Listening to love

Just because some people may be listening to something other than the Church does not mean that thing is correct. People can listen to Call to Action all they want, but that does not mean they are listening to Christ and His Church. That will catch up to them in the long run.

Bishops, like everyone else, have opinions. But to agree with what they say, one has either to need their authority to feel good about an opinion that they share, or to agree with what they say. If their authority is felt or seen as unimportant, then what they say relies entirely on their good judgment and their understanding of the signs of the times. If both are lacking, or weak, then the sensus fidelium will depend on its own sense of what is just and Godly and ignore declarations that do not fit with it...
At this time, Cardinal George is a mouthpiece for reactionary thoughts. His opinion has value as much as any other opinion, but not more.

In our experience with Catholc parents who have LGBT daughters or sons, and we know many, very few are listening to the bishops! Thanks Nicole! Right on! Casey Lopata, Fortunate Families, Inc.

"The answer seems clear: Catholics are listening to love", calims Ms. Sotelo. Unfortunately, Ms. Sotelo could not be further from the truth.

Sin is sin, whether we choose to call it something else or not. There is no love whatsoever in allowing someone to continue persisting in sin when we have the opportunity to offer fraternal correction. There is no love in allowing a person to die (as St. Paul reminds us, "the wages of sin is death") when we have it in our power to help them toward eternal life. In other words, wherever sin is tolerated, there is no love.

The Church's teachings are all about love. The Church expresses her love, and in so doing, Christ's love, by offering consistent and reasonable teachings regarding moral issues. In other words, much as a parent does for his child, Holy Mother Church establishes moral boundaries (pretty broad ones, by the way) to protect her children from harm. It is when we stray beyond those boundaries that we find ourselves in serious trouble, trouble that could easily have been avoided if we had only listened.

The problem that comes with trusting in our own experiences, rather than in the wisdom of the Church, is that we are limited to just one mortal life. For those familiar with Lois Lowery's excellent work "The Giver" will understand my references here. I am like the Community that Lowery created in "The Giver" -- I have my own memories and experiences, but nothing more. Thus, when I make decisions, some small and some very serious, I am only able to draw on that which I have seen, done, or experienced. The decisions I make, then, may be quite flawed.

The Church is like the character of the Receiver of Memory. The Church holds a vast array of memories and experiences, assembled over the course of 2000 years (plus an additional few millennia in the Jewish traditions before the Church was founded). Thus, the Church's decisions, her teachings, are grounded on far more than just one person's experiences, but rather on the collective experience and wisdom of millions of people who have gone before, along with the sure and certain guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If Catholics are listening less to the bishops and the Holy Father lately, it is no doubt due to the fact that many bishops have been unwilling to exercise their teaching office for fear of offending people. Many bishops have refused to do what they need to do for fear of the reaction they might get from some in their dioceses. The answer is for bishops and priests (and laity) to be willing to stand up for what the Church believes, to proclaim it boldly and without compromise, to be willing to accept the slings and arrows that may result. The answer is to teach people that, when they rely on the Church, they relying on sure and certain truth.

From my own personal experience what I have learned is consistent with the results of the studies mentioned. I believe that there is a large credibility gap between the Roman hierarchy and the Roman faithful. I believe that much of this has to do with the lack of true pastoral leadership among the episcopal hierarchy, at least in this country. The Vatican seems more at home at this time with a "slash and burn" approach to many questions of centuries of Church teaching. The refusal to at least re-investigate some of these non-dogmatic questions may contribute to a belief that there has been something about the teaching that now needs defending. The laity is more intelligent today that in the distant past. They are less likely to be like "lambs led to the slaughter" and the "Yes, Father, whatever you say Father" generation is a thing of the past. What is scary is this slave/master relationship seems to be more prevalent among younger generations, if my associations and experiences have any relevance.

May the Church leaders have to become good active listeners instead of active speakers who parrot the past for the sake of continuity and consistency in lieu of relevance.

Define "love" please. Agape? Eros? Friendship? Lover? Romantic? Of course God encompasses all forms of love. Humans don't have that gift in the fullest sense, as God alone does.

All statistics do is give a brief, imperfect look at what some people are doing. Statistical majorities can be wrong - factually, ethically, and morally.

A catholicism that views bishops as just another voice, a voice that we are free to accept (wholly or partially) or ignore, is not Roman Catholicism. It is some other form of Christianity.

"I think I may know to whom Catholics are listening." Yes, I think I know, too. Here are some hints: not God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. Not the Triune God transcending all human reasoning. Not God-made-Flesh, Jesus the Christ.

The Church will not change its teaching to suit the sinful fads and falsehoods of society. Dissenting Catholics are not listening to love, they are listening to Satan, who presents evil under the guise of goodness.

Ms. Sotelo's citation of statistics only indicates that soft-headed bourgeois thinking has taken over the Catholic world in America.

Ms. Sotelo's citation of statistics only indicates that soft-headed bourgeois thinking has taken over the Catholic world in America.

If final moral authority rests with individuals, then why have a church at all? Why bother to persuade anybody of anything? Just let everyone make up their own minds. The incoherence of left-wing, dissident thinking is astounding. The people who believe that moral authority rests with individuals are denying the existence of objective moral truth. That worldview leads to chaos.

Oh goodness, I don't think the Vatican, the cardinals, or many of the bishops are going to like all this rabid believer free-thinking, one little bit. The official earth is still flat when it comes to these hot button issues, and as we are so loudly and constantly being told from high religious places: That is a Catholic believer that. Period. End of story. Minds off, please, repeat after me. The early church appears to have similarly struggled mightily over circumcision and keeping Moses' Law; different outcomes, maybe, way back then?

