Thank you for visiting.
Assessment is an important part of my diocesan Ministry Formation Program. If
you have not yet done so, I would be grateful if you would sign up for this
blog. It’s simple:
- Click “Join this site.”
- Sign in using your existing account such as Google, Twitter, or Yahoo.
- Enter your password.
- Click “Follow this blog.”
If you like what you
read, I please leave a comment. If you don’t like what you read, I pray you’ll
leave a comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not
surprisingly, all of the emails I’ve received regarding the evangelization
story (below, Feb 26, 2015) have so far centered on Fr. Thanh Nguyen’s advice to family members whose
sons, daughters, brothers and sisters have had, or are planning, gay weddings.
In the 10 days since I interviewed him for that story, Fr. Thanh said two more
parishioners have approached him for advice regarding the same dilemma.
Most of the
comments have raised two specific points. The first is that any attendance at a
gay wedding – something our Church does not recognize – would be a public sign
of approval. The second point is that a refusal to attend is not an act of
judgment.
I am not
going to argue either point. This isn’t the right forum for a comprehensive
dialog. Besides, the gay marriage issue should not sidetrack the main focus of
the article, which is the new evangelization. Fr. Thanh rightly points out that
there are many people who are hiding their pain and brokenness behind
masks of normalcy. There are a lot of people who, because of poor catechesis,
have a misunderstanding of the Church.
Fr. Thanh
reflects the attitude of Pope Francis, who, in a revealing interview in the
September 30, 2013, issue of America magazine, said he sees the Church as a field hospital
after battle – first binding wounds before it can “talk about everything else.”
Both shepherds are saying the same thing – Judgment injures, love heals.
Today, I
received a reminder of that.
Some 25
years ago, I turned my back on a close friend. From what seemed to be out of
nowhere, this man divorced his wife. I was one of several friends who never
said another word to him. None of us ever thought about his pain or his
brokenness behind his unexpected action. We just decided – judged – that what
he did was wrong. So we abandoned him. Without a word.
We set one
hell of a Christian example, didn’t we?
How might our
lives be different – his and mine – if I had only asked “What in the world is
going on with you?” Yes, it’s a hypothetical question, but one that comes with
an example. Several years ago, another friend did the same thing. But this
time, his friends did ask questions. Instead of multiplying his pain by
turning their backs, they listened. And told him that, no matter what, they
loved him.
If you go by
the letter of the law, both men committed the same sin. We loved one.
Fortunately, his marriage was not irreparably broken. He remains a member of a
loving faith community. But we judged the other. In doing so, we isolated him
from our faith community. I bear a large part of that responsibility.
I visited an
old friend this morning. We only had about an hour – not nearly enough to catch
up on 25 years. But it was a start. Afterwards, I stopped at St. Joseph’s to
reflect. I read today’s Gospel, which “coincidentally” happened to be Matthew
5:20-26 – ”If you bring your gift to the
altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your
gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then
come and offer your gift.”
I brought gifts
to the altar for 25 years without obeying that command. Lives are damaged when
we ignore the teachings of Jesus. That’s why Pope Francis and Fr. Thanh remind
us to “just love, don’t judge.”
Well done, Peter.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mike. The program and blog have been wonderful eye-openers.
ReplyDeletePlease read a Document put out for the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" titled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons". This will clear up all the struggles we have incorporated from the World as we look to the Church for the proper response. It is quite clear on how we are to behave in this new foray of the world's view of "marriage".
ReplyDeleteI have read the document pertaining multiple times since its release. But it is also quite clear how we are to deal with perceived situations of disagreements, etc., of this and any other topic: Gospel Mt 18:15-20.
Delete"Jesus said to his disciples:
“If your brother sins against you,
go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.
If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen,
take one or two others along with you,
so that every fact may be established
on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church.
If he refuses to listen even to the Church,
then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you,
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Again, amen, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth
about anything for which they are to pray,
it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father."
For where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them.”
--- Clearly, there is a disagreement of good people with good will in mind. Is this the process that we have followed, here? If so then this issue might have been settled weeks ago. We are all wrong if we do not follow the Gospel -- the Good News of Our Savior. The Gospel is the precedence for these types of disagreements (I.e., these perceived sins against you and others).
Much love and many blessings!
