LDS church redefines apostasy to include same sex marriage

[DesertBlossom]

Learning more about the people affected is something I hope everyone on all sides of the issue will do. A small percentage of people affected by this policy change have been sharing their stories here:

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2015/11/policy-affects-people-share-your-stories/

 

This type of story is going to be the most common, I think:

 

"I have two beautiful children. Their father, who I married in the temple, is gay. We are no longer married. I have remained faithful. Fulfilled callings, attend regularly, we read scriptures and have fhe…they have both been baptized already, but this, this right here will be the breaking point. I cannot, will not ask them to choose between the church and their father. I will not ask them to 'disavow' him in order to stay in a church that doesn’t want them. My heart is broken for the church I wanted to remain in, so I that I could affect positive change from within. I won’t now. I can’t. I can’t raise my kids in a church that divides families. This is the breaking point. I am not leaving the church. It left me."

I don't really understand this. The church has always taught that marriage is between a man and a woman. Always. This is nothing new. And when one decides to be baptized they are affirming that that they have a testimony of the gospel and our living prophet, which would include the teachings about family. When a person is choosing to be baptized, they are essentially disavowing all sorts of different lifestyles.

 

For an 8 year old growing up with one active LDS parent and one gay parent, this could be incredibly confusing. This isn't like alcohol use or not paying tithing. Society is incredibly vocal about how gay marriage is normal and okay while the church teaches it's not. And when someone is so close to someone who is gay, it's unfair to ask an 8 year old to decide which side they are going to take. They are not mature enough and they probably don't understand how that taking that position is going to affect their relationships with family.

 

Any person, whether they are 8 or 18 or 88 is going to essentially "disavow" gay marriage when they make baptism covenants. Either you believe the teachings of the church or you don't. And if you don't, if you're not able or willing to say "I love my gay parent but I believe that marriage is between man and woman" then you probably shouldn't be getting baptized.

[Xuzi]

So are we going to start asking *all* eight year olds their opinion of gay marriage before baptism? Or only ones with gay parents? There are many, many children with gay people in their lives whom they love.

I don't recall being asked my opinion of all the doctrines of the church when I was interviewed for baptism. It was things like "Do you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior?" And "Do you believe the scriptures to be the word of God?"

[Slojo]

There is a shunning issue here because apparently adults who want to be baptized cannot live with a parent who has ever been in a same-sex relationship and making rules about whether you can live with your own parents seems quite restrictive and harsh. 

Also, let's face it, in today's economy, 18 is a legal designation of adult, but if you are asking kids to disavow their parents and leave their house at 18, you are consigning the majority of them to a difficult financial future. Most kids need financial support (via a roof over their heads or their parents' financial support for college, etc...) through their early to mid 20's until they get on their feet. Do they have to disavow their parents' financial support too once they go and - what? live in their own apartment? Do they have to go to homeless shelters for young people? Do they have to beg a "non-apostate" family to come sleep on their couch? Is BYU or other Mormon-affiliated colleges going to provide full scholarships to those 18 year-olds who I'd imagine would now be functionally on their own?  I don't get it. 

[DesertBlossom]

So are we going to start asking *all* eight year olds their opinion of gay marriage before baptism? Or only ones with gay parents? There are many, many children with gay people in their lives whom they love.

 

I don't recall being asked my opinion of all the doctrines of the church when I was interviewed for baptism. It was things like "Do you believe Jesus Christ of your Lord and Savior?" And "Do you believe the scriptures to be the word of God?"

 

You're right. It's not a question asked in the baptismal interview.  They are asked if they have a testimony of Jesus Christ and of Joseph Smith and the living prophet.  New converts of any age usually do not have a full understanding of every single doctrine of the LDS church and they rely on faith.  But you can see, how a child growing up in a home with a gay parent, is going to be especially conflicted when they are taught opposing viewpoints at home and at church, right?  The church is not banning children of gay parents from being baptized. They just want them to wait. They want to protect them from being caught in the middle until they have a bit more maturity and understanding and can accept how their membership in the church might affect relationships with their loved ones.

[Xuzi]

But it's not only children of gay parents who will potentially have this conflict in their home. Why are they the only ones getting this "protection"?

 

(Because, when a child is growing up in a difficult family situation, the last thing they need in the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost that comes with baptism, right?)

