Angels were basically given one opportunity to cooperate with God's plan, while we humans have many opportunities throughout our whole lives in which we (hopefully) grow in virtue and love of God before we die. The point is we have our whole lives to experience a process of continual conversion (so make the most of it).
I like reading what Eve writes, as she challenges me to think from fundamentals rather than incidentals. I am sympathetic with those in "irregular" relationships who want to find a way to love someone to whom they are attracted. And, hopefully, priests and catechists and laity are honing their understanding of how to love as God loves. The sad part is that the American Catholic Church has been very lax with heterosexual couples living as if they are married, devaluing the effort and the understanding required for sacramental marrying. It would be helpful if the Church actually held all couples to the standards of how to love as proclaimed by the Church through Revelation and Magisterial teaching.
It would be helpful if the Church proclaimed the standards of sexual morality as revealed in Scripture and Tradition, clearly and from the pulpit at least annually. If only to get people who are not living according to those standards to stop committing sacrilege against the Eucharist. We cannot possibly love others as God loves them if we aren't loving God enough to ask for a blessing at Holy Communion instead of stabbing Him in the heart.
This is a distinctly American and/or UK Catholic attitude. It’s a totally valid approach for OUR context but let’s not assume that’s acceptable everywhere. In many countries the bishop would privately scold a priest for emphasizing the primacy of discipline over eucharistic theology. If you truly believe that the Eucharist is the physical Christ, it is not him you need to protect; rather, it is the sinner you must rush to the front of the line. The Eucharist actually truly changes us to be more like Christ. And the reason we discern what we consume, and our own worthiness, is to encourage the faithful to meet that challenge of becoming more open to high standard Jesus Christ calls us to.
The Eucharist is a "sacrament of the living;" unlike for instance the Sacrament of Penance we need to be in a state of sanctifying Grace to receive its benefits. Reception of the Eucharist when objectively in a state of mortal sin does not help the person but is sacrilegious. Note this is a distinct concept from external discipline like the rule that people "living in manifest grave sin" should not receive the Eucharist. It is about actual spiritual disposition. It doesn't have anything to do with what country you live in or what the "rules" are.
I spoke with a Spanish prelate recently who found that interesting, but no basis of origin within the universal church. I would argue it is however a perfectly valid and maybe even helpful approach for any country that has a pluralism of religious groups other than Catholicism.
And to clarify, the difference in perspective was specifically on whether the Church is called to gather those in grave sin and slowly help them realize a better path or if the primary duty was to treat their worthiness of Eucharist as a pass/fail
It's a gravely serious matter to examine our conscience and not profane the body and blood of the Lord (nor to receive Him without faith). It is the Lord and therefore we must be morally accountable if we are to receive Him without "profaning" the Sacrament and it having a negative impact on us. This is Saint Paul telling you about our responsibility to not eat and drink unworthily of the Eucharist, in 1 Co 11:23–32:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
I would have put this in if you hadn't. And the English speaking Church has decided to omit verses 27-29 when this passage is read in church. Please contact your bishop to request that it be returned so the faithful will know it's not just rigid, judgmental Catholics who say one must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist but Scripture itself.
It's in the universal Church's Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion."
Which, incidentally, quotes Scripture, something which also pertains to the universal Church. Moreover, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
"We should, in the next place, carefully examine whether our consciences be defiled by mortal sin, which has to be repented of, in order that it may be blotted out before Communion by the remedy of contrition and confession. The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having an opportunity of going to confession, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until he has been purified by sacramental confession."
The Council of Trent having said "If it is unbeseeming for any one to approach to any of the sacred functions, unless he approach holily; assuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed that he approach not to receive it but with great reverence and holiness, especially as we read in the Apostle those words full of terror; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. Wherefore, he who would communicate, ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle; Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one, conscious to himself [Page 81] of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians"
None of these originate in America at all, all are from documents proceeding from the universal Church, from the earliest times to the present day.
