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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Arandur said:
Usually not deliberately (though one has to wonder about the degree of choice in cases of those who identify as bisexual, or long-married people who then “come out”).

But what I have heard for years from a variety of psychiatrists and such is that sexual issues (and gender issues) almost always can be traced pretty strongly to environmental issues–usually relationships with parents and family. We know that abuse certainly increases prevalence of sexual disorders.

More specifically, in the case of same sex attraction, one of the strongest and most common links is a lack of a loving father figure–either an absent father, an emotionally-distant one, or abuse one, etc. That rarely was there a good, solid, positive relationship through childhood with both parents (and particularly the father).

This speaks to the damage of sin and the importance of love and a loving family–particularly traditional marriage, where there is a permanent commitment and biological parents are tied to their children (which statistically, sociologically and psychologically, has strongly been shown to be the safest and best environment for children in all possible ways).

It is also more evidence about how destructive it has been to have a fatherless society. Fatherlessness (or poor relationships with fathers) leads to so many ills. Most people know that it dramatically introduces incidence of crime; poverty – especially for women and children, but also long-term poverty throughout the lives of the children; and even atheism. I find the last one pretty indicative, too. Without a good father figure, your image of and relationship with authority is broken, your view of relationships is harmed, your whole worldview is broken. Atheism has been linked strongly with that–and can be said to be a mental disorder. It is often a deficiency arising from developmental lack or trauma.
Click to expand...
 
OraLabora said:
This always drives me a bit crazy, but in reality all are grave sins. Culpability makes it mortal of the other two remaining conditions are met: full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

It’s not inconceivable for instance, that for someone poorly catechized, that full knowledge is lacking, and that for some addictive temptations or under certain conditions, full consent of the will is not present, thus making the culpability non-mortal.

This is something none of us are qualified to determine; it’s between penitent and confessor. The issue is that the gravity of the sin is objective, but knowledge and consent of the will are rather subjective and thus only a trained confessor is positioned to make that determination.
Click to expand...
OK, point taken. They are all grave sins. But OBJECTIVELY graves sins are mortal sins. SUBJECTIVELY, it all depends on their culpability.

Calling them “grave sins” helps with apologetics, but I think it sometimes waters it down when talking to a Catholic or convincing someone to stop sinning.

We are not supposed to judge others, but we are also not supposed to judge ourselves. When we focus too much on when grave sins are/are not mortal, we let people to judge themselves thinking they might be OK. This thinking also prevents us from acting to help others. We say “well, they might be OK because they don’t know they are mortally sinning.” But the problem is we don’t know their culpability (and neither to they)… they might actually be culpable.

I say, if you commit a “moral sin” just go to confession and stop committing the sin. Plain and simple. And if people are committing grave sins, help them to realize that most likely ARE committing mortal sins. It’s better to believe you have committed a mortal sin and repent then to think you are not culpable and go to hell.

God Bless.
 
signit said:
As one who would probably let the son come over:

I would probably not allow the married heterosexual son to visit, especially not with the mistress.

This is something which in my view is quite a bit worse; breaking marriage vows, and I would not want to be a party to that. This is worse than two men living together or an unmarried male-female couple living together according to their morality which is not my morality (which, as I said, if I did allow, I’d be sure to explain to the younger guests). This is wrong on another level.
Click to expand...
If others believe this, perhaps it will serve as evidence that this really isn’t about unconditional love. After all, the son above could choose to come without his mistress, or the gay son without the homosexual partner.

I really do not see one as much worse than the other, though I take your point about the breaking of the marriage vow.
 
40.png
signit:
Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

I am curious. Those that would allow the son to come over. Would you let a heterosexual son come over if he was stepping out with his mistress and leaving his wife at home, unconditional love and all.

As one who would probably let the son come over:

I would probably not allow the married heterosexual son to visit, especially not with the mistress.