[DesertBlossom]

Also, let's face it, in today's economy, 18 is a legal designation of adult, but if you are asking kids to disavow their parents and leave their house at 18, you are consigning the majority of them to a difficult financial future. Most kids need financial support (via a roof over their heads or their parents' financial support for college, etc...) through their early to mid 20's until they get on their feet. Do they have to disavow their parents' financial support too once they go and - what? live in their own apartment? Do they have to go to homeless shelters for young people? Do they have to beg a "non-apostate" family to come sleep on their couch? Is BYU or other Mormon-affiliated colleges going to provide full scholarships to those 18 year-olds who I'd imagine would now be functionally on their own?  I don't get it. 

 

I see this policy so differently. I see it as saying "When a child turns 18 and is living on his own and taking care of himself then he's at a point where he can make a decision like this that might drive a wedge between his personal life and his family."   Eighteen year olds, while legal adults, are still young.  Parents still have much influence over them. Nobody is going to force an 18 year old who wants to get baptized out of his home and on the street and a church leader would not encourage that  Really, that's just ridiculous. If an 18 year old is still living at home, he can still wait to get baptized when he's 19 or 21 or 25 or whenever he has the means and maturity to be out on his own and has established his own household. The rule is not "get baptized at 18 or you can never be baptized."    

[Xuzi]

http://www.wheatandtares.org/19470/tom-christofferson-transcript/

 

Here's an interview with Tom Christofferson, the gay brother of the LDS apostle, Todd Christofferson (the one who did the interview about the policy).

 

I appreciated his comments about how this type of policy is treating people as groups, rather than as individuals, and how much harder this is going to make things for gay people who have been trying to balance their faith and their orientation as he has. The path he took to find that balance is now likely gone.

[Slojo]

I see this policy so differently. I see it as saying "When a child turns 18 and is living on his own and taking care of himself then he's at a point where he can make a decision like this that might drive a wedge between his personal life and his family."   Eighteen year olds, while legal adults, are still young.  Parents still have much influence over them. Nobody is going to force an 18 year old who wants to get baptized out of his home and on the street and a church leader would not encourage that  Really, that's just ridiculous. If an 18 year old is still living at home, he can still wait to get baptized when he's 19 or 21 or 25 or whenever he has the means and maturity to be out on his own and has established his own household. The rule is not "get baptized at 18 or you can never be baptized."    

Okay... so wait until your parents have paid all of the tuition bills, and then denounce them? That doesn't sound like sound moral guidance to me, or a very adult decision if the kid REALLY believes that what their parents are doing is wrong. Still don't get it, and the "oh, you can just wait until you're older" makes the policy worse in my mind. It actually encourages duplicity in the child. Does not the Bible say, "Though it cost all you have, seek wisdom." It doesn't mentioning anything about calculating the financial implications of decisions and waiting until 21 when you have a surer chance of being on firm financial footing, and then seek out the wisdom of the church... 

 

I am questioning the wisdom of this church policy (as well as the compassion and practicality). But I'm not LDS, so maybe I'm missing something here. 

[prairiewindmomma]

I'm LDS, and this new policy makes me sad.

 

It makes me sad for the gay youth who are sitting on our pews.

It makes me sad for the those in heterosexual marriages when a spouse may have a broader sexual orientation.

It makes me sad for those who are gay and single and struggling with remaining faithful.

It makes me sad for the children of divorced couples where one spouse has remained in the church and the other has chosen a same-sex partner.

It makes me sad for families with gay parents who have adopted and want to have their baby blessed or baptized.

It makes me sad for the children who will not be baptized when they want to be and for the other children who will not understand why their classmate has not been baptized yet.

It makes me sad for those who don't understand why this is a big issue.

It makes me sad for those who have friends and family who are hurting.

It makes me sad for those for whom this is the last straw, and they are leaving the church.

It makes me sad for those who belong to the church and are struggling to understand the policy.

 

I have friends directly and immediately affected by this policy (divorced and former spouse now has a same sex partner with shared custody of the kids who are coming up on the age to be baptized).  I also have a friend who grew up as a baptized and faithful (and still faithful) daughter of a lesbian mother and her life partner.  Interestingly, she is in support of the policy. This policy announcement has really thrown all of us into a maelstrom of mixed emotions. 

I support it, and the church, but my heart is grieved.

[blondeviolin]

This is going to be my last post here because I'm not sure much good is coming from this thread anymore.