I don’t think I disagree with a single thing you said. It is only the juridical attitude and structural approach that differs the US (sometimes UK) too from the rest of the church. Pope Benedict XVI gave communion to the thirsty dictator Paul Biya. He also gave communion to a Protestant pastor at JPII’s funeral on purpose (he later converted partially as a result of that shock). Even the Irish (largely) don’t show the same zeal for turning people away from communion that I see here. We do not need a change in rules, we need a change our mental models. In today’s Gospel, you see how the touch of Jesus brings a conversion. The leprosy today in our church is a hidden prejudice, where we want to find the distinctions between ourselves and the world. And in that, we try to reserve the sacrament to the perfect. Our calling is a zeal to get the sacrament to as many people as possible, for that is where the true change happens. And if someone cannot receive then we are called to accompany them until they can receive.
When asked I believe we have been told “Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself” Uh. Where is the qualification for the people we love? Many thanks.
Fr. Michael's approach is precisely the right way to approach FS in faithful continuity with the tradition as a right pastoral application of sound philosophy and theology.
I suppose it tends to support Francis's reported command: "Hagan lío". Since "lío" seems to have a thousand meanings (see below), God knows what this confusing pope meant. Or perhaps he meant it not to be understood clearly at all.
translations
mess «Figurative», mix-up, USAproblem, clutter, difficulty, fuss, hang-up, hassle, hoo-ha, muddle, scrape «Figurative», shambles, tough spot, Great Britaincarry-on, hot water «Figurative», imbroglio, muss, pickle «Familiar», tricky situation
Enredo, embrollo, confusión.Enredo, embrollo, confusión. | Follón, barullo, gresca, desorden.Follón, barullo, gresca, desorden. || Informal terms for a difficult situation.Informal terms for a difficult situation.
quotable
El éxito es relativo: Es lo que podemos hacer del desorden de cosas que hemos hechoEl éxito es relativo: Es lo que podemos hacer del desorden de cosas que hemos hecho | Success is relative: It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things Success is relative: It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things T.S. Eliot
> “Where are you in life? Where is God in your life? Even if I could bless you, it’s not magic; the rest of your life [needs to be] receptive.”
The way we view the world is "does God love me?", and the way reality actually works is (Ps. 81:11 like a mother patiently trying to spoon-feed a child who is (not) trying pureed gerber fruits "open wide your mouth and I will fill it.. here comes the airplane") that God desires to pour 18-wheelers of graces into us and we mostly do not want to take delivery of any of them, where by "we" I mean "I".
The true love expressed through friendship needs to be reclaimed. Think of the great friendships expressed throughout history and classical literature. These were people who truly loved each other and expressed it through self sacrifice and deep connection. How easy it is for our culture to debase that understanding and shunt those feelings solely as eros.
May God guide and bless these people on their journey to Him and help their conversion (and ours as well!) as they are "dying to self."
Agreed, the value of friendship needs to be reclaimed!
I don’t want to be unduly critical of those who are earnestly trying to live out the truths of the faith, but is there a danger of attempting to give friendship the characteristics that are proper to marriage? Marriage is exclusive; friendship is not. Marriage means total self-giving, which leads to possession (My husband is mine and I am his!) in a way that would be inappropriate in friendship.
As a society we do undervalue friendship; in reclaiming it, we need to avoid making it a parody of marriage, but rather find the beauty friendship has in its own nature.
Hi Lucy, you are correct in saying marriage has an exclusivity that friendship does not. The type of friendship being discussed, however, is much deeper than the friendships of utility or pleasure that make up most of our friends. Most people would be lucky to have 2-3 true friends in their lifetime. So I am not convinced that recognizing a deep friendship of character makes a parody of marriage.
The pseudonymous Barbara felt that "friendship" was used to avoid talking about the reality of her partnership, and I would imagine most, if not all critics of Miss Tushnet's spiritual friendship project would agree.
I'm not sure exactly how to read this comment, but I will admit that while I'm sympathetic to her feelings, that comment did bother me as a mother. It probably shouldn't be the case, but it is, that "partner," without a qualifier like "business" in front of it, has come to mean "more or less exclusive sexual relations with this one individual." In some English speaking parts of the world even married couples refer to each other as "partner" instead of "husband" and "wife." That puts me in a hard spot as I try to teach the truth to my children.
