Cardinal Burke questions couple's suggestion to Synod on welcoming gay son and lover [CC]

[Sy_Noe]

“Cardinal Burke agreed that the parents should make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son. But he argued against bringing the son and his partner to a family dinner.”

This is not just a hypothetical for me and my husband, as we do have a gay son. And years ago we faced this situation without any of the debate speculated upon by those imagining this as a hypothetical moral dilemma. There was never any question as to whether or not we would extend an invitation. Of course we invited them.

Suggesting that parents “make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son,” sounds very nice, but what does that really mean? When we move away from the ambiguity of that statement toward something specific, like an invitation to Christmas dinner, it provides far more insight into what this so called “love” looks like. And it turns out to look a lot like the absence of love. Had we decided against Cardinal Burke’s advice and decided that we no longer loved our son, would we not revoke our invitation to Christmas dinner? Whether we followed his advice or rejected it, the result is exactly the same, in that our son is excluded from our family gathering. Perhaps our so called “loving” motives would be known to us, but indistinguishable from a malevolent motive to anyone unable to read our minds.

It disturbs me how flippantly the word “love” is thrown around in regard to this issue, as if its mere mention excuses every pernicious suggestion that follows.

And what message would it send to my grandchildren, when the uncle they know and love, who has been an important part of every Christmas they’ve ever known, is suddenly not welcomed anymore at our family gathering? Would they not receive the message that our love is conditional and could possibly be revoked at any time, at least in any practical sense. “We love your uncle, but this Christmas, we’re going to love him from afar, as we don’t want him here,” is not a message that young children are going to understand, but it is a message that would have an extraordinary impact.

It is easy to speculate about a hypothetical moral dilemma when there are no actual consequences you have to face. Our Church leaders need to listen to families who are not just dealing with these issues in theory or why have these families participate at all!!!

Sylvia, thank you so much for sharing your real life situation and story with us. I know it literally brought a tear of joy to my eyes as I was reading it for the love and compassion you expressed and for the sense you made. May God bless you and your family. And love and peace always reign in your hearts.

 

[pnewton]

Sylvia wrote, “This is not just a hypothetical for me and my husband, as we do have a gay son. And years ago we faced this situation without any of the debate speculated upon by those imagining this as a hypothetical moral dilemma. There was never any question as to whether or not we would extend an invitation. Of course we invited them.”

Them.

Have you totally missed the point Cardinal Burke made? There is nothing in Sylvia’s report about children also being present. That is the point, the only point made. Why is there such a continuation of this straw man? Can we cut the red badge of courage garbage and engage a little integrity?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Have you totally missed the point Cardinal Burke made? There is nothing in Sylvia’s report about children also being present. That is the point, the only point made. Why is there such a continuation of this straw man? Can we cut the red badge of courage garbage and engage a little integrity?

She said the situation is not hypothetical for her. She said of course she and her husband invited them. And she talked of the message not to have would send to her grandchildren. So whether or not grandchildren were at their dinner table that specific day is not the most important issue. It depends on how we interpret her story. But at least as I read it, she suggests she would extend the same welcome and invitation regardless. Otherwise the message to the children is that “our love is conditional and could possibly be revoked at any time”. And said such a message “is not a message that young children are going to understand, but it is a message that would have an extraordinary impact”.

 

[RGCheek]

Free will remains a constant, love or hate. Love can give a false sense of security. Hate can stiffen the pride. Another poster said that false charity loves people into Hell. So do not people have free will, as you say? The same poster used a derogatory insult to refer to homosexuals. Surely situations occur where strong language can harm, just as there are situations where ostracizing can be harmful. Cardinal Burke’s language was not absolute for a reason. He pointed out a danger, a legitimate concern that should be weighed. As Jim reminded us, the welfare of children can not be disregarded for the welfare of the son. Those who believe in unconditional acceptance do this. Likewise, unconditional rejection of the son can also serve as a stumbling block. See, Jesus knew that stumbling must occur, free will as you say. However, he warned us not to serve as the instrument of stumbling.

