CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[T.Lex]

Oops. I think I had a fact wrong that may be important to some: she didn't disclose. Someone found the marriage license and turned it in to the school/church leadership.

So did the uh... volunteer discloser... sin might also be a valid question.

 

[rvb]

To me, that brings up 2 separate angles to it. First, in a world lacking commitment to much of anything, at least they appear to be committed to each other.

that's a very secular argument, leading a lot of churches to be accepting of gay lifestyles, even among church leadership. Yes, gay folks can be super people. They can be good at their jobs and be charitable and be committed to each other, etc. But that doesn't change what the Bible says about homosexuality. I would prefer the school* showed commitment to the Word.

*this being a Christian, private school. My answer would be different for a public school. Would this school be considered an extension of the church?

Second, I'm not sure that making something "legal" is actually much more of a revelation. Hypothetically, if a certain coach is known to be gay, and brings their committed-partner on as an assistant coach, and while they do not express themselves romantically at the school, they do appear to be a couple in all other respects. Everyone just understands and accepts them, and in fact value them as positive influences for the kids in all material ways. People just don't talk about how much time they spend together.

I'm not sure that's any different than having a civil marriage certificate.

well, gossip isn't good either. unless there is PDA, it's hard to make assumptions. Before I was married I had roommates to save $ (male and female). This past week we went camping.... Had a site next to a good friend I see a couple times per year. Often I'd be hanging out with him and his dogs outside his camper and it might not have been obvious to passersby that my wife and kids were next door in my camper, and people could have made judgments about two dudes camping together....

yea, I think there is something different about a legal document...

-rvb

 

[rvb]

Oops. I think I had a fact wrong that may be important to some: she didn't disclose. Someone found the marriage license and turned it in to the school/church leadership.

So did the uh... volunteer discloser... sin might also be a valid question.

I wondered that when I read the original article... sounded potentially vindictive.
But then I thought that if the woman's contract did have some kind of morality clause, then she had to know she was taking a chance by "making it official."

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

Again, rvb, I appreciate the discourse on this topic. (I think that's obvious, but remains worth stating explicitly.)

that's a very secular argument, leading a lot of churches to be accepting of gay lifestyles, even among church leadership. Yes, gay folks can be super people. They can be good at their jobs and be charitable and be committed to each other, etc. But that doesn't change what the Bible says about homosexuality. I would prefer the school* showed commitment to the Word.

*this being a Christian, private school. My answer would be different for a public school. Would that school be considered an extension of the church?

Indeed, this is a "diocesan" school. That is, part (I have no idea how much) of the school's budget is subsidized by all the parishes within the dioceses. At least, that's how I understand it works. (Also, this is not true of every Catholic school or high school; there can be different bureaucracies involved.) So, it absolutely is an extension of the church.

That's also why I wanted to make sure to state that it employs non-Catholics, and even non-Christians.

But, along the lines of your first point above, we are all sinners. As the pope has articulated (echoing MANY in the church, including some priests who have come out as gay, but chaste), even homosexuals have God-given gifts that they can share within the community.

I wondered that when I read the original article... sounded potentially vindictive.
But then I thought that if the woman's contract did have some kind of morality clause, then she had to know she was taking a chance by "making it official."

On the point of the vindictiveness, I wonder if that should color the school's reaction. That is, if this is the product of envy or wrath, then what is happening to that person who revealed their own sin?

The secular notion of inclusion for the sake of inclusion isn't biblical. (That's pretty obvious, eh?) But, inclusion for divine purposes would be. Christ insisted that His word was open to many people who the traditionalists of the day would insist were irreparably separated from Him (lepers, the blind, tax collectors, gentiles generally, etc.).

 

[Ziggidy]

It was just on the news. She signed a contract. She is now on administrative leave.

I agree with the church on this one. Let her decide.

 

[T.Lex]

It was just on the news. She signed a contract. She is now on administrative leave.

I agree with the church on this one. Let her decide.

Thanks, also, but why do you think the church is right on this? Like, biblically right.

I think this also relates to Bug's question about whether an ungodly person can do God's work. As more information comes out (pardon the pun), it seems like she was truly dedicated to Roncalli and its students for the better. She shared her gifts in positive ways.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thanks, also, but why do you think the church is right on this? Like, biblically right.