I would probably say "friend," too, if I had to say anything. Scandal is real and that makes all of this really hard.
I'm rather curious about what happens with people who start looking into the Church because they think she's changed her teachings. What do they do when they find out she hasn't?
Hopefully, by the time they’ve figured that out they also better understand WHY the Church will not change and have been loved into acceptance and supported in being formed into a new life.
It largely depends on what they experience when they reach out to the Church. If it's a kind, intelligent, pastorally-minded person they're more likely to grow in trust and be willing to hear it out, because they can form a relationship with someone. What was abstract becomes concrete and personal. On the other hand, if they're met with callousness or ineptitude, they don't form a relationship and their worries or fears are reinforced.
> because they can form a relationship with someone.
It is a good point. We ought to try harder to understand that we are mediating Christ to people, and that just as we probably ought to look at someone and try to see "this is Jesus (perhaps on a very bad day)" to spur ourselves to a greater quasi-benedictine desire to be radically hospitable, we ought also to understand that what we do will be projected onto this person's idea of Christ thereafter whether they are consciously aware of it or not.
And that happened to Christ Himself! When it became clear that His teaching was meeting hard hearts, He turned to parables that people might have projected their own meanings onto. But He still wanted to keep engaging, even if the uniqueness of His mission meant that building long-haul earthly relationships wasn’t in the cards.
I suppose this is the real bleeding edge of what the Church should be thinking seriously about: not even God intended celibates to live alone! As monastery’s and convents clearly demonstrate.
However, a serious lay celibate vocation lived in community seems very underdeveloped, at least in the Anglosphere. I think this is going to be very much needed.
Exactly. Also, not all celibates are called to religious life. There has to be a way for them to live healthy social lives of service that should be thought about more strategically.
This is along the lines of conversations my husband and I have been having since Fiducia. What place is there for Catholics who are not married or religious?
Kathryn, that is precisely my situation! I’m not same-sex attracted, but I’m a lay Catholic man who made a private vow of celibacy last year with the proper permission after a 15 year discernment journey trying to figure out where Jesus was calling me.
I would say one of the gifts of my vocation is I have more time to pray for others and to be present to my friends and family and others in need than a priest, deacon, religious, or married layperson is, and I’m fortunate that I come from a very loving, supportive family and I am blessed with many good friends and a very supportive pastor at my parish, but not everyone is in that situation.
I would say if you know a man or woman in that situation, reach out to them in friendship.
And if you have single, celibate Catholic friends, don’t be afraid to reach out to us for support it you need it. As I mentioned above, we tend to have fewer responsibilities than priests, religious, and married people do, and I can almost always make time for a 10-15 minute phone call if someone needs a listening ear and I pray for prayer requests sent to me as soon as I can after I receive them.
So maybe those of us who are single, celibate lay Catholics have a charism of friendship because we have fewer responsibilities? I’ve been thinking about that myself. Friendship is definitely a huge part of my life.
God bless you and your husband for having those conversations!
It’s pretty limited though. You have to more or less (there is some wiggle room) be an actual virgin, which rules out a lot of converts heh. You also have to be a woman.
God bless your efforts to meet people where they are at, and yet never shy from pointing them to the truth. “I came to call not the righteous, but sinners…”
This is why The Pillar is an authentically important Catholic publication. Articles like this enlarge conversations that have too quickly contracted into tight-minded ideological encampments. Most importantly, it points to the fact that many same-sex attracted Catholics are working to live their lives chastely in accord with the Gospel. And just like it is for everyone else, it's a cross. There are many gay Catholics who do NOT reject the Church's orthodox teachings about sexuality, but have no model for how to live them out. They so frequently get overlooked in the debate over FS because neither side can really bring themselves to believe that they actually exist.
Keith has spent decades mentoring gay Catholics. He said that many pastors—and same-sex couples—don’t have a good sense of what a Catholic vision for their love might look like."