This is something which in my view is quite a bit worse; breaking marriage vows, and I would not want to be a party to that. This is worse than two men living together or an unmarried male-female couple living together according to their morality which is not my morality (which, as I said, if I did allow, I’d be sure to explain to the younger guests). This is wrong on agnother level.
Click to expand...
Which is fine, but also highlights the fact that frankly, all of these lines that we draw for what wr are willing to share with young children are arbitrary. For some people, a man bringing multiple girlfriends or mistresses goes too far; for others a son and their homo homosexual partner is not something appropriate for children.

If you’re going to draw the line somewhere, it becomes hard to criticize others for drawing the line in a different place.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
frobert said:
I am glad you qualified your statements with “I have heard for years.”

If you examine the actual studies you will find that while the percentage of gays under treatment may fit your criteria you will also find a high percentage of heterosexuals in treatment that also fit your criteria. That the percentage is higher for gays than for heterosexuals is easily explained by the many forms of homosexuality which fit in with your remarks about a fatherless society. If you are interested in this aspect of homosexuality may I suggest a classic referrence - “Homosexuality and Pseudohomosexuality” by Lionel Ovesey.
Click to expand...
Could you summarize what you’ve taken as a major takeaway that is relevant to what I’ve posted? My reading list is far too long as it is and I’m moving through it with extremely painful slowness…partly because I spent time on the Internet that I could probably better spend reading something more substantial 🙂

I’m not sure what your main point is. Of course people with the same histories can exhibit different levels of of personal impact, and in different ways. Does anyone who knows much about the complexity of human psychology really think that one particular experience growing up will affect everyone the same way? I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

My point was just that it seems that there are a great number of experiential factors that can affect peoples’ “sexual orientation.” I have heard many people make the case from the data that homosexual orientations are heavily or even primarily generated by these factors, rather than by something genetic.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter much, except in how people might deal with it.
 
Eternal_One said:
I have no problem at all welcoming sinners of any kind into my house, whether theyre repentant or not. However, I would expect them not to bring their lifestyle along. If I invited my quirky nudist cousin to Christmas dinner, I’d expect him to be clothed while attending, not naked.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 👍
 
phil19034 said:
While you don’t chose to be gay, you do choose to act on your attractions.

Just like a married person chooses to cheat on their spouse when attracted to someone else.

Just like single people choose to fornicate.

All are mortal sins.

Who we are attracted to isn’t sinful, it’s what we do with those attractions that can be sinful.
Click to expand...
Yes… I also realised what my sexuality was long before my teens.
I realised I was clearly heterosexual. And I don’t think my heterosexuality was my choice, or because of anything that happened to me. I think it was actually genetic!

And although I tried to be chaste, I did succumb to my inclinations and eventually indulged in heterosexual practices in my late teens. I believe lots of others with heterosexual proclivities have also failed to live lifelong chastity, and they have even institutionalised their practices in “marriage”.

But what if I were homosexual? Would that come with an extra gift enabling me to remain chaste? I doubt that, so I find it hard to judge them.
I gave in to my (conventional) urges; how can I condemn those who give way to less conventional (albeit common) ones?
I count myself blessed that my urges are conventional; but I can take no credit fot this; my sexual orientation was a gift. I cannot judge those who were given something other.

On the other hand there are those with urges that must never be expressed…Paedophiles & those who kill their victims, for example that are predatory, exploitative and plainly harmful to others
 
John_Matrix said:
Which is fine, but also highlights the fact that frankly, all of these lines that we draw for what wr are willing to share with young children are arbitrary. For some people, a man bringing multiple girlfriends or mistresses goes too far; for others a son and their homo homosexual partner is not something appropriate for children.