I think this also relates to Bug's question about whether an ungodly person can do God's work. As more information comes out (pardon the pun), it seems like she was truly dedicated to Roncalli and its students for the better. She shared her gifts in positive ways.

Change the type of sin. Say the person was devoted to his/her work, etc...would this excuse apply to a person that was a (unrepentant) prostitute? A pornography producer? A womanizer? A habitual thief? A lawyer?

 

[Ziggidy]

Thanks, also, but why do you think the church is right on this? Like, biblically right.

I think this also relates to Bug's question about whether an ungodly person can do God's work. As more information comes out (pardon the pun), it seems like she was truly dedicated to Roncalli and its students for the better. She shared her gifts in positive ways.

I believe this person is most likely a very nice person and I surely believe God can use her; as well as anyone else - He even used a donkey! Christ died for this lady. If she was the only person on earth, He still would have died for her.

I believe in rules and structure. The bible is certainly full of structure and is our resource for anything that can come up in life; as hard as that may be at times. There are numerous passages that tell us to love one another, be patient with each other, guide and help each other grow in Christ. Hebrews, Ephesians, James....gosh almost all areas of the Word we see how to treat each other with love. It dose not stop there. We are also instructed to speak to those sinners who continue to sin. Love on them, but also be strong and stand against their sin.....regardless of the sin. If someone continues to live in sin, we as a body must speak out against their sin. At some time the elders are called to reprimand and if no change, they are to be removed from the body. Per the Word. Practicing church discipline does not go against the Word.
Matthew 7:1-15
1Cor 5:12

There are so many more references.

Now the question of "non-Christians" was raised. Well, that is a situation that was secured when the individual signed a contract. They new their employment was contingent upon many factors (so I hear). She was being deceptive, secretive and not completely truthful. Deception is the work of the devil.

I stand with the church in this matter. My concern, even not being a catholic, is the outcry from other people (including so-called Christians / Catholics). This is where I further believe the church needs to hold firm. This is why I question the popes unbiblical change of heart on accepting some sin. Once that door is open, it becomes near impossible to change back. If allowed to stay, can openly active adulterers now serve the church? Can a "practicing" catholic work in a church if they do not believe in going to mass every week, and don't? Where does it stop? Can a priest now have an open life of sin (porn, open gay, etc) and still be a priest.

The bible warns us about being "luke warm". Jesus tells us how not to be, how to live, and how to be saved. In Revelations 3:15-16 we are told it is better to be one or the other. Hearing people say it's ok, she's a very nice person, we should allow her to stay. They speak from the human heart and not a heart of God. It makes people feel soft and fuzzy, good inside. But is is not always the feeling we look for or should expect.

What is the church saying if they allow her to stay at this point? Are they more influenced by media or opinion polls? Or should they keep their biblical stand so they can be a pillar of truth for all to see; instead of a wishy washy, what day is it kind response. People are very thirsty for meat in this society of safe zones and ever changing opinions and such. What hope is there if people are lead to do whatever or be whatever they want, as long as society accepts them? That is certainly NOT eternal hope.

 

[Ziggidy]

I believe this parish church is now in "damage control". How they play this out will tell allot about who they are and who they ultimately report to.

 

[T.Lex]

Change the type of sin. Say the person was devoted to his/her work, etc...would this excuse apply to a person that was a (unrepentant) prostitute? A pornography producer? A womanizer? A habitual thief? A lawyer?

A guidance counselor with a side gig as a lawyer. I lol'd.

With regard to the prostitute/porn/womanizer, I see the analogy most clearly there. For those, it seems to me that there is the additional layer of inducing others to sin. That appears to be absent in this situation. This appears (at this point) to be a more personal sin.

The habitual thief thing is interesting. I'll have to mull that over in terms of how it would apply. Clearly, the habitual thief is depriving someone else of something of value for personal reasons.

Also, it is worth repeating that I have not yet reached my conclusion on this. It may be absolutel reasonable for Roncalli to say, "You are great at what you do. You are a great person. You will make a great counselor someplace else."

 

[T.Lex]

To you, also, thank you.

I believe this person is most likely a very nice person and I surely believe God can use her; as well as anyone else - He even used a donkey! Christ died for this lady. If she was the only person on earth, He still would have died for her.