Yes! This is why I finally committed to becoming a supporter, after dragging my feet for over a year. These kinds of conversations challenge all of us to grow and to really think through what it means to engage with the others out of love for Christ. It can be easy to find publications that simply affirm you where you are, but The Pillar consistently challenges me to think about things from angles I'd never considered before, while remaining unwaveringly committed to the truth of Christ and the Church.
Yup! Although I’m not same-sex attracted myself, I have friends who are and who also agree with the Church’s teachings and are seeking to follow Christ and become saints.
A few thoughts on the topic based on what I’ve learned from my friends and others:
1.) Parish ministries are heavily focused on married couples, especially married couples with kids, and so if you’re not called to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and you’re not called to religious life or to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, then where do you fit in the Church? I can relate to that too as a single, celibate lay Catholic who isn’t same-sex attracted.
2.) Not all same-sex attracted people struggle with chastity, which should be obvious, since not all of us who are not same-sex attracted struggle with chastity. So our outreach to our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters cannot and should not be solely focused on chastity support groups like Courage (check out Eden Invitation as an example of a much more comprehensive approach to outreach that is faithful to the Church’s teaching).
3.) Even if they do support the Church’s teachings and seek to follow them, our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters face ostracism and are looked at with suspicion. It’s hard enough being a single, celibate Catholic layman who isn’t same-sex attracted, now add that ostracism and cloud of suspicion on top of that and you can understand somewhat what our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters go through. They’re pretty much caught in the crossfire of the Culture Wars in the USA.
The question then, is, how can we reach out in friendship and support to our same-sex attracted brethren and integrate them into the life of the Church? It’s definitely something to think and pray about.
And those of us single, not looking for a spouse, deeply committed Catholics. There are young adult groups and senior groups but when you're between those ages the Catholic Church has pretty much nothing in the way of support for us. That needs to change.
Amen to that, Sue! As someone who fits into that demographic you describe myself, I agree 100%. And if there is something for single people, it often turns, intentionally or not, into a “matchmaking club”, which is frustrating for those of us who are committed celibates.
In my Archdiocese, each parish has been ordered by our Archbishop to start a small group ministry and every Catholic is strongly encouraged to join one or more of the small groups being launched, which are all launching during Lent this year (with the hope that the small groups will continue and become permanent).
I’m going to be co-leading one made up of the 18-45 year old demographic (I’m 37), and, among other topics, we’re going to talk about friendship, the unique challenges and opportunities of being a Catholic in the secular workplace, and hopefully have a board game night every once in a while for fellowship. We already have 9 people signed up for the small group, including the co-leaders, which is very encouraging! And I will work hard to make sure this does not turn into a “matchmaking club”.
Yes, this sounds like a wonderful innovation. And keeping it from being a matchmaking club and instead a good friends club will help keep it going over time.
"'Angels get one moment, we’ve got our whole life to walk that journey.'” Thank you, Father, for that perspective.
The meaning of that sentence - quoted out of the context of the entire interview - was not clear to me. Would someone explain what it means?
Angels were basically given one opportunity to cooperate with God's plan, while we humans have many opportunities throughout our whole lives in which we (hopefully) grow in virtue and love of God before we die. The point is we have our whole lives to experience a process of continual conversion (so make the most of it).
Thanks. Then it should be "got", no? "Get", present tense, means it's ongoing, as though angels are being tested continually.
Unless it means angels are still being created in time.
I like reading what Eve writes, as she challenges me to think from fundamentals rather than incidentals. I am sympathetic with those in "irregular" relationships who want to find a way to love someone to whom they are attracted. And, hopefully, priests and catechists and laity are honing their understanding of how to love as God loves. The sad part is that the American Catholic Church has been very lax with heterosexual couples living as if they are married, devaluing the effort and the understanding required for sacramental marrying. It would be helpful if the Church actually held all couples to the standards of how to love as proclaimed by the Church through Revelation and Magisterial teaching.
It would be helpful if the Church proclaimed the standards of sexual morality as revealed in Scripture and Tradition, clearly and from the pulpit at least annually. If only to get people who are not living according to those standards to stop committing sacrilege against the Eucharist. We cannot possibly love others as God loves them if we aren't loving God enough to ask for a blessing at Holy Communion instead of stabbing Him in the heart.