Hi Deacon,
DeleteA young person I know read your response with this scripture had quite a different take than, I think, you or I. I, personally, was surprised by their take; out of the mouths of "babes". They likened it to talking to the gay person about their upcoming "marriage". The person of faith tells them it is a sin and that it is wrong and why; they do not understand or believe. They then get another person to help explain to the gay person, they still do not understand or believe. They then go to the Church, get the Pastor/Priest to explain and they still do not believe and go ahead with the wedding. At that time, this young person said, you would not go to the "wedding" because they have refused to listen, even to the Church. You would treat them as a Gentile (pagan at that time) or a tax collector. They are not gathered in His name, yet.
I am somewhat amazed that any Catholic in good standing would cite the logic of a "young person" to contradict not just ordained clergy - experts in theology who are subject to Church authority - but also the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. The topic is immaterial. Our Western society bristles at the concept of "obedience" but, as Catholics, we are subjects bound by the authority of our Church hierarchy. As stated previously, there is a formal process specified in Canon Law for addressing any such concern. Any path that deviates from this process violates Canon Law and threatens the unity of our Church. This is NOT an opinion. This is NOT a threat, scare tactic, or attempt to stifle discussion within the boundaries of Canon Law. If you truly feel this strongly, it is your duty, actually your obligation, to do what others have done - discuss the matter with Fr. Thanh directly.
DeleteThe Holy Father asked, "Who am I to judge?" I don't think any of us have any greater authority than Pope Francis. As such, I will continue to love AND obey - not judge.
Thanks for the comment. A major goal of this blog is to promote discussion of these ridiculously difficult issues.
ReplyDeleteIn no way did Fr. Thanh infer or imply any contradiction to our Church's position on gay marriage. As a Church sacrament, gay marriage is not possible. Fr. Thanh made it clear in our interview that attending the civil wedding ceremony of a loved one does not, nor should be, misinterpreted as any "approval of homosexual behaviour," or promote "legal recognition of homosexual unions" as stated in the Vatican's "Considerations" document. He made it clear that the most important consideration in approaching a sister, brother, son, daughter or any dear family member is to express love, not judgment. He also acknowledged this is an exceptionally difficult distinction to make.
Jesus didn't tell the absolute worst sinners of his time to "sin no more" before he accepted them - only afterwards. Jesus never turned his back on anyone - sinner or not - and if we are to emulate Him, we must try to do the same. Still, just because Jesus could do it doesn't mean you and I are always able to be so forgiving of others who hurt us. It can be "down to our bones" hard in some cases. That's why we need Him.
The Document explicitly says to NOT attend and Father Than did give that Pastoral advice. He should say adamantly that we are not to attend and that we can show our love in a myriad of ways that do not put our loved ones souls, nor our own, at risk. The reason I state it this particular way is because in the "Examination of Conscience and Catholic Doctrine", put out by The Fathers of Mercy, has a section called "Nine Ways of Being an Accessory to Another's Sin". If we were to attend we would be breaking 3 of the 9; "by consent", "by partaking" and "by silence". The first two we break by the very fact that we are "witnesses" to this heresy of marriage. The reason I included the third is because not one person would attend and then stand up and start preaching Repentance!
DeleteThis advice is just as egregious as the Nun who escorted women to an abortion clinic: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nun-volunteering-as-abortion-clinic-escort-in-illinois The good news is that there was a follow up to correct the situation: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/updated-nun-abortion-clinic-escort-reprimanded-dominican-congregation-apolo This Nun also thought it was "love" and "not to judge", do you see the problem?
This is seriously flawed advice and needs to be corrected. Love, as I said, can be shown in MANY other ways and we are to judge actions. Jesus did socialize, BUT, he said to "Repent and Sin No More". He would not have entered a brothel and stood by while actions were taking place or helped the tax collector gather money, that is "good judgment".
We are not turning our backs on our brothers or sisters when we do not support these secular ideas, such as same-sex marriage, that are very hurtful to our souls.
Sometimes, this kind of advice that Father Than has given, reminds me of the advice that my girl friends received from Priests concerning another secular "push" - contraception. They were told by "well meaning" Priests, out of love and not judgment, that it was perfectly okay to use contraception. As they became catechized, they are hurt and mad by the advice of these Priests who were trying to ride the fence between God and the world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFrom the LifeSiteNews URL that you reference above,
Delete"LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) first broke the story about Sr. Donna Quinn, O.P., a Dominican nun who is outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, who had been identified by pro-life witnesses as an escort for the ACU Health Clinic."
