Posted on 10/08/2009 9:49:02 AM PDT by NYer
Although the letter doesn't deal specifically with the sinfulness of homosexual acts, it does say this:
“Of the many teachings of the Catholic Church, perhaps some of the most challenging for Catholics in today’s culture involve human sexuality, including homosexuality. Modern cultural pressures and assumptions often are at odds with the teachings of Christ handed down throughout the centuries.”
I think that one would have to have had one’s head buried in the sand for 2000+ years not to know that the Church's basic challenge to modern culture on the issue of homosexuality is that the Church considers these acts intrinsically sinful. I'll leave it open as to whether the archbishop should have been more explicit, but any other reading would be highly tendentious.
As well, as I said before, I think it's quite positive that the archbishop didn't merely reiterate that this is a CHURCH teaching, but that rather it is a teaching that derives from Jesus, Himself.
“I’m also not a big fan of the Church using the word ‘gay,’...”
I may have missed it, but I didn't see the word “gay” used in the letter, although “homosexuality” and “homosexual” are used.
sitetest
Dear sitetest,
I went back and corrected my comment on “gay”, since that was Winters and not Archbishop Wuerl and I read the two pieces too quickly. I agree with you that people should be aware of Catholic teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acitivity, the disorder of the inclination, the need to respect those with this condition and love the sinner and hate the sin. However, (a) some might not be aware, and (b) some might be aware but are looking for any chink in which to change the Church’s teaching on this topic. There are very strong forces, both in the culture and in the Church, who are successfully normalizing homosexual activity. Just look at what homosexual activists have achieved in the mainline Protestant churches and the Democratic party, of which Mr. Winters is a strong partisan. I don’t think the Archbishop’s statement is a bad one as far as it goes, but given the larger cultural context, it seems that only denouncing same sex marriage without reaffirming the call to chastity could be interpreted by the gay activists and their sympathizers as saying, “See the Church is now modernizing its teaching so that they only object to same sex marriage, not same sex activity.”
“I went back and corrected my comment on ‘gay’, since that was Winters and not Archbishop Wuerl and I read the two pieces too quickly.”
I saw that after I posted to you. Sorry.
“However, (a) some might not be aware, and (b) some might be aware but are looking for any chink in which to change the Church’s teaching on this topic.”
I wonder whether the number who fit (a) might not be vanishingly small, especially among activist homosexual Catholics. As for (b), I wonder whether for some folks, no level of explicit teaching will be sufficient to ward off their tendentious interpretations.
“There are very strong forces, both in the culture and in the Church, who are successfully normalizing homosexual activity.”
That's true. But it strikes me that over the past few years, that trend has been setback considerably in the Catholic Church. My impression is that if nothing else, folks are becoming increasingly clear that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and that the Church is unlikely to change this position.
In fact, a lot of the complaining that I hear from “liberal Catholics” is that the Church seems no longer open to changing her [evil, repressive, outdated, archaic] teachings, that the Church has regressed to “pre-Vatican II” thinking, etc. I saw a thread on Archbishop Weakland’s new autobiography that seems to be one long whine about how mean the Church has become as a result of the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue that this is the best pastoral letter ever written on marriage, homosexuality, etc. I only gave it a C+, myself.
I just didn't think it was an especially egregiously bad letter, nor did I think it readily fell into some of the more common pits to which these sorts of letters are sometimes prey (like inadvertently [or purposely] affirming an active homosexual lifestyle through use of words like “gay”).
sitetest
I don’t think it will change one gay or lesbian heart.
I believe some people are born gay and it’s a cross they must bear their whole lives. I believe some people choose to live the gay lifestyle and have been ensnared by evil.
I doubt this address is enough to influence either group, although I think it’s nice he said it.
What gays really want from the Church is acceptance in all aspects of their lifestyle. The letter is a kind gesture but will not sway them in the least. In fact, it may be taken as a weakness considering they’re getting their “hate speech” bill passed which the Dems squished in between the defense budget for our troops. Will we be subject to committing a felony if we discuss sodomy in the future...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.