This is a distinctly American and/or UK Catholic attitude. It’s a totally valid approach for OUR context but let’s not assume that’s acceptable everywhere. In many countries the bishop would privately scold a priest for emphasizing the primacy of discipline over eucharistic theology. If you truly believe that the Eucharist is the physical Christ, it is not him you need to protect; rather, it is the sinner you must rush to the front of the line. The Eucharist actually truly changes us to be more like Christ. And the reason we discern what we consume, and our own worthiness, is to encourage the faithful to meet that challenge of becoming more open to high standard Jesus Christ calls us to.
The Eucharist is a "sacrament of the living;" unlike for instance the Sacrament of Penance we need to be in a state of sanctifying Grace to receive its benefits. Reception of the Eucharist when objectively in a state of mortal sin does not help the person but is sacrilegious. Note this is a distinct concept from external discipline like the rule that people "living in manifest grave sin" should not receive the Eucharist. It is about actual spiritual disposition. It doesn't have anything to do with what country you live in or what the "rules" are.
I spoke with a Spanish prelate recently who found that interesting, but no basis of origin within the universal church. I would argue it is however a perfectly valid and maybe even helpful approach for any country that has a pluralism of religious groups other than Catholicism.
And to clarify, the difference in perspective was specifically on whether the Church is called to gather those in grave sin and slowly help them realize a better path or if the primary duty was to treat their worthiness of Eucharist as a pass/fail
It's a gravely serious matter to examine our conscience and not profane the body and blood of the Lord (nor to receive Him without faith). It is the Lord and therefore we must be morally accountable if we are to receive Him without "profaning" the Sacrament and it having a negative impact on us. This is Saint Paul telling you about our responsibility to not eat and drink unworthily of the Eucharist, in 1 Co 11:23–32:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
I would have put this in if you hadn't. And the English speaking Church has decided to omit verses 27-29 when this passage is read in church. Please contact your bishop to request that it be returned so the faithful will know it's not just rigid, judgmental Catholics who say one must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist but Scripture itself.
It's in the universal Church's Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion."
Which, incidentally, quotes Scripture, something which also pertains to the universal Church. Moreover, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
"We should, in the next place, carefully examine whether our consciences be defiled by mortal sin, which has to be repented of, in order that it may be blotted out before Communion by the remedy of contrition and confession. The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having an opportunity of going to confession, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until he has been purified by sacramental confession."
The Council of Trent having said "If it is unbeseeming for any one to approach to any of the sacred functions, unless he approach holily; assuredly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to give heed that he approach not to receive it but with great reverence and holiness, especially as we read in the Apostle those words full of terror; He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. Wherefore, he who would communicate, ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle; Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one, conscious to himself [Page 81] of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians"
None of these originate in America at all, all are from documents proceeding from the universal Church, from the earliest times to the present day.
I don’t think I disagree with a single thing you said. It is only the juridical attitude and structural approach that differs the US (sometimes UK) too from the rest of the church. Pope Benedict XVI gave communion to the thirsty dictator Paul Biya. He also gave communion to a Protestant pastor at JPII’s funeral on purpose (he later converted partially as a result of that shock). Even the Irish (largely) don’t show the same zeal for turning people away from communion that I see here. We do not need a change in rules, we need a change our mental models. In today’s Gospel, you see how the touch of Jesus brings a conversion. The leprosy today in our church is a hidden prejudice, where we want to find the distinctions between ourselves and the world. And in that, we try to reserve the sacrament to the perfect. Our calling is a zeal to get the sacrament to as many people as possible, for that is where the true change happens. And if someone cannot receive then we are called to accompany them until they can receive.
When asked I believe we have been told “Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself” Uh. Where is the qualification for the people we love? Many thanks.
No qualification on people, but a qualification on what constitutes love: "Love... does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. "
Fr. Michael's approach is precisely the right way to approach FS in faithful continuity with the tradition as a right pastoral application of sound philosophy and theology.
I truly appreciate this perspective! Thanks Pillar for having Eve write this piece!
Thought-provoking article.
