to the larger topic at hand. Homosexuals as a whole may be 2% of practicing Catholics, excluding celibate faithful of same-sex attraction, those who have taken vows, etc., who exactly is this document in regard to/for? Public relations?

What about our own married clergy and FAMILIES who are restricted from ministry?

What of our latinized Eastern clergy who refuse to commune innocent members of our FAMILY, our baptised/confirmed children?

So uncle Jim and his lover boyfriend can attend Mass and receive but my confirmed daughter needs to attain the 'age of reason'? What for, so that reason can be side-stepped and ignored?

Heck, maybe I'm too cynical. Perhaps this a move to allow single priests to marry each other to attain the same legal/tax benefits as married couples, and save the local parishes some money, at least in Europe and the Americas.

We have to keep in mind that this is an unofficial DRAFT document and according to some, such as Cardinal Burke, it certainly doesn't represent the view of all the bishops at the Synod! Cardinal Erdö, the Synod's chair, even suggested he was unclear exactly what the author of the homosexual passage (Archbishop Forte) meant.

I too would be very interested to know if we have had any comments from the 13 Eastern primates serving as Synod Fathers.