In the situation of the family dinner, there is no one answer. If I were pushed, I would say attempt a compromise. This would show that the son is still valued. If he then refuses to compromise, it is he that is rejecting the parents. Parents already have the job of having their heart broken by children. It is in the contract.

We as the collective group of those who are presumably obedient to God’s Will as we best understand it have an obligation to speak Truth to people in a kind and respectful way.

But ‘kind’ and ‘respectful’ are now defined by the ‘reasonable woman or reasonable minority’ standard, not the reasonable person standard.

So you can be as kind, respectful and as loving as you can be when you speak truthfully and little Johnny might still take offense that you dared say anything that he took as condemnatory of his lifestyle.

You cant fix such people who are determined to do their own thing while leveraging you against your guilt to convey approval of what they do.

So just state the Truth and let those respond to it that love God and are seeking Truth and don’t worry about the game players.

You cannot know what will offend them but you can know that what you say is morally right or wrong.

 

[RGCheek]

We need to remember that Jesus’s first words (in at least one of the Gospels, IIRC) and first step of his commands is “Repent!”

Yes, he offers unlimited mercy. The mercy of “Go and sin no more.” Mercy requires recognition that there is sin–and then repentance from it.

This becomes for us something difficult to live out when facing a culture that is trying mightily to forget and destroy any concept of sin. It is especially hard for parents, and for the faithful closest to “battleground” issues of our sinful culture that try to convince us to accept and approve of sin.

Yes, we need to meet our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and keep communication with them. But we must also recognize sin and what God truly calls us all to. That is the Gospel–freedom from sin, through Grace! NOT freedom to sin, through “tolerance!”

So the big question is, HOW do we “love the sinner and hate the sin;” how, in this day and age, to you reach the sinner so that you can exercise that Spiritual Work of Mercy: “To admonish the sinner.”

 

[anthony022071]

Jesus didn’t place conversion as a condition before eating with them, is the point.

And, we don’t know who converted and who did not.

Jim

No one says that he made conversion as a condition for eating with tax collectors and sinners. But he did teach them with the intention of making them his disciples. And we do know the names of at least two tax collectors and two immoral women who became disciples: Levi or Matthew and Zacchaeus,and Mary Magdalen and the woman at the well.

 

[RGCheek]

Again, because most of the above has nothing to do with Cardinal Burke’s statement, nothing was said about not welcoming the son. The problem was having him and his homosexual partner in a situation with children who could take such welcoming as condoning behavior.

One person above said they will always welcome her son. Good for her. Cardinal Burke did not address her situation. He did not give any advice in this situation. He spoke about protecting young children who could still be at a vulnerable age.

Agreed. One can love another person without inviting them to high profile family functions that imply endorsement of that person and their life style.

I would treat a gay member of my family any differently than I would a known racist or a divorced philanderer. Much of the attitude I would have toward them would be based on how much they shove their anti-Catholic life style in everyone’s face.

IF the philandering uncle is likely to bring along two of his floozies and to talk about his latest sexual escapades, then he wont be invited. If the gay niece is likely to bring up her life style and why anyone who holds to traditional morals are a bunch of homophobes and h8ers, then no, she wont be invited either.

 

[RGCheek]

Sorry but that’s a private matter for you to work out

NO IT IS NOT; it is also a matter of scandal for the church.

I know that many Catholics would have lived quite comfortably and unbothered in the middle of Sodom, but I don’t think that is the ideal for Catholic behavior.

Jesus was the One who nuked Sodom from above, so let’s discuss His attitude toward such communal embracement of sin and perversion.

 

[JimG]

The woman at the well is a good example. Many I am sure would give him no points on the compassion scale for deliberately leading the conversation up to this point of discussing her lifestyle:
“Jesus said to her, “Go call your husband and come back.” The woman answered and said to him, “I do not have a husband.” Jesus answered her, “You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband.’ For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

He leads her to confront the truth of her situation, the truth of her “lifestyle.”