I believe in rules and structure. The bible is certainly full of structure and is our resource for anything that can come up in life; as hard as that may be at times. There are numerous passages that tell us to love one another, be patient with each other, guide and help each other grow in Christ. Hebrews, Ephesians, James....gosh almost all areas of the Word we see how to treat each other with love. It dose not stop there. We are also instructed to speak to those sinners who continue to sin. Love on them, but also be strong and stand against their sin.....regardless of the sin. If someone continues to live in sin, we as a body must speak out against their sin. At some time the elders are called to reprimand and if no change, they are to be removed from the body. Per the Word. Practicing church discipline does not go against the Word.
Matthew 7:1-15

I think that continuation of Matthew 7 is also insightful. This woman - apparently - bore great fruit for Roncalli. The elders have, and do, speak out against her sin. But what is that balance between patience/loving the sinner and removing her from her position because of her sin?

1Cor 5:12

Indeed, there is quite a list. How many of those sins are ignored? How many of those sinners receive greater patience from the dioceses?

She was being deceptive, secretive and not completely truthful. Deception is the work of the devil.

Frankly, the sin that is heartbreaking to me is her lying. I can only imagine that if she had been honest - even in the confessional with the school priest - about the situation, the Holy Spirit could've guided her on a course to avoid what is happening now.

Her example to her relatives who have gone through Roncalli, and her daughter, is that it is more important to be a liar and cling to the falsity of your cloaked identity to keep your job. Honestly, that is the greater sin IMHO. (For those who are open to different levels of sin.)

I stand with the church in this matter. My concern, even not being a catholic, is the outcry from other people (including so-called Christians / Catholics). This is where I further believe the church needs to hold firm.

My interest is more in consistency and hyprocisy.

This is why I question the popes unbiblical change of heart on accepting some sin. Once that door is open, it becomes near impossible to change back. If allowed to stay, can openly active adulterers now serve the church?

Well, that is a thing. Not that I'm aware of any at Roncalli, but it certainly happens.

With regard to being unbiblical, from the verses you just quoted, there is biblical support for almost anything the diocese wants to do here. Keeping her could also be with the goal of continuing to minister to her. Keep in mind, according to the reports, they just heard about this, too.

The church can't minister to someone about an issue if they don't know about it.

Can a "practicing" catholic work in a church if they do not believe in going to mass every week, and don't? Where does it stop? Can a priest now have an open life of sin (porn, open gay, etc) and still be a priest.

So that's an interesting thing, too. Apparently, some priests have come out as "gay" but because they are chaste, and not acting on it, it is ok. I can see the logic, but it also opens a bit of a gray area.

What is the church saying if they allow her to stay at this point? Are they more influenced by media or opinion polls?

Or the pope.

 

[rvb]

On the point of the vindictiveness, I wonder if that should color the school's reaction. That is, if this is the product of envy or wrath, then what is happening to that person who revealed their own sin?

The secular notion of inclusion for the sake of inclusion isn't biblical. (That's pretty obvious, eh?) But, inclusion for divine purposes would be. Christ insisted that His word was open to many people who the traditionalists of the day would insist were irreparably separated from Him (lepers, the blind, tax collectors, gentiles generally, etc.).

How much her being "ratted out" weighs on this is hard to say. I imagine it adds to some empathy for the counselor. However... it was discussed earlier that we shouldn't treat this sin different from others.... how it is often singled out and made a bigger issue than it maybe should be. And I agree we shouldn't treat it different than other sins. But that works both ways. If the sin were theft/embezzlement from some 3rd party, drunkenness, or a host of other sins, would we say "we should let it go because someone ELSE informed us of it?" Homosexuality is treated differently from both angles... people make a bigger deal of it than should be, put a stigma on the person, etc, which isn't right. But it's also the sin that people don't want to talk about, or brush under the rug and keep private vs addressing it.

as for the person who reveals their own sin, that indicates repentance. at least an expression of "I know I'm doing something wrong." maybe also indicating a cry for help. Someone admitting they are struggling should be afforded the guidance/help/etc needed. There's a big difference between admitting you're weak and struggling with temptation or sin and repenting vs saying you know what the Bible says but society says it's normal and therefore you're not doing anything wrong....