 

There are many who will be hurt and affected by this policy because it really does hit close to home. There are those who have family who struggle with SSA and will try to mesh what they believe about the church and the person they feel they are. For those people, this is another reminder that they are Different. For these people, I truly mourn. I do. I understand how they might feel complete isolation, misunderstood, and engulfing despair. Nothing I can say will make it better. Thank you for sharing your stories, your insights, and helping eyes and hearts to open to alternative ideas. Heavenly Father still loves you and only He knows the path that is best FOR YOU. Surround yourself with people who build you up, make you better, and love you or your loved one for who they are. Please be willing to teach those who don't know or understand the struggles within church membership regarding the Mormon LBGTQ.

 

My personal belief is that this church is directed through a prophet who speaks for God. I've already said that if you can maybe have the treeniest bit of hope that this policy really is put in place to protect, then let that hope work in you.

 

There are people, however, who want to find fault, who want to complain and point fingers and can only see evil, say hurtful things. These people will never have anything good to say about the church because they are only looking for bad. Their hearts and minds are not open to other possibilities. Instead of teaching, they spread hurt and hate. These are people who are against the church in every stance. They are not helping the conversation when they fling hurtful words about any party. Plenty of members have tried to explain or understand how this policy could be meant to edify those it affects (here's another: http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2015/11/waiting-on-lord-same-sex-adoption.html).

 

Nobody is flinging hurtful things about those who this policy really affects. We are all working on becoming better and understanding. Yes, plenty have expressed hope and faith that this measure is one of love.

[justasque]

But it's not only children of gay parents who will potentially have this conflict in their home. Why are they the only ones getting this "protection"?

 

(Because, when a child is growing up in a difficult family situation, the last thing they need in the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost that comes with baptism, right?)

This is an interesting point. What of, for example, a child who has an older gay sibling? What if the sibling's partner lives with the child's family? Is that child expected to wait on baptism until they are of legal age and not living under the same roof as a sibling who "has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage"? Will they be asked to "specifically disavow the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"? The policy, as reported in the articles posted in this thread, doesn't seem to apply to this situation, and yet wouldn't this child also need "protection" from conflicting messages? If not, why is it any different than if it was a parent who had once lived in a same-gender cohabitation relationship? Again, it seems like this policy was enacted without listening to testimony from queer Mormons and their family members. These questions - about all kinds of fairly obvious scenarios involving queer family members - have arisen quickly in this thread; they should have been anticipated and addressed in the policy itself. (And perhaps they are? We have not, in this thread, seen the entire policy - only quotes in news articles. Does anyone have a link to the full policy? Perhaps it is not as bad as the quotes make it appear?)

 

My heart goes out to all Mormon families who have queer loved ones. This must be so hard for you. I am so sorry. No church should ask an adult to choose between baptism and living with a parent, no matter the sins of the parent.

[StephanieZ]

Here is a link to the new policies: http://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Handbook-1-Document-2-Revised-11-3-15-28003-29

 

Of particular shock value, to me, is that those found to have committed forcible rape, sexual abuse, attempted murder, and a list of other offenses including cohabiting with a same gender partner MAY be subject to a disciplinary council.

 

However, those living a same gender marriage WILL BE subject to a disciplinary council and are apostate. This list is much, much shorter. 

 

So, marrying your same gender partner is much worse than forcible rape, attempted murder, sexual abuse . . . and a list of other crimes. 

 

Wow, just wow. This is so much worse than I had imagined. I feel so sad for my LDS friends. 

[EmseB]

Here is a link to the new policies: http://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Handbook-1-Document-2-Revised-11-3-15-28003-29

 

Of particular shock value, to me, is that those found to have committed forcible rape, sexual abuse, attempted murder, and a list of other offenses including cohabiting with a same gender partner MAY be subject to a disciplinary council.

 

However, those living a same gender marriage WILL BE subject to a disciplinary council and are apostate. This list is much, much shorter.

 

So, marrying your same gender partner is much worse than forcible rape, attempted murder, sexual abuse . . . and a list of other crimes.

 

Wow, just wow. This is so much worse than I had imagined. I feel so sad for my LDS friends.

I am not lds, but I would guess the difference is in continuing to live unrepentantly according to the church's stance in any given issue. To use your example, someone insisting on cohabiting would also be put under discipline (I'm guessing, again, not lds). Whereas if someone did something against church doctrine in the past but had turned from that particular thing and was not continuing to do it, then they've already been restored to the church.