I suppose it tends to support Francis's reported command: "Hagan lío". Since "lío" seems to have a thousand meanings (see below), God knows what this confusing pope meant. Or perhaps he meant it not to be understood clearly at all.
translations
mess «Figurative», mix-up, USAproblem, clutter, difficulty, fuss, hang-up, hassle, hoo-ha, muddle, scrape «Figurative», shambles, tough spot, Great Britaincarry-on, hot water «Figurative», imbroglio, muss, pickle «Familiar», tricky situation
synonyms
aprieto, apuro «Figurative», desorden, desbarajuste, balumba, gatuperio, confusión, bronca, enredo, problema, berenjenal «Figurative», dificultad, embrollo, jaleo, apretura, conmoción, enmarañamiento, alboroto, complicación, cuestión, disturbio, dilema, enredijo, inconveniente, suma necesidad «Figurative», fárrago, zipizape, Latin Americarelajo «Informal», Spainfollón «Colloquial», Costa Ricareguero «Colloquial», Nicaraguavaina «Colloquial», Spainbatiburrillo «Colloquial», Latin Americabodrio, Cubaburundanga «Colloquial», Spaincarajal «Colloquial», Mexicochampurrado, Spaincolada «Colloquial», Spaincorcuño «Colloquial», Mexicodesgarriate «Familiar», Latin Americadesparpajo, Latin Americadespelote «Localism», Costa Ricaembarcada «Informal», Spainembolado «Colloquial», Spainfollaero «Colloquial», Spainmarrón «Colloquial», Spainmogollón «Colloquial», Spainmovida «Colloquial», Mexicopaquete «Slang», Latin Americapedo «Vulgar», Spainpifostio «Colloquial», Spainpitote «Colloquial», Caribbeansancocho, Costa Ricatanate «Slang», Spaintataruto «Colloquial», Central Americatirada «Colloquial», Spainzafarrancho «Colloquial», Spainzurriburri «Colloquial»
definitions
Enredo, embrollo, confusión.Enredo, embrollo, confusión. | Follón, barullo, gresca, desorden.Follón, barullo, gresca, desorden. || Informal terms for a difficult situation.Informal terms for a difficult situation.
quotable
El éxito es relativo: Es lo que podemos hacer del desorden de cosas que hemos hechoEl éxito es relativo: Es lo que podemos hacer del desorden de cosas que hemos hecho | Success is relative: It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things Success is relative: It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things T.S. Eliot
> “Where are you in life? Where is God in your life? Even if I could bless you, it’s not magic; the rest of your life [needs to be] receptive.”
The way we view the world is "does God love me?", and the way reality actually works is (Ps. 81:11 like a mother patiently trying to spoon-feed a child who is (not) trying pureed gerber fruits "open wide your mouth and I will fill it.. here comes the airplane") that God desires to pour 18-wheelers of graces into us and we mostly do not want to take delivery of any of them, where by "we" I mean "I".
I've spoken on our societies mangling of love in the past and you can see how people are so badly hurt by it in this article.
(https://open.substack.com/pub/thepillar/p/jd-flynn-bishop-alvarez-and-the-bishop?r=hec2u&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=18240622)
The true love expressed through friendship needs to be reclaimed. Think of the great friendships expressed throughout history and classical literature. These were people who truly loved each other and expressed it through self sacrifice and deep connection. How easy it is for our culture to debase that understanding and shunt those feelings solely as eros.
May God guide and bless these people on their journey to Him and help their conversion (and ours as well!) as they are "dying to self."
This is by far the most helpful article on FS I have seen
Hearing these perspectives is important! Thank you for publishing it, and thanks, Eve, for writing it.
Agreed, the value of friendship needs to be reclaimed!
I don’t want to be unduly critical of those who are earnestly trying to live out the truths of the faith, but is there a danger of attempting to give friendship the characteristics that are proper to marriage? Marriage is exclusive; friendship is not. Marriage means total self-giving, which leads to possession (My husband is mine and I am his!) in a way that would be inappropriate in friendship.
As a society we do undervalue friendship; in reclaiming it, we need to avoid making it a parody of marriage, but rather find the beauty friendship has in its own nature.