When first confronted with this, her first impulse is to change the subject: “Sir, I see you are a prophet.” !

She does become his follower, but she must first confront her sin.

 

[Megan7]

It doesn’t take long for the ripples of the synod to spread.

In a debate yesterday in Hutchinson, Kansas between 1st District congressional candidates, the topic of same sex marriage came up. One candidate said he supported the 2005 amendment to the Kansas constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The other candidate said he supported equal rights under the law for all, including gays. He also made reference to a recent Vatican document saying that same sex couples can offer good things to communities.

Thanks for sharing this. We will probably see more of this…

God bless.

 

[harlen]

The woman at the well is a good example. Many I am sure would give him no points on the compassion scale for deliberately leading the conversation up to this point of discussing her lifestyle:
“Jesus said to her, “Go call your husband and come back.” The woman answered and said to him, “I do not have a husband.” Jesus answered her, “You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband.’ For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

He leads her to confront the truth of her situation, the truth of her “lifestyle.”

When first confronted with this, her first impulse is to change the subject: “Sir, I see you are a prophet.” !

She does become his follower, but she must first confront her sin.

You’re reading condemnation & confrontation into this text.
The text does not show Jesus condemning her or “confronting” her.
In fact it is Jesus who says “Get your husband” (already knowing he is only her “partner”)
Jesus shows His knowledge of her. But I see no condemnation nor any confrontation explicit in the text. That has to be read into it; and you could just as easily read a tolerant interpretation into it.

 

[JimG]

You’re reading condemnation & confrontation into this text.
The text does not show Jesus condemning her or “confronting” her.
In fact it is Jesus who says “Get your husband” (already knowing he is only her “partner”)
Jesus shows His knowledge of her. But I see no condemnation nor any confrontation explicit in the text. That has to be read into it; and you could just as easily read a tolerant interpretation into it.

Of course Jesus does not “confront and condemn” her. The entire conversation leads her inexorably to confront her own situation.

 

[Arandur]

I think the real question, with regard to Jesus, the Scriptures, the Church, and how we are called to act, is whether you will act with enough love for someone that you care for them too much to let them remain in the sin that is harming them.

Does Jesus enable and approve the behaviors of the sinners he reaches out to? Or does he welcome them BY calling them to something greater, calling them to himself? Does he love them enough to not leave them in sin, or does he ignore their sin and just leave them as they are?

There were many who hated him, many who rejected him. And why? It wasn’t just those in authority who felt their authority was threatened. They and many NOT in authority didn’t like having their sin called out.

Did that stop Jesus?

 

[One_point]

You’re reading condemnation & confrontation into this text.
The text does not show Jesus condemning her or “confronting” her.
In fact it is Jesus who says “Get your husband” (already knowing he is only her “partner”)
Jesus shows His knowledge of her. But I see no condemnation nor any confrontation explicit in the text. That has to be read into it; and you could just as easily read a tolerant interpretation into it.

And when he said to adulterous woman “Go and sin no more” is that confrontation or love or…both? I do not see how confrontation is to be avoided if one loves the sinner. confrontation is truth. it don’t need to be harsh. but in need to be clear and with right attitude which is ultimate good of the person.

our problem is tht we are not saints. we are such big sinners that we have problem converting anyone with our example. a saint can talk to someone openly directly who is looking for truth and they will listen because the saint has silent but powerful moral authority. we are unable to lead people to Christ by being Christians ourselves so we look for shortcuts about making these people comfortable with their sins by watering down the Gospel. in fact it is us ourselves we want to mke comfortable so that we don’t have to change in order to reach the world. it is our love of ourselves not this people. that is pretense. we know in order to keep the gospel as it is and reach out to other we cannot stay as we are and we are afraid we cant do better than we are so we decide to twist our gospel instead in order to b comfortable in this world.

