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

[YoungTradCath]

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.

I fail to see how some lines in the Catechism comes close to obsession. Not once have I ever ever ever ever ever ever ever heard any teaching in person out of a priest’s mouth on sexuality. Never. Not one time.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.”

I did assume when you said it was not a hypothetical situation for you that your son, his boyfriend (now husband) and children were all gathered together at your family’ Christmas dinner table. But thanks for clearing that up. Hearing real life experiences from families such are yours I believe are vital. We can learn much. And in the end as you said, sometimes folks simply have to agree to disagree. I wish you and your family peace.

 

[Dawnia]

I agree with Cardinal Burke, to an extent. It depends on the situation and the kids. There were lots of family members I didn’t expose my son to when he was young. (I have some rather vulgar & psycho extended family members) It is one thing for adults to expose themselves to behavior unbecoming of a human, but an entirely different issue when it comes to kids. Some kids are able to handle the situation and others can’t. Do what is right for your family. I don’t think there is a one size fits all way to handle it.

 

[SylviaD]

I did assume when you said it was not a hypothetical situation for you that your son, his boyfriend (now husband) and children were all gathered together at your family’ Christmas dinner table. But thanks for clearing that up. Hearing real life experiences from families such are yours I believe are vital. We can learn much. And in the end as you said, sometimes folks simply have to agree to disagree. I wish you and your family peace.

Oh my dear, please forgive me if it seemed in any way that my comment was directed toward you. On the contrary, I can see that you clearly understood my message and am so appreciative of your kind words and the multiple efforts you made to provide clarification to pnewton, to whom I was attempting to direct my reply. God bless you.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh my dear, please forgive me if it seemed in any way that my comment was directed toward you. On the contrary, I can see that you clearly understood my message and am so appreciative of your kind words and the multiple efforts you made to provide clarification to pnewton, to whom I was attempting to direct my reply. God bless you.

Nothing to forgive. We’re fine. I was just thanking you for clarifying your experience for anyone else who for whatever reason didn’t understand the first time. I understood but sometimes I know on the internet we don’t always. God bless you and all of yours too.

 

[John_Matrix]

In today’s work environment, if you withdrew the invitation in the second case you could find yourself at worst with a discrimination lawsuit on your hands and at best some very uncomfortable moments with the HR director. It’s either all of your co-workers, or none of them. Their private lives, in the professional context, are in fact none of anyone’s business.

Neither is who one coworker invites to his own private dinner. It cuts both ways.

Granted, it would be prudent not to advertise why certain colleagues were not invited, but I would ask HR what regulation applies to private dinner obligations.

I have invited select coworkers to baseball games in the past - that was my prerogative.

 

[John_Matrix]

Why would there be fear or anger? From what source do young children learn to react in such a negative way? Surely it would be better for them to respect the privacy of others? Why should the personal relationships of adults concern them if they are brought up in an atmosphere of acceptance and a respect for personal privacy.

Perhaps because it IS an atmosphere of acceptance, which is precisely what Catholics parents should oppose. Children are extremely adept and learning from our actions even moreso that our words. I can tell my children the wrongness of using profanity, but if I use profane language, what message do you think they really get?

When children are involved, I give parents as much of a wide berth as possible, because ultimately, it is those parents that will have to stand before God an account for how well they tried to protect and raise their flock.

Frankly, I find it sad that no time has been spent addressing the responsibility of a family member who knows they have chosen a lifestyle outside the family or Church (both in this case) and yet lack the courtesy to respect their family for the greater good. Again, people with homosexual tendencies get sympathy in these situations, but what if the son brought his mistress rather than his wife, would we show the same desire for family acceptance, when children are involved? I would not.

Much like the woman who confronted their priest in VA with her lesbian partner and insisted on receiving communion - regardless of how well one believes the Priest handled the situation (I supported him, myself, as it was a difficult position to face), it was done without the slightest bit of courtesy or concern for anyone but the woman herself. The fact that it was at her mother’s funeral makes it even more disrespectful. It was of course, all about her desires.