 

It's not about being considered worse than x, it's about whether the person is repentent or not, is continuing to live according to church doctrine or not. Obviously someone who decides to get married to a ss partner is choosing to live outside the doctrines of the church, just like someone choosing to continue to cohabitate outside of marriage would be. I doubt this is new for lds members, nor would it be considered shocking.

[justasque]

I am not lds, but I would guess the difference is in continuing to live unrepentantly according to the church's stance in any given issue. To use your example, someone insisting on cohabiting would also be put under discipline (I'm guessing, again, not lds). Whereas if someone did something against church doctrine in the past but had turned from that particular thing and was not continuing to do it, then they've already been restored to the church.

 

It's not about being considered worse than x, it's about whether the person is repentent or not, is continuing to live according to church doctrine or not. Obviously someone who decides to get married to a ss partner is choosing to live outside the doctrines of the church, just like someone choosing to continue to cohabitate outside of marriage would be. I doubt this is new for lds members, nor would it be considered shocking.

 

But if it's just about parents currently living unrepentantly in a same-gender relationship, why the requirement that the child " does not live with a parent who has lived ... in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."?  And why does it not apply to the children of parents who are unrepentantly participating in other related kinds of sin, such as adultery?

 

[HomeAgain]

 

But if it's just about parents currently living unrepentantly in a same-gender relationship, why the requirement that the child " does not live with a parent who has lived ... in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."?  And why does it not apply to the children of parents who are unrepentantly participating in other related kinds of sin, such as adultery?

 

 

This.

 

Why THIS sin?  Why not the rest?  Would those who make the rules have to look deep within themselves to find that they are sinners, too, and that a blanket rule for sin would apply to themselves, also?

[PIE!]

This.

 

Why THIS sin?  Why not the rest?  Would those who make the rules have to look deep within themselves to find that they are sinners, too, and that a blanket rule for sin would apply to themselves, also?

 

 

Just my opinion. I've been trying to figure this out too. Here is what I think the thinking is.

 

If heterosexual parents are not married, to repent they can get married. The family stays together. If an alcoholic repents, he stops drinking alcohol. The family still stays together. Repentance for the majority of sins will make a family stronger.

 

But to repent from a same-sex relationship, the partners would have to break apart. The family would be broken. This is one of the few cases where repentance of a sin would do that. Polygamy is another. I think that's why the policy is in place for this particular sin. The family dynamics are too complicated to expect a child to figure out and commit to one way or the other.

 

Just my current thoughts on the matter. I'm still trying to work this through. I think time will help. And I am truly sorry for those who are hurt right now. I hope time and understanding will help heal all wounds.

[Maus]

Two days old isn't bumping an old thread, is it?  I haven't had computer access for a couple of days....

 

Hugs for everyone hurting.  I think as most of us post, we are not meaning to dismiss anyone else's feelings, that we are just sharing how our understanding influences our own feelings.

 

As I've read this discussion and many others on Facebook and in the comments section of news articles, I've noticed two misconceptions that are coming up repeatedly.

 

One misconception is that this is an entirely new, out of the blue, policy.  The only new part is adding same-sex marriage to the list of things that make one an apostate.  The policies concerning how to handle the children of apostates are actually quite old.  I know, that doesn't make the hurt less, but it makes it less sensational than the media would like it to be.

 

The other misconception is that disavowing the behavior is the same as shunning (as practiced by the FLDS or the Amish or others), or that it means denouncing your family member.  The real practice is not nearly so sensational.  I can speak from direct personal experience on this.  My mom left the Church and had her name removed (voluntary excommunication), which makes her an apostate as defined by the Church.  She has since had some online affiliation with anti-Mormon groups.

 

This is what disavowing really looks like:  Every two years when I go in to renew my temple recommend, one of the questions asked is something like, "Do you affiliate with any persons or groups known to be in opposition to the Church?"  (I don't remember the exact wording.)

 

I answer, "Except for my mom, no."

 

This throws the interview off track, because it messes up the standard formula and the interviewer has to try to remember the correct follow-up question, and maybe, because I don't look the "type," whatever that looks like.  Once he recovers, he remembers to ask something like, "And do you, yourself, subscribe to those views?"

 

I answer, "No."

 

With some interviewers, that ends it and we go back to the normal formula.  With other interviewers, I am asked how my relationship with my mother is.  When I answer, "Mostly good, as long as we avoid the hot topics like religion, politics, and whether or not homeschooling provides a sufficient education for my children."  This usually gets a chuckle, after which I am encouraged to maintain a loving, caring relationship with her.  They are always completely sympathetic.  A few are even empathetic, having been in a similar relationship.