Please clarify if I am misinterpreting your comments but it appears that in using this comparison you are stating that Fr. Thanh is "outspokenly in favor of" homosexual relationships and homosexual 'marriages.' This is patently false in every way. It appears that such a scandalously false statement is... well... scandalously false.
Do you care, Anonymous, to anonymously clarify or restate as to not be misinterpreted?
Thank you Deacon for pointing out that the Nun was in favor of legalized abortion, I admit, to my shame, that I did miss that point. I am sorry for using this analogy. I should have used a different analogy that did not include such a horrible example of a religious. An analogy that would have been more appropriate would be teaching a son or daughter about the Church's teaching on virginity/chastity and then allowing them, even though they know you disapprove, to bring their cohabiting partner to spend the night in your own house. We cannot be witnesses to such a mortal sin. The love that Father Than is touting should be used before such events, after such events, but not the event itself. This is the only point I am making.
DeleteYou make an interesting argument, but one that cites a common misinterpretation. The document states, “Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil” (II, 5). This sentence draws a distinct line (“something far different”) between legitimacy and tolerance. It recognizes the nature of the human journey from sinfulness to salvation.
ReplyDeleteAnother sentence from the same section would seem to address attendance at gay weddings directly. “One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application” (II, 5). Fr. Thanh’s guidance does not in any way contradict this Church teaching. In our interview, he drew a strict contrast between attendance and “formal cooperation.” In a comment that I did not include in the original article, Fr. Thanh made it clear that we Catholics should not in any way, shape, or form take any sort of active role whatsoever in the planning of the ceremony or the ceremony itself. He said Catholics, if they so choose, may only attend. A quote from the original article addresses this specific point. “If people believe it’s a sign of acceptance of gay marriage, simply say ‘No, it’s a sign of love.’” In doing so, Fr. Thanh is reinforcing an earlier passage in the Vatican document that states, “According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” (I, 4).
The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has greater authority than the Fathers of Mercy, so there’s no specific need to address comments regarding the order’s interpretation of the Church’s position. It may be, however, an indication that improved catechesis – education – is necessary at many levels of our Church. This is one of the goals of the papal “New Evangelization” initiatives begun by Pope Benedict XVI.
Finally – a gentle reminder. One of the wonderful aspects of an online forum is the opportunity to discuss critical issues. The nature of online communication, however, tends to remove inhibitions. That doesn’t change the fact that words matter. The above comment publicly equates the counsel of a pastor with an act of abortion. This is a grave charge in the Church, one that could conceivably be considered slanderous under Canon law Part II, Title I, Canon 1369 which states in part, that someone who, in a public forum, “…expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.” I would sincerely hope no comment in this forum would ever result in an ecclesiastic action, penalty, or other sanction against any brother or sister in Christ.
Just checked back with our discussion!
DeleteI was not removing inhibitions in conversation concerning the attendance to same sex marriage in relation to attending an abortion. I was pointing out the same type of scenario. Attending a same-sex marriage, even though they know you disapprove, or accompanying a woman to an abortion, even though she knows you disapprove. It was an appropriate analogy. It was not intended to impugn Father Than.
I wanted to point out another item in the reading of the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the young:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defenses and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendance by the young is egregious, to say the least. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Also, another thought about attending same sex weddings that I believe escapes people, is the kiss when they are pronounced "married". I do not care what the kiss will look like, but it is pornography. It is unnatural to witness two men or two women in that kind of embrace. We should not view this type of activity in media outlets, nor in reading materials. That is subjecting ourselves to temptations of sin.
I appreciate our discussion!
Hi Peter,
DeleteIn regards to your opinion of the Fathers of Mercy and their Examination of Conscience not being authoritative, I called the Fathers of Mercy, because I have attended their Missions here in Jacksonville and know them to be very Orthodox. I asked exactly where they derived their support for the accessory of sins section and it is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1868 and continues with 1869:
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: (1736)
—by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
—by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
—by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
—by protecting evil-doers.
1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”144 (408, 1887)
I hope you would agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church carries much weight in moral matters and our response to the challenges we face.
Just wondering about another item that I proposed in my May 4th reply.