Hi Lucy, you are correct in saying marriage has an exclusivity that friendship does not. The type of friendship being discussed, however, is much deeper than the friendships of utility or pleasure that make up most of our friends. Most people would be lucky to have 2-3 true friends in their lifetime. So I am not convinced that recognizing a deep friendship of character makes a parody of marriage.
The pseudonymous Barbara felt that "friendship" was used to avoid talking about the reality of her partnership, and I would imagine most, if not all critics of Miss Tushnet's spiritual friendship project would agree.
I'm not sure exactly how to read this comment, but I will admit that while I'm sympathetic to her feelings, that comment did bother me as a mother. It probably shouldn't be the case, but it is, that "partner," without a qualifier like "business" in front of it, has come to mean "more or less exclusive sexual relations with this one individual." In some English speaking parts of the world even married couples refer to each other as "partner" instead of "husband" and "wife." That puts me in a hard spot as I try to teach the truth to my children.
I would probably say "friend," too, if I had to say anything. Scandal is real and that makes all of this really hard.
Thank you for publishing
I'm rather curious about what happens with people who start looking into the Church because they think she's changed her teachings. What do they do when they find out she hasn't?
Hopefully, by the time they’ve figured that out they also better understand WHY the Church will not change and have been loved into acceptance and supported in being formed into a new life.
It largely depends on what they experience when they reach out to the Church. If it's a kind, intelligent, pastorally-minded person they're more likely to grow in trust and be willing to hear it out, because they can form a relationship with someone. What was abstract becomes concrete and personal. On the other hand, if they're met with callousness or ineptitude, they don't form a relationship and their worries or fears are reinforced.
> because they can form a relationship with someone.
It is a good point. We ought to try harder to understand that we are mediating Christ to people, and that just as we probably ought to look at someone and try to see "this is Jesus (perhaps on a very bad day)" to spur ourselves to a greater quasi-benedictine desire to be radically hospitable, we ought also to understand that what we do will be projected onto this person's idea of Christ thereafter whether they are consciously aware of it or not.
And that happened to Christ Himself! When it became clear that His teaching was meeting hard hearts, He turned to parables that people might have projected their own meanings onto. But He still wanted to keep engaging, even if the uniqueness of His mission meant that building long-haul earthly relationships wasn’t in the cards.
I suppose this is the real bleeding edge of what the Church should be thinking seriously about: not even God intended celibates to live alone! As monastery’s and convents clearly demonstrate.
However, a serious lay celibate vocation lived in community seems very underdeveloped, at least in the Anglosphere. I think this is going to be very much needed.
Opus Dei numeraries are communal celibates, no?
Sometimes yes. They’re the only modern ones I can think of. I’m thinking we also need things on a smaller scale that can be ‘supervised’ by a parish.
People of Praise has them too.
Communion and Liberation has them too (Memores Domini).
Agreed. And it shouldn’t be segregated out for gay folks. Straight singles need it just as much.
Exactly. Also, not all celibates are called to religious life. There has to be a way for them to live healthy social lives of service that should be thought about more strategically.
This is along the lines of conversations my husband and I have been having since Fiducia. What place is there for Catholics who are not married or religious?
Kathryn, that is precisely my situation! I’m not same-sex attracted, but I’m a lay Catholic man who made a private vow of celibacy last year with the proper permission after a 15 year discernment journey trying to figure out where Jesus was calling me.
I would say one of the gifts of my vocation is I have more time to pray for others and to be present to my friends and family and others in need than a priest, deacon, religious, or married layperson is, and I’m fortunate that I come from a very loving, supportive family and I am blessed with many good friends and a very supportive pastor at my parish, but not everyone is in that situation.
I would say if you know a man or woman in that situation, reach out to them in friendship.
And if you have single, celibate Catholic friends, don’t be afraid to reach out to us for support it you need it. As I mentioned above, we tend to have fewer responsibilities than priests, religious, and married people do, and I can almost always make time for a 10-15 minute phone call if someone needs a listening ear and I pray for prayer requests sent to me as soon as I can after I receive them.