 

At no time, ever, am I asked to disassociate with her, or to condemn her, or anything like it.  They just check that my beliefs and values are in line with Church doctrine.

 

(That is official Church practice.  Church culture isn't always as kind.  I have experienced a little "guilty by association" avoidance and/or patronizing treatment from a few of the more uptight types in my ward, not because of my mother, but because my husband is currently completely inactive and avoiding anything Church related.  Because of that, I can see the potential for some of the truly unloving things others have experienced.)

[Veritaserum]

As I've read this discussion and many others on Facebook and in the comments section of news articles, I've noticed two misconceptions that are coming up repeatedly.

 

One misconception is that this is an entirely new, out of the blue, policy. The only new part is adding same-sex marriage to the list of things that make one an apostate. The policies concerning how to handle the children of apostates are actually quite old. I know, that doesn't make the hurt less, but it makes it less sensational than the media would like it to be.

 

The other misconception is that disavowing the behavior is the same as shunning (as practiced by the FLDS or the Amish or others), or that it means denouncing your family member. The real practice is not nearly so sensational. I can speak from direct personal experience on this. My mom left the Church and had her name removed (voluntary excommunication), which makes her an apostate as defined by the Church. She has since had some online affiliation with anti-Mormon groups.

The prohibition of ordinances and blessings for children of parents who are currently or have ever been in a cohabitating or married same sex relationship is definitely NEW. The old policy allowed all ordinances as long as both parents consented, which even apostate parents have willingly done.

 

In the past few days, I've read the stories of dozens of children (both younger and older than 18) who are absolutely gutted they they either now cannot be baptized, get the priesthood, go on a mission, go to a church school or would not have been able to had this policy been in effect earlier. They don't feel right about disavowing their parent's relationships and it's unfair to ask them to. Ask them to promise not to enter into a same sex relationship themselves, fine. Don't make them choose between their family and their church.

 

Unless you are the child of a queer person in a same sex relationship or a queer person yourself, no, you don't have direct personal experience.

[Veritaserum]

"Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has argued that there are five key "foundations" of moral reasoning that structure how humans interpret what is right and wrong. They are: 1) care/harm, 2) fairness/cheating, 3) loyalty/betrayal, 4), authority/subversion, and 5) sanctity/degradation. He further argues that liberals are particularly attuned to care/harm and fairness/cheating while conservatives tend to be more strongly attuned to loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation."

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8507438

[Xuzi]

The perspective of a gay BYU student:

https://byuusga.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/dear-straight-mormons/

[Maus]

Unless you are the child of a queer person in a same sex relationship or a queer person yourself, no, you don't have direct personal experience.

 I claim only direct experience with the Church policy of disavowing parents' choices, and how it is not the same thing as denouncing one's parent.  My experience is real, personal, painful, and absolutely valid.  I am not dismissing your pain; please do not dismiss mine.

[Maus]

The prohibition of ordinances and blessings for children of parents who are currently or have ever been in a cohabitating or married same sex relationship is definitely NEW. The old policy allowed all ordinances as long as both parents consented, which even apostate parents have willingly done.

Clarifying that it also applies to same-sex relationships is new.  The rest of the policy has been in place since at least 1935: "We advise that the children of men and women who have been excommunicated from the Church because of their having entered into illicit relations under the guise of plural marriage be not baptized until they have sufficient understanding to apply intelligently for baptism and can give assurance that they accept the teaching and doctrines of the Church and express regret for the opposition manifested by their parents to the rules of the Church. There is no consistency in baptizing a child and having him re-enter a home, the spirit of which is antagonistic to the authorities of the Church and out of harmony with its principles."

 

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2010/12/09/questions-from-the-grass-roots-1948-10/

 

While it specifies plural marriage, it was, apparently, generally applied to all children of excommunicated members.

[justasque]

The perspective of a gay BYU student:

https://byuusga.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/dear-straight-mormons/

"And so, my brethren and sisters, my dear friends, all I ask of you is that you see us. That your hear us. That you listen to us. That you sit with us."

 

That was a very thoughtful (and heartbreaking) piece.  Thank you for sharing it.