Delete" He should say adamantly that we are not to attend and that we can show our love in a myriad of ways that do not put our loved ones souls, nor our own, at risk"
My thoughts are that this is the most loving way to witness instead of attending the "wedding" which would be the height of the culmination of the acknowledgement of this particular mortal sin. What other mortal sins would we be willing to witness? The love should come before the committing of the mortal sin.
One correction to my July 9th statement concerning the very last sentence: The love should be shown at all times to any person who is in the throws of mortal sin, but, we do not witness the committing of the sin. That would make us an accessory.
Delete"It was an appropriate analogy. It was not intended to impugn Father Than."
DeleteNo, it was clearly NOT an appropriate analogy and you DID impugn Fr Thanh. There is no clear way around this. The LifeSiteNews URL is equally clear and you used in a patently false manner. I would ask you again to clarify but now, perhaps, a correction and apology is in order?
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI do not attend St. Joe's, I was alerted to this by another Catholic, who also does not attend St. Joe's, but we have talked to some of your fellow parishioners and there are more people disturbed by this than you know. Many see it as the devil finding that one weak spot and picking at it until it frays. Do not underestimate him, he is slick. One of the people was so dismayed by this they sent an email to EWTN. Here was their response and the body of the email sent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your e-mail. We will pray for your intentions. Please know that the Nuns and the Friars will continue to pray for your intentions for the next 30 days for 24 hours a day in the presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
"I can do all things in him who strengthens me.” Philippians 4:13
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:31 PM
To: Viewer Email
Subject: PLEASE HELP OUR PRIESTS
Dear Father Mitch and Father Joseph Mary,
I was wondering if you could help a Parish in our Diocese of St. Augustine Florida. The Pastor, whom is a dear man and a holy man has things a little upside down when it comes to Love and what that really means. His quarterly newspaper "Reflections" came out last Easter and this is what he said concerning attending a "gay wedding". You can read the entire Reflections at: stjosephsjax.com. And for your information I have personally confirmed this with Father Thanh. Father Thanh said the "key" is to first explain the teachings of the Catholic Church to the "couple" and then you will be going out of love.
I am deeply concerned and also concerned about the authors blog. He is a professor of journalism and, I fear, leading many, many astray with this blog about this subject and possibly others. If possible one or both of you could respond to his blog, maybe just maybe he would understand as I know that both of you have such an amazing way of teaching with LOVE. His name is Peter Casella and his blog: www.ourcatholicheart.blogspot.com. under his: "Righting a Wrong" section. I find it amazing how he tries to shut "anonymous" down from voicing her opinion. (I am not she, by the way, she is much more articulate than I am). But you Father Mitch and Father Joseph Mary are wonderful and so very knowledgeable. Please pray about answering this blog...it may help the largest Parish with the most families in our diocese.
Thank you Fathers for taking the time to look into this. I will continue to pray for all of our Priests....They all belong to Our Blessed Mother and she only wants the BEST!!...as do I..
July 22, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Again, see Mt 18:15-20. The time-tested process described does not include EWTN (as though a television network will ever trump a Pastor or the Local Ordinary.)
DeleteThis is a spurious and very culturally-oriented response in no way in tune with the nearly 2000 year old Gospel.
I pray for the truth and for all involved in scandalous behavior, especially for those ignoring the Gospel on this or any issue of disagreement between parties of good will.
Peace and blessings!
Thank you for your kind prayers. I am gratified when others care enough about me to pray me into heaven. However those who accept the responsibility as their “brothers’ keepers” by pointing out the sins, shortcomings, and mistakes of others – passing judgment – may not like this loving but frank response.
ReplyDeleteThese latest anonymous comments caused me to remember something John Kennedy said during the presidential campaign debate with Richard Nixon on October 13, 1960. Kennedy said, “I always have difficulty recognizing my positions when they are stated by the vice president.” It appears my position has been interpreted, deliberately or otherwise, as advocating gay marriage. That may be a convenient inference, but it is a misinterpretation.
It would also seem that anything other than complete, Hester Prynne-like identification and public condemnation of homosexuality is the equivalent of flying a rainbow flag. Hyperbole? Maybe… but not by much.
As best I can, I try to love as Christ loved. Without any precondition. Without exception. And yes, by following the philosophy of Pope Francis, who said, “Who am I to judge?”