How long will the leaders digging in, last? Well, let's guess-timate. How long did it take the Vatican to officially admit that the earth was not flat after all, and that Ptolemaic Cosmology was not true after all, empirically speaking? To actually formally apologize to, say, Copernicus or Galileo? The pace and manner in which that change finally took place, sort of, may suggest the pace and manner of other hot button changes, similarly based in dramatic surprises from empirical shifts in our individual and collective thinking, even among many different types of believers.

Of course, as change sinks in, ever so slowly; in retrospect, the corrections seems so obvious, so common sensical. How many church leaders died, safe in the utterly certain belief/knowledge that revelation which backed up Ptolemaic Cosmology was solid, sure, settled, and all? As the tribal woman says, even in the Avatar movie that has been such a block-buster entertainment hit: It is hard to fill a cup which is already so full. Then, just a bit later: We shall see if your insanity can be cured, Jake Sully. I betcha more global believers immediately understand her movie character's remarks in context, than any of these high religious leaders want to comprehend. Alas. Lord have mercy.

If Catholics REALLY want to "listen to love"...

Then listen the Voice of Love Himself, who said of His Apostles "He who hears you hears Me..." and "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you..."

For 2000 years the successors of the Apostles have been the uncompromising voice of Love in the world, protected by the Holy Spirit and teaching the truths of Jesus Christ with the authority of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps it's too obvious to point out that, if Jesus is to be believed when He says "He who hears you hears Me", the implication is clearly that "He who does NOT hear you does NOT hear Me."

Even so, there is still hope for those who have stopped "listening" to the successors of the apostles regarding the sin of homosexual behavior. Jesus still might come along at some point and say to you "Ephphatha!" (be opened). If so, His Church will be waiting to love you back into the truth when your faith in Him is restored....

Nicole Sotelo's essay "Listening to Love", is a beautiful piece of journalism that sets a tone that elevates NCR far above many steps above so many other Catholic publications. I thank NCR for continuing in this spirit. It serves the Catholic people of God very well. Thank you, Nicole for these beautiful and Christ like insights.

I must agree with the sentiment expressed. There is a real disconnect when I hear the bishops and the pope refer to homosexuality as a disordered state and that same-sex committed relationships are somehow a threat to the institution of marriage. The disconnect comes when I compare these statements to my own privileged experience of working with gay fellow professionals and knowing those in committed same-sex relationships. These folks, by and large, are not disordered - probably not to any greater or lesser degree than the straight population who seem to have done the lion's share of damage to the institution of marriage.

One further point and question. Where is the data that demonstrates that same-sex marriage threatens or damages the institution of marriage? I've seen lots of assertions and opinions, but can't recall solid data cited. Archbishop Kurtz, where's the beef?

"working to build a church that loves all God’s children." Your weak argument implies the Bishops do not want to build a Church that loves all God's children and that by calling people to live love in the truth is not a loving thing to do. Morality by majority- that worked so well through the centuries.

Wow, to read some of these comments, you'd think the sole source of morality is the Catholic hierarchy. Yes, the authors of the Inquisition, the Crusades; the proud apostolic succession that includes popes who philandered, lived opulently, murdered, and started wars. Not to mention systematically exposed children to and protected known pedophiles.
Sorry, history (and current events!) shows that the wisdom of the Church does not always reside with those who claim authority. Fortunately, the Spirit has always resided in the entire Body of Christ. Look at the saints who challenged Catholic leadership - see Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena...
Furthermore, any moral theologian worth his/her salt is forced to acknowledge that solid morals can be reached within AND outside the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, for a Catholic, tradition and biblical practices must be honored and weighed in moral decisions. But reason and new knowledge must round out the moral balance. (See Aquinas again!)
Otherwise, slavery should still be around - it was endorsed Biblically, endorsed by the Church hierarchy (Latin America anyone?), and has only recently been condemned. But, against explicit Biblical teaching and 1800 years of tradition, we can demonstrate that slavery is demonstrably harmful to those enslaved and those who enslave. And so we rightly say it is morally repugnant.
So what's demonstrably harmful about homosexuality? Really, this is the point no social conservative has been able to articulate well. Please demonstrate to me the terrible consequences of two consenting adults of the same sex falling love and expressing it.
And while we're at it, how is this terrible sin of homosexuality worth more attention than, say, the systematic rape, murder, and mutilation that happens in the Congo? That's an EASY moral question - where's the corresponding outrage? It seems we care more about what people do in bed than the unspeakable violence that is still perpetrated across the world.
So long as the Catholic hierarchy insists on blind faith in support of its claims, it will continue to lose its moral authority among thinking, honest seekers.

"HE WHO HEARS "YOU"...HEARS ME."

WHEN JESUS SAID "YOU" WASN'T HE SPEAKING TO ALL HIS DISCIPLES?
NOT JUST THE 12 APOSTLES.

WE ARE THE CHURCH...THOSE OF US WHO LOVE OUR ENEMIES AND FORGIVE.
THOSE OF US WHO SERVE THE LEAST AMONG US.
THOSE OF US WHO LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

NO HAS THE RIGHT TO EXCOMMUNICATE OR JUDGE ANOTHER'S HEART EXCEPT GOD.
WHEN WILL ALL RELIGIONS EVER LEARN TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
WHEN WILL THE POWER STRUGGLE END AND THE POWER OF GOD BEGIN??

What is done in the name of "love."
Perhaps the author might consider that love means first of all treating the person in the full integrity of their personal being. The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, mirrors that love through the nuptial meaning of the body that comes from the complementarity of the sexes. No homosexual "pairing" can ever mirror that.