Ecclesiastical paradigm shift on the subject of homosexuality or modernist errors on the nature of sin

The Focolarini are also calling for a paradigm shift on the subject of homosexuality. And they do so through Avvenire by talking about the group 'No one alone', designed to welcome gay and trans children. But they forget the distinction between sinner (to be welcomed) and sin (to be abandoned).

It is becoming more and more evident every day that within the Catholic Church there is a well-planned strategy to absolve homosexuality and transsexuality, which for Catholic doctrine remain and will forever remain intrinsically disordered conditions.

With regard to homosexuality, the recent Magisterium's multiple negative judgments on this condition and related acts can be found in: Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2357-2358; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, no. 8, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, no. 3; Some considerations concerning the response to proposed laws on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, no. 10; Considerations regarding plans for the legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons, no. 4.

In sharp contrast to the clear teaching of the Magisterium, there are now many - lay people, men of the Church, ecclesial institutions, religious movements, etc. - calling for a change of paradigm, or rather of doctrine, on these issues. The latest, in terms of time, are the Focolarini, who are playing the usual card of welcoming homosexual and transsexual people. Avvenire talks about it, which is careful not to criticise such a choice. On the contrary, Luciano Moia, a reference author in the newspaper for these issues, writes a piece blessing such a gay-friendly approach.

The Focolarini created the group 'Nobody alone', formed by couples of parents from all over the world, with the aim of welcoming the gay and trans children of the movement's members. More precisely, as Moia explains, 'the aim is not to find a good recipe for all situations or to make judgmental assessments of different cases. Obviously, ambiguous language is used to swallow the camel as well as the gnat. Let's be clear: it is right to judge homosexuality and transsexuality and consequent conduct negatively. The judgement is negative because homosexuality and transsexuality do not do the person any good. Hence the effort to accompany these people to abandon these conditions. Instead, it is unreasonable to indulge them in conduct that would make them even more unhappy. Likewise, it is right to suspend any judgement on the individual responsibility of those who engage in such conduct. This latter judgement is God's. In summary: right to judge condition and acts, forbidden to judge the responsibility of the individual.

Moia interviews Maria and Gianni Salerno, the central leaders of this group, who say: 'We feel the importance of being close to families and their children, and we are trying to identify how to create spaces for welcoming and sharing, so that everyone can discover and experience God's love. The reference remains the goal expressed in No. 250 of Amoris laetitia so that all, regardless of their sexual orientation, may "fully realise God's will in their lives". Surely we have come to understand even more that we are all children of a God who loves us immensely just as we are and has our children's happiness and our own at heart'.

This is another typical topos of those who want to Catholicise homosexuality and transsexuality: God loves us as we are. Let us reiterate some concepts already expressed in the past: God loves the sinner, but not the sin. More correctly we should say that he loves the person who sins in spite of his sins. Hence, he does not love the sinner as a sinner, but he loves the person despite also being a sinner. The Second Vatican Council's apostolic constitution Gaudium et spes notes in this regard: 'A distinction must be made between error, which is always to be rejected, and error, which always retains the dignity of a person, even when it is stained by false or insufficient religious notions' (no. 28). Words that echo those of Pope John XXIII: "However, one must never confuse error with the errant, even when it is a matter of error or inadequate knowledge of the truth in the field of religious morality. The wanderer is always and above all a human being and retains, in every case, his dignity as a person; and he must always be considered and treated as befits such dignity' (Pacem in Terris, no. 83).

God welcomes with open arms the thief, the murderer, the prostitute, the homosexual, the adulterer. Thus St Thomas Aquinas: 'Two things can be considered in sinners: nature and guilt. By nature, which they have received from God, sinners are capable of beatitude [...]. Therefore by their nature they must be loved with the love of charity. Whereas their guilt is contrary to God, and is an obstacle to beatitude. Therefore by their guilt, by which they are opposed to God, all sinners must be hated [...]. For in sinners we must hate the fact that they are sinners, and love the fact that they are men capable of beatitude. And this means to love them truly for God with the love of charity' (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 25, a. 6 c.).

God cannot but love the good and therefore cannot but love the good parts of our being: he loves the goodness he finds in us, not our wickedness. The cliché 'God loves you for who you are' is acceptable if we only refer to the good parts of us, that is, the good deeds we perform. God could never love the murderous side of a person. The Lord therefore does not love all that we are. From another perspective, but coming to the same conclusions, we could say that God always loves us as persons, but it is we who by our actions turn away from his love. To receive God's love, therefore, we must be worthy of his love, i.e. the state of our souls must be adequate to his love. God showers the rain of his love, of his grace, upon us, but if we open the umbrella of sin, not a drop of that love can touch us. In fact, God does not force anyone to love him and receive his love.

The 'God loves you as you are', understood as we have described it here, finally leads to a paradox: if God loves us for what we are and Titius, for example, is a thief, why should Titius cease to be a thief since God loves him anyway, even if he is a thief? There would no longer be a duty to convert, meaning that there would be no obligation to abandon sin because, even if you sin, God still loves you and you are saved regardless of your choices.

Source