If my daughter was gay – she is not, she is married and has four fantastic sons – and she chose to marry her gay partner under civil law, I would have two choices. One would be to refuse to attend, subsuming love to judgment – a choice that would deeply wound my daughter and possibly lead to estrangement for the rest of our lives, killing forever any positive influence I might have on her. Or I could choose to attend – NOT actively participate in the pre-planning, reception, or civil ceremony itself – simply to express my unconditional love for my most precious daughter as we both commence our faith journeys.
There is really no choice here. And there is nothing – nothing! – in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that would condemn me for that.
The above example is hypothetical. This little online tempest has generated some interesting non-hypothetical choices. The Church has specific protocols defined in Canon Law that we Catholics must follow. Not all Catholics are aware that we are as obliged to obey Church laws – Canon Law – just as everyone in our society is expected to obey civil laws or pay penalties for breaking them when caught.
Canon Law dictates that if we have a conflict with our pastor, our first action is to discuss the matter with the pastor himself. That is not just Church law. That is basic human courtesy. But one may choose to disobey Canon Law by making a different choice: anonymously talking behind the pastor’s back. This violation of Canon Law might tend to spread discontent and weaken the unity of the parish. This would be the preferred choice if the ultimate goal is to secretly undermine the authority of the pastor.
In an attempt to further fracture the unity of our Church, a third choice would be to defy the authority of the bishop by going outside the diocesan hierarchy, maybe to a television network, to seek a “solution.” Such a step would further violate Canon Law by disrespecting the local bishop’s authority. It might even lead to a generic, boiler-plate response – indicating that no one at the network actually read the letter. (Yes, I have experience with media company treatment of complaints from viewers.)
These three choices were probably made with the best of intentions. Disobeying the laws of our Church, however, is the wrong way to achieve these goals. But there is an even more basic consideration – Which of these three choices is most Christ-like?
I have used the context of “choices” to address these anonymous posts. Here are my choices: I choose to respect my pastor by discussing issues with him face to face. I choose to respect my bishop by not circumventing his authority. I choose to respect my Church by obeying Canon Law. And most of all, I choose to love. Not “love, but…” Not “love, except for…” I choose to love unconditionally. To love without judgment. And, as always, I sign my name to my choices.
When we are confronted with issues on morality, it's easier just to walk away, wash your hands of the whole ordeal and the person or people. What I find invigorating about Pope Francis is that he won't allow that attitude. Call it trite, but everyone needs love in some form or another. My mother says, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." As simple as that seems, I know that this is what our Church stresses. - by Helen Casella
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ is love and truth; " If any man would come after me , let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me"; " Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law";
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ, Himself, could not attend a same sex wedding and sit complacently with his hands in his lap, that would not be love, nor a witness to truth. "For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth."
I wish you would have addressed my points throughout this discussion, point (1) June 17th, concerning exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage, from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith by then Cardinal Ratzinger titled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons". A follow up point, June 29th, regarding being an accessory to sin and the fact that the Fathers of Mercy put that in the "Examination of Conscience" pamphlet and it is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am no longer going to engage this conversation because I see that we are at an impasse. I have indeed followed the protocol that you have put forth. As soon as I read the Reflection article I did address my concerns to Father Than, the Bishop and my own Pastor before I entered into a debate with you on your blog. The other person who wrote the email to EWTN also addressed Father Than, then talked to a Canon Lawyer in the Diocese who said this needed to be addressed to the Bishop, which it was. I am sorry that I did not let you know sooner that we had done exactly what you stated, but I truly did not think it would be a sticking point for the ongoing conversation. A final follow up point about our Pope Francis. Way back when the whole "Who Am I To Judge" comment came out, I decided to go straight to the source and read the actual transcript. It is taken out of context. That comment was sandwiched between the question about Monsignor Ricca, a celibate priest and a supposed homosexual scandal and a "gay lobby". The Pope said that the investigation found nothing but then alluded to "sins from youth" and conversion. He followed up with: " In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?". If you have not already read the transcript, which there were SO many questions way before Monsignor Ricca's, here is the link: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa.html
(continue) Pope Francis, when he said "If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will", he is basically quoting from Cardinal Ratzinger's Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith titled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" which states as such: " 12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross", other excerpts are, " To refuse to sacrifice one's own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them" and "Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life". Here is the link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Delete"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application". Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons".
God Bless and I will keep you in my prayers.