If you’re going to draw the line somewhere, it becomes hard to criticize others for drawing the line in a different place.
Click to expand...
On this, I totally agree, but also not that this is sort of what Cardinal Burke said. I would not use the word “arbitrary” but instead I would say that opinions can vary, as we must all use our own judgment. I said early on that most cases should have some sort of compromise, which might mean asking the son to give a little in interest of the children. Love and respect for parents is as important as love for children.
 
pnewton said:
On this, I totally agree, but also not that this is sort of what Cardinal Burke said. I would not use the word “arbitrary” but instead I would say that opinions can vary, as we must all use our own judgment. I said early on that most cases should have some sort of compromise, which might mean asking the son to give a little in interest of the children. Love and respect for parents is as important as love for children.
Click to expand...
Yes, and while arbitrary may be technically accurate, it doesn’t convey the intended meaning as you pointed out.

There can be little debate about the nature of right and wrong, but how to handle these situations is more nuanced for most people.

I heartily agree with Cardinal Burke, but realize some handle these sorts of situations differently.
 
harlen said:
But what if I were homosexual? Would that come with an extra gift enabling me to remain chaste? I doubt that, so I find it hard to judge them.
I gave in to my (conventional) urges; how can I condemn those who give way to less conventional (albeit common) ones?
I count myself blessed that my urges are conventional; but I can take no credit fot this; my sexual orientation was a gift. I cannot judge those who were given something other.
Click to expand...
You recognized (maybe not at the time, but now seem to) that unchastity was wrong. Heterosexual attractions didn’t make it right. Same would be true for same-sex attractions.

I think the real confusion here is what the culture has done to attack chastity in general, and then how it has labeled people (LGBTQIAP…etc). It wants to approve all sexual acts. If you desire it, it should be okay, the society says.

We should be striving for purity, and recognize when we do not meet the mark. That’s what repentance requires. And what mercy requires.
 
Arandur said:
You recognized (maybe not at the time, but now seem to) that unchastity was wrong. Heterosexual attractions didn’t make it right. Same would be true for same-sex attractions.

I think the real confusion here is what the culture has done to attack chastity in general, and then how it has labeled people (LGBTQIAP…etc). It wants to approve all sexual acts. If you desire it, it should be okay, the society says.

We should be striving for purity, and recognize when we do not meet the mark. That’s what repentance requires. And what mercy requires.
Click to expand...
Yes, isn’t that strange. There is such strong resistance to the notion of chastity. We have no problem denying the will in terms of social justice (i.e., rightly judging those who seek their own material gain at the expense of others, the planet, etc.). We rightly condemn anger, cruelty, indifference, hatred. But we see no harm in the display of the will in terms of sexual passion - this is basically a “good.” It’s justifiable self-fulfillment. To oppose it is wrong. We need to understand that sexual desire is still part of OUR will, not God’s. The demons get us one way or another. People pick and choose how to be Christians. :rolleyes: You either give up your will to God or you don’t. Not saying this is easy or that it happens overnight, or in fact every fully happens in this world. What we seem to have now though (in the Church even at high levels) is resistance** to these basic Christian truths. The goal of chastity is being undermined as untenable.
 
pnewton said:
On this, I totally agree, but also not that this is sort of what Cardinal Burke said. I would not use the word “arbitrary” but instead I would say that opinions can vary, as we must all use our own judgment. I said early on that most cases should have some sort of compromise, which might mean asking the son to give a little in interest of the children. Love and respect for parents is as important as love for children.
Click to expand...
John_Matrix said:
Which is fine, but also highlights the fact that frankly, all of these lines that we draw for what wr are willing to share with young children are arbitrary. For some people, a man bringing multiple girlfriends or mistresses goes too far; for others a son and their homo homosexual partner is not something appropriate for children.

If you’re going to draw the line somewhere, it becomes hard to criticize others for drawing the line in a different place.
Click to expand...
And I actually agree with both of you on that.

If Mom and Dad don’t want their gay son and his partner around because it might set a bad example for the younger kids, I’d respect that decision even though it might not be the decision I’d make.

I just thought it odd that our family gatherings included relatives whose conduct was less than perfect and they were not banned from the proceedings. Mom and Dad used it as an opportunity to educate.
 
Problem is now we have a society that says—try it, you may like it. Some get into problems by being seduced into them.

