Bishop Lynch (St Pete) comments on gay marriage in Florida

[Justin_Swanton]

He’s not saying there is holiness found in the sex. And that’s the part Catholics consider the “sin” part, right?

He clearly says the “relationship” may be “marked by love and holiness”.
Obviously, just like an opposite-sex-relationship, a same-sex relationship can be full of love and support and friendship etc.

And those things, he is rightly pointing out, are loving and holy. Nothing changes that.

.

Holiness presupposes being in a state of grace. Living in a same-sex relationship presupposes being in a habitual state of mortal sin.

Therefore, it is ontologically impossible for someone to be holy who is in a homosexual/lesbian relationship, and it is impossible for some who is in a homosexual/lesbian relationship to be holy.

The two mutually exclude each other. No amount of word-fudging can change this simple reality.

 

[PTL]

Perhaps he wasn’t talking about the sexual component, but everything else that comes with a relationship? As others have mentioned gay couples are still quite capable of showing love, care and compassion to each other. Gay relationships are no more just about sex than straight marriages are only about sex.

Claiming that there is nothing good in their relationship will do nothing but drive them further from the Church. We can not claim their sexual behaviour is not sinful but lets acknowledge the good they have in their lives as well. Just as we can acknowledge the good that all of us do, despite our many sins.

I agree with what you said. The problem is when someone** makes such ambiguous statement purposely**, it is very irresponsible and misleading. That is exactly where the problem is. The shepherd of the church has serious responsibility of teaching, not to confuse the faithful. Why can’t they say the Church invites the gay to join for conversion?? Unless they do not expect their conversion.

 

[SWolf]

I agree with what you said. The problem is when someone** makes such ambiguous statement purposely**, it is very irresponsible and misleading. That is exactly where the problem is. The shepherd of the church has serious responsibility of teaching, not to confuse the faithful. Why can’t they say the Church invites the gay to join for conversion?? Unless they do not expect their conversion.

There are two possibilities.

1. He doesn’t want to hurt someone’s feelings, and be considered ‘judgmental’.
2. He wants to give tacit support of something completely against Church doctrine.

There’s no point in a ‘pastoral’ response if the shepherd doesn’t even want them to acknowledge their sin.

 

[YinYangMom]

Just to comment on your third paragraph.

It may well be that the Church is trying to find a way to integrate same sex couples into the parish. There are pitfalls to be avoided in that as well. When children of same sex couples enroll in the parish school, they give an example by their presence that is at odds with Catholic teaching. So the school ends up preaching against itself and against Catholic doctrine. That’s just one example and one possible complication.

That’s precisely what I think the Pope is trying to get us to work on, though. We can no longer avoid what’s in our midst, but must respond in love so that those outside the church will come back.

 

[FollowChrist34]

There are two possibilities.

1. He doesn’t want to hurt someone’s feelings, and be considered ‘judgmental’.
2. He wants to give tacit support of something completely against Church doctrine.

There’s no point in a ‘pastoral’ response if the shepherd doesn’t even want them to acknowledge their sin.

 

[JimG]

That’s precisely what I think the Pope is trying to get us to work on, though. We can no longer avoid what’s in our midst, but must respond in love so that those outside the church will come back.

Well, yes, we live in an essentially secularist and pagan society. The Church welcomes all people. It welcomes them to conversion to Christ. This seems to be saying that the Church must integrate into its parish life those whose lives are at odds with a Christian life. What would St. Paul advise?

The bishop might have said the same thing about cohabitation, about adulterous relationship, about polygamous relationships–that while we cannot condone the sin, that does not preclude the *positive *aspects of the relationship! If that’s what he was saying. It was not at all clear.

I can recall that my mother would not allow me to associate with particular people because she perceived them as a bad influence. Was she being judgmental? Should she have allowed me to play more often than the kid down the street who was into vandalism and stealing? Whose morals would rub off on whom?

Yes, the Church is a hospital for sinners. The aim is to cure them, not console them in their ways.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, the Church is a hospital for sinners. The aim is to cure them, not console them in their ways.

 

[zz912]

How do we try to care pastorally for cohabitating couples that come to Church? The outreach should be the same, both are living contrary to Church doctrine.

No, the outreach should NOT be the same. The cohabitating couple CAN have their relationship regularized by being married. The sacrament of marriage makes their sinful behavior change into holy behavior.

There is NO POSSIBILITY of this happening with a same sex couple. If we have outreach the same, we are lying to the same sex couple into believing there is a way to make their relationship “okay” in the Church.

 

[zz912]

Well, we call Pau “Saint Paul” even though he was the chief of all sinners. All people everywhere are capable of holiness even as they are capable of sin. In theory, any and all of us still possess the capacity for both love and holiness, just as we are capable of sin and depravity.

When statements like this are posted, why is it always this part that is bolded. Bishop Lynch ends with, “even as God’s creative designs for and the church’s sacramental understanding of marriage are affirmed.” Affirmation of orthodoxy should be applauded.

And exactly how did St. Paul describe his prior sins???

Did he celebrate the goodness and holiness of his state prior to conversion?

And this statement is NOT an affirmation of orthodoxy. It is a recent tactic I’ve seen used more and more, where the person claims fidelity to orthodoxy, but inserted into their words is a very subtle poison. Claims of orthodoxy are made, but when the rubber meets the road, the orthodoxy is gone.