 

[RGCheek]

And when he said to adulterous woman “Go and sin no more” is that confrontation or love or…both? I do not see how confrontation is to be avoided if one loves the sinner. confrontation is truth. it don’t need to be harsh. but in need to be clear and with right attitude which is ultimate good of the person.

our problem is tht we are not saints. we are such big sinners that we have problem converting anyone with our example. a saint can talk to someone openly directly who is looking for truth and they will listen because the saint has silent but powerful moral authority. we are unable to lead people to Christ by being Christians ourselves so we look for shortcuts about making these people comfortable with their sins by watering down the Gospel. in fact it is us ourselves we want to mke comfortable so that we don’t have to change in order to reach the world. it is our love of ourselves not this people. that is pretense. we know in order to keep the gospel as it is and reach out to other we cannot stay as we are and we are afraid we cant do better than we are so we decide to twist our gospel instead in order to b comfortable in this world.

 

[SylviaD]

Have you totally missed the point Cardinal Burke made? There is nothing in Sylvia’s report about children also being present. That is the point, the only point made. Why is there such a continuation of this straw man? Can we cut the red badge of courage garbage and engage a little integrity?

Forgive me if I was at all unclear about the scenario I was describing. My motivation to respond in the first place was due to the fact that my husband and I were faced with the exact situation which the Australian couple addressed at the synod.

The first time our son brought his then boyfriend, now husband to a family gathering was a Christmas dinner, a dinner at which our other children were present with their families, including our grandchildren. Is that not the exact scenario to which Cardinal Burke objected?

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the way we handled the situation. I have dealt with quite a lot of criticism in that regard and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. What I don’t appreciate, however, is the attempt to dismiss my concerns as if they are completely unrelated.

There is much to be learned between the theory and the application of that theory. And what I’m suggesting is that families like mine can provide real life experience and feedback, and we at least deserve to be heard, if nothing else.

In a hypothetical musing perhaps one can imagine this scenario in which children get the intended message, avoid the unintended ones and everyone feels loved and welcomed. The reality is quite different. How could we possibly exclude our son from our family Christmas celebration without making him feel unwelcomed? How could our grandchildren not receive the message that our love is conditional when we have shut out someone they love from their favorite day of the year?

I’m not asking for a stamp of approval from Cardinal Burke or anyone else for that matter. Quite honestly, I’m long past that. But I do think that if the Church is going to thrive, Its leaders must listen to the needs and concerns of its people and stop dismissing us with vague platitudes such as, “parents should make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son.”

 

[garyo49]

Can see no reason why the whole family should not celebrate Christmas together.
Doubt if grandchildren would even question the situation, but if they did, it would be an ideal opportunity to demonstrate loving acceptance. They would surely not wish their children to regard beloved family members as “sinners”.

Why not? Would they rather their children regard the sinful behavior of their brother as something that is acceptable? One of the reasons that homosexual behavior and so called “same-sex” marriage have become so acceptable is that they all came “out of the closet” and suddenly everyone had a friend or son or daughter or some one they really like that was gay and it changed peoples opinions. So lets sweep it under the rug and ignore teaching our children about sin like we’ve done in the past.

 

[Burdock]

Being gay is NOT a choice. If two people of the same sex love each other and are committed and faithful to each other who are we to judge. The church is obsessed with sex and gay issues.

 

[ProVobis]

Being gay is NOT a choice. If two people of the same sex love each other and are committed and faithful to each other who are we to judge. The church is obsessed with sex and gay issues.

Any sex outside marriage is the issue here, not so much one’s orientation. And you’re right, who are we to judge. But Christ’s message against the scandalous is clear.

 

[Lormar]

Why not? Would they rather their children regard the sinful behavior of their brother as something that is acceptable? One of the reasons that homosexual behavior and so called “same-sex” marriage have become so acceptable is that they all came “out of the closet” and suddenly everyone had a friend or son or daughter or some one they really like that was gay and it changed peoples opinions. So lets sweep it under the rug and ignore teaching our children about sin like we’ve done in the past.

Gary, I agree with you. It sends a message that sinful actions have no consequences in either this life or the next.

Sin cost Our Lord a great deal. Look at a crucifix. That is the cost of all of our sins. We will never know fully just how much they cost Him.