If you watch, “Desire of the Everlasting Hills” about 3 homosexuals you will see the woman waited for men to ask her for dates and when that didn’t happen a woman took her on a date and she “realized” she was a lesbian. She must not have had a very strong foundation to give in or didn’t want to be lonely. There are many reasons for being homosexual and we don’t know them all. She ended up being dissatisfied with her life and turned to God for help.

The film also showed how as a society no one can judge anyone for anything anymore for fear they will be judged. When they saw twins sisters making out the woman was struck by how wrong that was but was told by her partner they could not judge or they would be judged. You have to know you are doing wrong if you feel that way.

God has made man for woman and that is how nature wants it. We all have some disability of some kind and a cross to bear.
 
signit;12430243 said:
Interested to know if their focus was upon acceptance and respect for the rights of others to keep their personal sexual relationships private, or upon condemnation for the perceived sins of others.
Click to expand...
 
Serious question: What other sins would be acceptable for the grandchildren to view and for the parents to support?
  1. Zoophilia. A son brings home a dog he has sex with (3% of men are attracted to animals).
  2. Racism. A son brings home his racist girlfriend and they talk about white power.
  3. Thief. A boy brings home his girlfriend with whom he commits identity fraud/
  4. Prostitutes. A son brings home a prostitute whom he paid to attend the function with him.
  5. Multiple partners? A son brings home multiple girlfriends with whom he has sex.
Please answer:
  1. Yes, no, maybe
etc.
 
John_Savage said:
Serious question: What other sins would be acceptable for the grandchildren to view and for the parents to support?
  1. Zoophilia. A son brings home a dog he has sex with (3% of men are attracted to animals).
  2. Racism. A son brings home his racist girlfriend and they talk about white power.
  3. Thief. A boy brings home his girlfriend with whom he commits identity fraud/
  4. Prostitutes. A son brings home a prostitute whom he paid to attend the function with him.
  5. Multiple partners? A son brings home multiple girlfriends with whom he has sex.
Please answer:
  1. Yes, no, maybe
etc.
Click to expand...
Agreed. No one answers these kinds of things.

They want a welcome for the politically correct sins but not of any the politically correct disapprove.
 
That’s what I was saying on another thread. People want acceptance for things they find acceptable.

Well, what about a 50 year old son who brings over a 15 year old boy he’s having sex with (it’s legal in many countries and this is an international forum). Would you welcome him? Introduce him to the grand kids?

If you draw the line somewhere, then you’re essentially agreeing with conservative Catholics in substance, just not on specifics.
 
John_Savage said:
That’s what I was saying on another thread. People want acceptance for things they find acceptable.

Well, what about a 50 year old son who brings over a 15 year old boy he’s having sex with (it’s legal in many countries and this is an international forum). Would you welcome him? Introduce him to the grand kids?

If you draw the line somewhere, then you’re essentially agreeing with conservative Catholics in substance, just not on specifics.
Click to expand...
Well, for me it would have more to do with how much they flaunt their relationship and how discrete they were and how close relative-wise they were to me. If it were a sibling of mine, I would try to accommodate them, but if they wouldn’t agree to my rules, then they have to stay away. If they were out of wedlock and advocating free love, they would have to stay away. If they were inlaws they would have to stay away.

😃
 
John_Savage said:
Serious question: What other sins would be acceptable for the grandchildren to view and for the parents to support?
  1. Zoophilia. A son brings home a dog he has sex with (3% of men are attracted to animals).
  2. Racism. A son brings home his racist girlfriend and they talk about white power.
  3. Thief. A boy brings home his girlfriend with whom he commits identity fraud/
  4. Prostitutes. A son brings home a prostitute whom he paid to attend the function with him.
  5. Multiple partners? A son brings home multiple girlfriends with whom he has sex.
Please answer:
  1. Yes, no, maybe
etc.
Click to expand...
I am having trouble digesting what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that the mere presence of a same sex couple at a family affair is somehow equivalent to a son having sex with a dog at a family affair? Some things are simply inappropriate for everyone not just for grandchildren.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top