2c

-rvb

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Stupid question

Is homosexuality, itself, the sin? I always just heard sodomy.

Does it specify?

 

[rvb]

So that's an interesting thing, too. Apparently, some priests have come out as "gay" but because they are chaste, and not acting on it, it is ok. I can see the logic, but it also opens a bit of a gray area.

that flat out makes no sense to me. That's like saying "I'm a drunkard, but I've never had alcohol" or "I'm a thief but I've never actually stolen anything"....

oh, you've had temptation? ok, well, that's one thing you and Jesus have in common then....

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

Stupid question

Is homosexuality, itself, the sin? I always just heard sodomy.

Does it specify?

Yes, basically. Sexual immorality is the phrase (in English). It is on the list with greed, drunkenness, idolatry, and robbing.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on the idea that sinfulness is essentially disorder. God has an order for things. That includes a purpose. We avoid sin by living out our purpose. For men, that includes the role of procreating. This where the "every sperm is sacred" thing gets thrown about and the case against contraception. The sensory pleasure is inextricably linked to the procreative act. The natural order is that man is intended to feel that way to encourage procreation.

For women, the sensory isn't necessarily AS linked as it is for men, but it is still God's intent for the natural order to be aimed at procreation.

Homosexuality denies that natural order established by God.

that flat out makes no sense to me. That's like saying "I'm a drunkard, but I've never had alcohol" or "I'm a thief but I've never actually stolen anything"....

oh, you've had temptation? ok, well, that's one thing you and Jesus have in common then....

Yeah, I'm not sure I completely understand it, but its a thing. The only way it makes sense to me is that it may be a way to reach out to those communities. "I'm one of you" but because they don't act on it, the idea is that they have credibility to make that same argument to the gay groups.

Again, I don't fully understand that.

 

[rvb]

Stupid question

Is homosexuality, itself, the sin? I always just heard sodomy.

Does it specify?

the Bible says in a couple different places, having same-sex sexual relations is the sin.
phases something like "men shouldn't lie with another man as they would with a woman." (paraphrasing from memory).

-rvb

 

[Ziggidy]

Stupid question

Is homosexuality, itself, the sin? I always just heard sodomy.

Does it specify?

It's the acting out. Being gay is not a sin just as being tempted is not the sin. We all sin, even after we are saved (through grace); but we can repent of our sins. "LIVING in sin" is a new game. You cannot say you are saved if you continue live in sin.....just isn't, not according to me, but the Word.

 

[T.Lex]

Not for nothin', the Roncalli mission statement:

As a Catholic high school, our pledge is to provide, in concert with parents, parish, and community, an educational opportunity which seeks to form Christian leaders in body, mind and spirit.


Guided by prayer and the Gospel values of faith, love, and justice, students are challenged to respond to the call of discipleship and to fulfill their potential as lifelong learners in service to others.


Our end is to make God’s love complete among us.

 

[Ziggidy]

Ok, let's really get down to it. Can we all agree that "living in sin" is the same across the board? Sin is the separation from God, or what causes it. God hates sin, period. God loves the sinner but it is up to the sinner to accept God's grace through faith. Once cannot expect to receive God's grace if they "live in sin". So what is "living in sin"?

Is being tempted, living sin....of course not, even Christ was tempted; but He did not act on that temptation. So, can we agree that being tempted is NOT a sin, but acting out or living it is the sin?

Next we have to ask, how does one do the "living" in sin. I mean we all sin, correct? Even through I am saved by grace, I sin....I slip....my pride gets in my way...my thoughts can get out of control. Even Paul says he fails to do what he wants to do and does what he does not want to do. But we repent....and turn from our ways. Being married to a person of the same sex....is that the kind of sin that Paul speaks of or is that "living in sin"? Even if you do not believe it is sin, it is still living in sin because you do not want to turn from your ways, you are accepting your way of living as ok. "This is what I want." Would you agree that being in a gay marriage would be living in sin?

Let's really explode this into reality. I understand this is not a problem isolated with catholics, so please do not take it there.

What about catholic pedophile priests (of it makes you feel better replace it with something else). IF sin is sin and living in sin is living in sin; for the sake of continuity; would the church allow a pedophile priest to remain on duty? What about the priest that has an affair with a parishioner? My point is this; what sin does the church feel is bad enough to remove a person from their obligations?