 

[SMGS127]

And exactly how did St. Paul describe his prior sins???

Did he celebrate the goodness and holiness of his state prior to conversion?

And this statement is NOT an affirmation of orthodoxy. It is a recent tactic I’ve seen used more and more, where the person claims fidelity to orthodoxy, but inserted into their words is a very subtle poison. Claims of orthodoxy are made, but when the rubber meets the road, the orthodoxy is gone.

On the flip side though, the overzealous find heterodoxy wherever they can. There is nothing heterodox in the Bishop’s statement, yet he is being accused of having an underlying heterodoxy that is “subtle.” This kind of attitude leads to events like the Galileo crisis, where large swaths of people try to paint orthodox opinions as heterodox merely because they do not agree with them.

There is nothing heterodox about suggesting that same-sex relationships have good elements, and to most people in the world, this would be an obvious, unquestionable statement. Nowhere in his statement did he condone gay sex, and he in fact explicitly discussed the immorality of gay sex.

 

[zz912]

There is nothing heterodox about suggesting that same-sex relationships have good elements, and to most people in the world, this would be an obvious, unquestionable statement. Nowhere in his statement did he condone gay sex, and he in fact explicitly discussed the immorality of gay sex.

Where?

 

[SMGS127]

Where?

From the OP:

“The Catholic Church upholds marriage, one of our seven sacraments, as an indissoluble relationship between a man and a woman committed to mutual consolation and open to procreation. Such a view is rooted not only in the church’s long-standing theological understanding of married life, but in the church’s understanding of Christian anthropology as well, which views the conjugal and complementary relationship between a man and a woman as part of God’s providential design whereby human beings are able to be co-creators of life with God.”

 

[Appealing_Woman]

No, the outreach should NOT be the same. The cohabitating couple CAN have their relationship regularized by being married. The sacrament of marriage makes their sinful behavior change into holy behavior.

There is NO POSSIBILITY of this happening with a same sex couple. If we have outreach the same, we are lying to the same sex couple into believing there is a way to make their relationship “okay” in the Church.

I addressed this, see my post # 19.

 

[PTL]

There are two possibilities.

1. He doesn’t want to hurt someone’s feelings, and be considered ‘judgmental’.
2. He wants to give tacit support of something completely against Church doctrine.

There’s no point in a ‘pastoral’ response if the shepherd doesn’t even want them to acknowledge their sin.

If a pastor has the concern of the first point - doesn’t want to be considered “judgmental” -, he is totally missing the point of being a shepherd.

It is ridiculous for a priest to think the Church’s teaching is judgmental. There is no “judgment” involved on gay sex behavior. It is a mortal sin black and white. Teach people gay sex is wrong but welcome them to the Church for conversion is to hate the sin but love the sinners. It is not hard to say the truth and express God’s love at the same time. Anyone who only say ambiguous words of praising “holiness” of gay without inviting them to the Church for seeking truth and conversion is questionable - probably fall into your second category.

 

[PTL]

1. the priest didn’t call the individuals holy, he said their relationship could be marked by love and holiness.

.

How does a sinful relationship be marked by holiness?
If you drop a **** into the cake mix, can you call the cake pure and clean? Would you gladly eat it?

 

[Estevao]

Judas was a bishop too. Don’t ever forget that.

“complexities”
“pastoral challenge”
“reality of today”

Keep track of these kinds of modernist buzzwords, it’s great for realizing when the person you’re talking to or hearing from is just playing from a script. I mean this is just textbook modernism à la St. Pius X’s Pascendi, contradictions, speaking out of both sides of your mouth, implicature.

He also denies the natural law by saying “changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage”.

 

[PTL]

Judas was a bishop too. Don’t ever forget that.

“complexities”
“pastoral challenge”
“reality of today”

Keep track of these kinds of modernist buzzwords, it’s great for realizing when the person you’re talking to or hearing from is just playing from a script. I mean this is just textbook modernism à la St. Pius X’s Pascendi, contradictions, speaking out of both sides of your mouth, implicature.

He also denies the natural law by saying “changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage”.

You are right. In other words, there are still Judas among bishops today. No surprise.

 

[zz912]

From the OP:

Originally Posted by Bishop Lynch
“The Catholic Church upholds marriage, one of our seven sacraments, as an indissoluble relationship between a man and a woman committed to mutual consolation and open to procreation. Such a view is rooted not only in the church’s long-standing theological understanding of married life, but in the church’s understanding of Christian anthropology as well, which views the conjugal and complementary relationship between a man and a woman as part of God’s providential design whereby human beings are able to be co-creators of life with God.”

There is nothing in there that explicitly discusses gay sex. At all. Let alone calls it sinful.

 

[Seamus_L]

I think we’re going to hear alot more statements like this from bishops and priests in the near future, and the Archbishop of Antwerp and the priest in Dublin are only the beginning.

 

[Havard]

How does a sinful relationship be marked by holiness?
If you drop a **** into the cake mix, can you call the cake pure and clean? Would you gladly eat it?

That crass analogy isn’t going to win any hearts or minds.

In many extra-marital relationships, both gay and straight, the virtue of charity exists, and it has lead to the couple’s embracing the faith and chastity.