I would hope a loving child would respect their family enough to honor the sanctity of the family with courtesy. But somehow, the son’s role in this gets know mention. A loving son would not put their family in that situation, IMHO.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Frankly, I find it sad that no time has been spent addressing the responsibility of a family member who knows they have chosen a lifestyle outside the family or Church (both in this case) and yet lack the courtesy to respect their family for the greater good. Again, people with homosexual tendencies get sympathy in these situations, but what if the son brought his mistress rather than his wife, would we show the same desire for family acceptance, when children are involved? I would not.

I would hope a loving child would respect their family enough to honor the sanctity of the family with courtesy. But somehow, the son’s role in this gets know mention. A loving son would not put their family in that situation, IMHO.

In the real life family experience a poster above shared, no where was it mentioned the son’s lifestyle puts him outside their family. Nor that the son disrespects his family. Quite the contrary it appeared to me. Love for each other seems to abound around the table at that family’s Christmas. It was even mentioned the love the children have for their uncle and the important part he has always played in the little ones Christmases.

People can disagree. Even the bishops could not reach agreement on certain matters at the now concluded synod of 2014. Cardinal Burke, who questioned parents welcoming their son and partner at Christmas, has been reassigned to a new position for whatever reasons , unbeknownst to us, the Holy Father had. And all I can do at this point 2 mos ahead is wish these real life families Merry Christmas and peace on earth and good will toward men.

 

[harlen]

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.

I appreciate your points.
But Christ’s message to the woman caught “in the act of adultery” …“Go & sin no more” can be addressed to everyone, and He had dispersed her executioners by asking which was without sin.
So I don’t see it as necessarily a unique mission to confront remarried people or gays, or even the greedy, the gluttonous etc… rather we are cautioned to remove the plank from our own eye before criticising others.
We do not know the precise circumstances of her adultery but plainly she was being unfaithful to her current spouse in a society where divorce was permitted. How similar this is to attacking comebody who has been in a second union for decades is debateable? (We do not have Christ’s vision, and we do not know the exact reasons and circumstances of her situation, or of other people’s relationship problems).

And I think there is a problem with the current practice/doctrine as entirely focussed on “The Sex Act” itself. So “adultery” becomes the “illegal” lovemaking, rather than the “Desertion & Second-Family Founding”.
If Adultery were the latter (the desertion of one family to found another) then it would eventually become (like murder) an irreversible new reality, that is (potentially and conditionally) forgiveable.
“Adultery” could be, (perhaps more truthfully?) sometimes seen as the one-off creation of an (illegitimate?) new situation;…not a series of ever-renewing illegal acts.
Many Catholics say, “A sin such as murder is a “one-off” sin, & can be forgiven whereas a second marriage is ever-renewing sin”. But the reality of that murder (a missing mother, child, husband?) is a permanent daily, ongoing wrong!
This is the actuality of divorce, which most families encounter today, even within their closest circles. It is not about whether a couple are “doing it”… it is about older broken families; and it is also about living, breathing, new families.
And a problem of current teaching means that someone in this new, “adulterous” union is “OK” with the Church if “they live as brother & sister”! (So,…as long as there’s no sex!).
But this blesses the fact of the abandonment of the first union, and it does nothing to restore a missing spouse to a bereft spouse; or a missing parent to children orphaned by divorce! This places abandonment as less important than “illegal” sex.
And moreover, what happens to the “public scandal” problem here? Are this “celibate couple” wearing celibacy-placards to ease the minds of their fellow communicants? If not the scandal remains; and who is checking up and publicising who isn’t “doing it” and who might be.
I’m left with the feeling that the control of sex is most crucial than the building and maintenance of families.
So there appears to be two uses of the sin of “Adultery”…One meaning illicit intercourse whilst you are married. And two…where this extended to second marriages, even decades after they were created, have raised families and where the older unions were long since buried as restorable propositions.

 

[John_Matrix]

In the real life family experience a poster above shared, no where was it mentioned the son’s lifestyle puts him outside their family. Nor that the son disrespects his family. Quite the contrary it appeared to me. Love for each other seems to abound around the table at that family’s Christmas. It was even mentioned the love the children have for their uncle and the important part he has always played in the little ones Christmases.