What I see happening is this; and it is not isolated strictly to the catholic church - you see it in every church (not all). For whatever reason (whole different discussion), the church is allowing the world to infiltrate its core principles that are founded in the bible....God's word. As it does, it created a level of leniency that goes beyond the directions in the Word. It's not only infiltrated our churches, but so much immorality and sick perversions have infiltrated our schools, television, radio, music and let's not forget hollywood. We are the frog in the boiling water and we're just about cooked.

When the world is as broken and shaky as it is, we need Jesus to be the "rock", our hope in the world today. We need His strength and know that we can get through all this because of Him. The church needs to be solid and not lukewarm. People need to see the church as a safe place from the world rather than the world with just a cross on the building. It is NOT the time for Christians to be lukewarm. When good become evil and evil becomes good, we'll know the time is near. People need to see a church that knows the difference. They need to know they can escape from the world and the church is there to help them.

I will have greater respect for the church if they stand firm in the God's word and not bend to the opinions of the world. The world opinions change, God's word never changes.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, let's really get down to it. Can we all agree that "living in sin" is the same across the board? Sin is the separation from God, or what causes it. God hates sin, period. God loves the sinner but it is up to the sinner to accept God's grace through faith. Once cannot expect to receive God's grace if they "live in sin". So what is "living in sin"?

Is being tempted, living sin....of course not, even Christ was tempted; but He did not act on that temptation. So, can we agree that being tempted is NOT a sin, but acting out or living it is the sin?

Next we have to ask, how does one do the "living" in sin. I mean we all sin, correct? Even through I am saved by grace, I sin....I slip....my pride gets in my way...my thoughts can get out of control. Even Paul says he fails to do what he wants to do and does what he does not want to do. But we repent....and turn from our ways. Being married to a person of the same sex....is that the kind of sin that Paul speaks of or is that "living in sin"? Even if you do not believe it is sin, it is still living in sin because you do not want to turn from your ways, you are accepting your way of living as ok. "This is what I want." Would you agree that being in a gay marriage would be living in sin?

Let's really explode this into reality. I understand this is not a problem isolated with catholics, so please do not take it there.

What about catholic pedophile priests (of it makes you feel better replace it with something else). IF sin is sin and living in sin is living in sin; for the sake of continuity; would the church allow a pedophile priest to remain on duty? What about the priest that has an affair with a parishioner? My point is this; what sin does the church feel is bad enough to remove a person from their obligations?

What I see happening is this; and it is not isolated strictly to the catholic church - you see it in every church (not all). For whatever reason (whole different discussion), the church is allowing the world to infiltrate its core principles that are founded in the bible....God's word. As it does, it created a level of leniency that goes beyond the directions in the Word. It's not only infiltrated our churches, but so much immorality and sick perversions have infiltrated our schools, television, radio, music and let's not forget hollywood. We are the frog in the boiling water and we're just about cooked.

When the world is as broken and shaky as it is, we need Jesus to be the "rock", our hope in the world today. We need His strength and know that we can get through all this because of Him. The church needs to be solid and not lukewarm. People need to see the church as a safe place from the world rather than the world with just a cross on the building. It is NOT the time for Christians to be lukewarm. When good become evil and evil becomes good, we'll know the time is near. People need to see a church that knows the difference. They need to know they can escape from the world and the church is there to help them.

I will have greater respect for the church if they stand firm in the God's word and not bend to the opinions of the world. The world opinions change, God's word never changes.

Actually, there isn't much I disagree with there. The only area I find disagreement is the idea of "stand firm or bend to the worldly pressures." I think that's a false dichotomy. This isn't an either/or kind of issue.

We shouldn't adopt heat or cold on a whim just to avoid being lukewarm. In this instance, reliance on Matthew may also be appropriate to discern that this decision should not be a rush to judgment. Rather, there is nothing wrong with taking some time on this matter.

I am reminded of all the REALLY crappy things David did. (Granted, that's OT.) God persevered with David on some grievous sins. His mercy was great and undeniable.

1 Cor 7:17 - let each of us live the life to which we are called. Indeed, she may be doing that for reasons beyond our ken. So, too, might the church.