So maybe those of us who are single, celibate lay Catholics have a charism of friendship because we have fewer responsibilities? I’ve been thinking about that myself. Friendship is definitely a huge part of my life.
God bless you and your husband for having those conversations!
The Church has consecrated virgins for those interested in becoming one. In my diocese the bishop concecrates them.
It’s pretty limited though. You have to more or less (there is some wiggle room) be an actual virgin, which rules out a lot of converts heh. You also have to be a woman.
Not to mention us reverts.
God bless your efforts to meet people where they are at, and yet never shy from pointing them to the truth. “I came to call not the righteous, but sinners…”
This is why The Pillar is an authentically important Catholic publication. Articles like this enlarge conversations that have too quickly contracted into tight-minded ideological encampments. Most importantly, it points to the fact that many same-sex attracted Catholics are working to live their lives chastely in accord with the Gospel. And just like it is for everyone else, it's a cross. There are many gay Catholics who do NOT reject the Church's orthodox teachings about sexuality, but have no model for how to live them out. They so frequently get overlooked in the debate over FS because neither side can really bring themselves to believe that they actually exist.
Keith has spent decades mentoring gay Catholics. He said that many pastors—and same-sex couples—don’t have a good sense of what a Catholic vision for their love might look like."
Yes! This is why I finally committed to becoming a supporter, after dragging my feet for over a year. These kinds of conversations challenge all of us to grow and to really think through what it means to engage with the others out of love for Christ. It can be easy to find publications that simply affirm you where you are, but The Pillar consistently challenges me to think about things from angles I'd never considered before, while remaining unwaveringly committed to the truth of Christ and the Church.
Yup! Although I’m not same-sex attracted myself, I have friends who are and who also agree with the Church’s teachings and are seeking to follow Christ and become saints.
A few thoughts on the topic based on what I’ve learned from my friends and others:
1.) Parish ministries are heavily focused on married couples, especially married couples with kids, and so if you’re not called to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and you’re not called to religious life or to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, then where do you fit in the Church? I can relate to that too as a single, celibate lay Catholic who isn’t same-sex attracted.
2.) Not all same-sex attracted people struggle with chastity, which should be obvious, since not all of us who are not same-sex attracted struggle with chastity. So our outreach to our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters cannot and should not be solely focused on chastity support groups like Courage (check out Eden Invitation as an example of a much more comprehensive approach to outreach that is faithful to the Church’s teaching).
3.) Even if they do support the Church’s teachings and seek to follow them, our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters face ostracism and are looked at with suspicion. It’s hard enough being a single, celibate Catholic layman who isn’t same-sex attracted, now add that ostracism and cloud of suspicion on top of that and you can understand somewhat what our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters go through. They’re pretty much caught in the crossfire of the Culture Wars in the USA.
The question then, is, how can we reach out in friendship and support to our same-sex attracted brethren and integrate them into the life of the Church? It’s definitely something to think and pray about.
And those of us single, not looking for a spouse, deeply committed Catholics. There are young adult groups and senior groups but when you're between those ages the Catholic Church has pretty much nothing in the way of support for us. That needs to change.
Amen to that, Sue! As someone who fits into that demographic you describe myself, I agree 100%. And if there is something for single people, it often turns, intentionally or not, into a “matchmaking club”, which is frustrating for those of us who are committed celibates.
In my Archdiocese, each parish has been ordered by our Archbishop to start a small group ministry and every Catholic is strongly encouraged to join one or more of the small groups being launched, which are all launching during Lent this year (with the hope that the small groups will continue and become permanent).
I’m going to be co-leading one made up of the 18-45 year old demographic (I’m 37), and, among other topics, we’re going to talk about friendship, the unique challenges and opportunities of being a Catholic in the secular workplace, and hopefully have a board game night every once in a while for fellowship. We already have 9 people signed up for the small group, including the co-leaders, which is very encouraging! And I will work hard to make sure this does not turn into a “matchmaking club”.
Yes, this sounds like a wonderful innovation. And keeping it from being a matchmaking club and instead a good friends club will help keep it going over time.
Thanks Sue, that is definitely the hope.