People can disagree. Even the bishops could not reach agreement on certain matters at the now concluded synod of 2014. Cardinal Burke, who questioned parents welcoming their son and partner at Christmas, has been reassigned to a new position for whatever reasons , unbeknownst to us, the Holy Father had. And all I can do at this point 2 mos ahead is wish these real life families Merry Christmas and peace on earth and good will toward men.

A son living a gay lifestyle is by definition, living outside a Catholic family and the Church. Not that they have been shunned, but that they are not living according to the family or Church’s precepts. An adult is free to make that decision with regards to a family; not with the Church.

And of course it is the height of rudeness and selfishness to be inconsiderate of the position you put others in, especially the family. It isn’t as though this person is ignorant of how the family operates or believes. They have just as much responsibility (if not more, as they are one living a wholly unsafe lifestyles spiritually in this example).

I can’t imagine a son who truly loved his mother as Christ did putting her in a terrible situation, as in this scenario.

So we can disagree on the proper family response, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone could not agree that these things involve serious responsibility on both parties, and that the whole thing could be avoided with a little courtesy and love for the family upfront. As a son, that is what I’d do.

 

[RGCheek]

Being gay is NOT a choice.

It is a choice in the same way that being fat or an alcoholic is a choice.

 

[frobert]

Perhaps because it IS an atmosphere of acceptance, which is precisely what Catholics parents should oppose. Children are extremely adept and learning from our actions even moreso that our words. I can tell my children the wrongness of using profanity, but if I use profane language, what message do you think they really get?

When children are involved, I give parents as much of a wide berth as possible, because ultimately, it is those parents that will have to stand before God an account for how well they tried to protect and raise their flock.

Frankly, I find it sad that no time has been spent addressing the responsibility of a family member who knows they have chosen a lifestyle outside the family or Church (both in this case) and yet lack the courtesy to respect their family for the greater good. Again, people with homosexual tendencies get sympathy in these situations, but what if the son brought his mistress rather than his wife, would we show the same desire for family acceptance, when children are involved? I would not.

Much like the woman who confronted their priest in VA with her lesbian partner and insisted on receiving communion - regardless of how well one believes the Priest handled the situation (I supported him, myself, as it was a difficult position to face), it was done without the slightest bit of courtesy or concern for anyone but the woman herself. The fact that it was at her mother’s funeral makes it even more disrespectful. It was of course, all about her desires.

I would hope a loving child would respect their family enough to honor the sanctity of the family with courtesy. But somehow, the son’s role in this gets know mention. A loving son would not put their family in that situation, IMHO.

There seems to be a misconception about accepting what is with condoning what is. Where do we draw the line. Do we alienate ourselves from unmarried family members who are divorced, or living together or remarried? what do we tell our children when we tell them that their favorite uncle is not welcome at family affairs? Do we tell our children not to play with Johny or Suzy because they have two moms or two dads. I do not think it is a spiritual work of mercy or shows us in our best light when it needlessly and purposely alienates others.

 

[Burdock]

It is a choice in the same way that being fat or an alcoholic is a choice.

No it is not.Things are not that black and white, my father died of alcoholism so I have some insight on that subject.

 

[John_Matrix]

There seems to be a misconception about accepting what is with condoning what is. Where do we draw the line. Do we alienate ourselves from unmarried family members who are divorced, or living together or remarried? what do we tell our children when we tell them that their favorite uncle is not welcome at family affairs? Do we tell our children not to play with Johny or Suzy because they have two moms or two dads. I do not think it is a spiritual work of mercy or shows us in our best light when it needlessly and purposely alienates others.

Frankly, the whole issue is not about acceptance or condoning, but exposure to children. The argument may be different if they were not present.

Many parents believe seeing two men as a couple at dinner confuses children. I support their right to enforce their rules. I don’t see anyone telling the people who don’t have a problem exposing children to it to justify why they parent the way they do.

Again, why not address the other side of the coin? There are two responsible parties here.

 

[YoungTradCath]

No it is not.Things are not that black and white, my father died of alcoholism so I have some insight on that subject.