[Veritaserum]

I claim only direct experience with the Church policy of disavowing parents' choices, and how it is not the same thing as denouncing one's parent. My experience is real, personal, painful, and absolutely valid. I am not dismissing your pain; please do not dismiss mine.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss your pain regarding your apostate mom. My intent was to point out that it's an apples and oranges comparison. You don't have to disavow her. You're not apostate, so you can answer that question without even bringing her up. Children of parents in same sex relationships will be explicitly called on to disavow a key defining feature of their family structure.

 

It's not even comparable to polygamy, which is the argument Christofferson attempted to make. Polygamy is canonized in our scripture as eternal doctrine and commandment. It was practiced by the first several prophets. It was sanctioned even past the first Manifesto as a holier, higher law. The church's modern distancing away from polygamy is why they target former polygamists or the children of polygamists for extra scrutiny. I also disagree with this practice as I believe strongly in agency and that children should never be punished for the actions of their parents.

 

Same sex marriage has never held status as doctrine-essential-to-exaltation and later banned.

[Veritaserum]

Clarifying that it also applies to same-sex relationships is new. The rest of the policy has been in place since at least 1935: "We advise that the children of men and women who have been excommunicated from the Church because of their having entered into illicit relations under the guise of plural marriage be not baptized until they have sufficient understanding to apply intelligently for baptism and can give assurance that they accept the teaching and doctrines of the Church and express regret for the opposition manifested by their parents to the rules of the Church. There is no consistency in baptizing a child and having him re-enter a home, the spirit of which is antagonistic to the authorities of the Church and out of harmony with its principles."

 

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2010/12/09/questions-from-the-grass-roots-1948-10/

 

While it specifies plural marriage, it was, apparently, generally applied to all children of excommunicated members.

No, I'm pretty sure it only applied to children of members excommunicated for practicing polygamy. That's what that temple recommend question is intended to ferret out.

[justasque]

As I've thought about this thread over the past few days, I keep coming back to a comparison to the Catholic document, "Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message To Parents Of Homosexual Children And Suggestions For Pastoral Ministers", written almost twenty years ago.  It takes a completely different approach than the LDS church.  

 

To parents of children who have just come out as gay, it reassures:  "The purpose of this pastoral message is to reach out to parents trying to cope with the discovery of homosexuality in their adolescent or adult child. It urges families to draw upon the reservoirs of faith, hope, and love as they face uncharted futures. It asks them to recognize that the Church offers enormous spiritual resources to strengthen and support them at this moment in their family's life and in the days to come."

It seeks to strengthen the family, not divide it.  "Your child may need you and the family now more than ever. He or she is still the same person. This child, who has always been God's gift to you, may now be the cause of another gift: your family becoming more honest, respectful, and supportive. Yes, your love can be tested by this reality, but it can also grow stronger through your struggle to respond lovingly."

 

It speaks to basic human rights.  "Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them".
 

It includes homosexuals in the Church community.  "The Christian community should offer its homosexual sisters and brothers understanding and pastoral care. ...all homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the word of God, and to receive pastoral care." 

 

It calls "on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment."

 

It asks parents to encourage their gay children to remain in the Church.  "Urge your son or daughter to stay joined to the Catholic faith community. If they have left the Church, urge them to return and be reconciled to the community, especially through the sacrament of penance."

 

And it reminds us to "Put your faith completely in God, who is more powerful, more compassionate, and more forgiving than we are or ever could be."

 

Don't get me wrong - there is much in this document with which I disagree.  But it is a thoughtful document that was clearly written by people who spent a lot of time listening to gay and lesbian people, the people who love them, and the people who minister to them.  It focuses on strengthening the family rather than breaking it apart.  

 

Many communities of faith are struggling with how to reconcile the lived experience of those who have same-sex attraction with the traditional teachings of their Church.  The most thoughtful responses seem to come from listening to the testimony of those who have been personally touched by this issue, focusing on the importance of family in the face of struggle, and keeping in mind the value of each unique person.

 

[NotSoObvious]

I almost didn't open this thread, but I'm so happy I did. 

 

I've been consumed with this since it was announced and I'm exhausted, sad, and depressed. My husband and I left several years ago. This policy was the final straw for the the rest of my family and it has caused so much grief for my family and friends. It directly affects several of my friends and their children who feel deeply wounded and betrayed. Another branch of my family is digging in their heels so deep that I fear it will create a deep wedge in our relationship.

 

Thank you to Amira (and a few others I don't know as well). I'm in tears reading your words. It's your voices that are going to be the loudest.

 

I had a lot more typed out, but I'll leave it at that. Thank you for standing up. Thank you for being a voice for those who go unheard.