But whether or not being gay is a choice–who cares really?–is totally beside the point. The Church’s magisterium is completely silent on that because the magisterium does not find it relevant whether homosexuality is a choice. The Church just says that sex outside of marriage–real marriage–is wrong and that homosexual desires are disordered, that is, not ordered towards the right thing, which is fruitful unity between a man and a woman. That’s it. Because two men or two women are inherently (ie because they are of the same sex, not in spite of this) completely and utterly incapable of doing what a man and a woman can do–create a new person, which is one of the ends of sexual intercourse–then they cannot marry each other. If you can’t get married, you can’t have sex, if you are literally incapable of having sex with the person you are attracted to (let’s not quibble over definitions here, we both know this means intercourse), you can’t get married to this person.

My father was an alcoholic for a long time, too (he’s not now) and he would have said that a predisposition to alcoholism isn’t a choice either, and I would say, “Ok what’s your point? What does that have to do with anything?” For the record his father was an alcoholic too, I’m not, I don’t really drink all that much.

 

[signit]

And of course it is the height of rudeness and selfishness to be inconsiderate of the position you put others in, especially the family. It isn’t as though this person is ignorant of how the family operates or believes. They have just as much responsibility (if not more, as they are one living a wholly unsafe lifestyles spiritually in this example).

In fairness, I did mention this in one of my earlier posts, and suggested that some of the earlier posters seemed to suggest it.

I agree; you could make the argument that the son, out of respect to his parent(s) and the younger family members, not bring his gay lover to the event in the first place. That wasn’t the original question, though; the question that was posed was how the parent should handle the situation.

 

[signit]

It is a choice in the same way that being fat or an alcoholic is a choice.

No it is not.Things are not that black and white, my father died of alcoholism so I have some insight on that subject.

My father was an alcoholic for a long time, too (he’s not now) and he would have said that a predisposition to alcoholism isn’t a choice either, and I would say, “Ok what’s your point? What does that have to do with anything?” For the record his father was an alcoholic too, I’m not, I don’t really drink all that much.

I tend to think being an alcoholic or becoming one isn’t a choice.

Of course purposely abusing alcohol is wrong, according to our faith, but you could question the person’s degree of individual responsibility in putting the alcohol into themselves. My aforementioned uncle was an alcoholic, and at least once drank to excess, but I’m not prepared to say he definitely went to hell for deinking to excess because I don’t know the circumstances; maybe he didn’t realize he was drinking to excess or maybe the desire to drink was just too strong to resist.

 

[JimG]

When it comes to bringing friends to dinner, the problem of giving bad example to children never arises. There’s usually nothing wrong with bringing a friend to dinner. The problems arise when one brings lovers to dinner, of either sex, since that implies the existence of an illicit sexual relationship.

I suppose it gives a new urgency to the phrase “why can’t we just be friends?”

 

[SylviaD]

A son living a gay lifestyle is by definition, living outside a Catholic family and the Church. Not that they have been shunned, but that they are not living according to the family or Church’s precepts. An adult is free to make that decision with regards to a family; not with the Church.

And of course it is the height of rudeness and selfishness to be inconsiderate of the position you put others in, especially the family. It isn’t as though this person is ignorant of how the family operates or believes. They have just as much responsibility (if not more, as they are one living a wholly unsafe lifestyles spiritually in this example).

I can’t imagine a son who truly loved his mother as Christ did putting her in a terrible situation, as in this scenario.

So we can disagree on the proper family response, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone could not agree that these things involve serious responsibility on both parties, and that the whole thing could be avoided with a little courtesy and love for the family upfront. As a son, that is what I’d do.

 

[PaulinVA]

Frankly, the whole issue is not about acceptance or condoning, but exposure to children. The argument may be different if they were not present.

Many parents believe seeing two men as a couple at dinner confuses children. I support their right to enforce their rules. I don’t see anyone telling the people who don’t have a problem exposing children to it to justify why they parent the way they do.

Again, why not address the other side of the coin? There are two responsible parties here.

If there is a child at the table there who is terrified of his/her same sex attraction and looking to see how the parents handle the situation, what would we want him/her to see?