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

[frobert]

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.

My emphasis was that your post was simply an opinion from what you have heard. I did give a reference that if you were interested you could further your knowledge.

 

[harlen]

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.

I see your point (and I appreciate the difficulty) but one can answer other the “Yes, No or Maybe”

Your hypothetical questions presupposes looking at categories, principles and the “drawing of lines”.
And once you “draw lines” you are into categorising other peoples’ sins & judgements. Perhaps it is better to deal with individuals & situations.
e.g. No 4 (Son pays a prostitute to attend). (a)This prostitute is also a person. Why is she earning this way? What is her life story? What else is she? What qualities does she have? Is she not as dear to God as you or I?
(b)Is this no more than a cynical paid service? Your son (& his family) might be instrumental in helping her. It might be a “Pretty Woman” story. “Prostitutes” are, I believe, as varied as the rest of humanity.

Concerning “Racists”…one cannot avoid them. They are usually fearful; sometimes they’ve had bad experiences. And I find discussion with them fruitful; they need to contextualise.
And we’ve probably all had people at table who “have multiple partners”. (But deceitfully). Is it made worse by being open or flagrant???
We don’t have dogs in our house. I suppose I’ve drawn a line there. And this matter involves non-consenuality as well.

I am reminded of one of the almost universal parts of Near-Death-Experiences. The soul encounters “God/Christ” (The Being of total unconditional Love), they see their whole life and they judge it themselves.
Perhaps this should be our model concerning “sinners” …to encounter them with unconditional love… where they might see their own lives and make whatever judgements they might? This is a “hard saying” but, as catholics, we are used to that idea too.

Just a thought, and having expressed it, I’m not judging those who think they have to draw lines. I would probably do so myself with some of these. But I think it would be out of some fear within me that I did it.

 

[SWolf]

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.

He’s saying there’s a line that has to be drawn at what is appropriate behavior in a household. Drawing the line at a gay couple pretending to be married at your table doesn’t mean you’re unloving or judgmental.

 

[John_Savage]

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.

They’re similar in that they’re both sinful.

The point I’m trying to make is that we all agree with the concept of unacceptable behavior, unless you think that your family should be able to present themselves however they want without regard for the values of the host.

It’s wrong to call people names for having a slightly different standard that you.

 

[signit]

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.

I’m not sure.

The things that the other relatives did were known to Mom and Dad and not publicly mentioned, but mentioned privately to me when the time was right, in the sense of “we don’t do these things.”

And they weren’t all evil or wicked-type “sins,” either. My mother once explained to me, “Your aunt and her kids aren’t Catholics. She takes them to the xxx Church. That’s what they believe; that’s not what we believe.” But they were still welcome n our home.

 

[signit]

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.

Well, first, just to clarify, I don’t support the sins. A “yes” only means that I would allow the person to attend the gathering with the grandchildren present.

1. No, not even close.
2. Yes, at first, but if the conversation turned offensive the person(s) involved would be told that if it continued they would have to leave. (e.g., “We don’t talk that way in this house . . .”)
3. Yes, assuming I don’t have first-hand knowledge they did it, but, as above, if they started bragging about it or, worse, doing it, I would take appropriate action.

If I knew 100% they did it (for example, if they did it to me), depending on the seriousness of the situation they might be banned from visiting.

This is similar to a situation in my family I mentioned in an earlier post. My mother’s cousin defrauded the government by getting a military disability pension for a phony injury. He was not banned from our home but my father privately made it clear to me that he disapproved.

1. No.
2. No.

The thing is, with 1, 4, and 5, the activity in question is either illegal (1 and 4) or something practically everyone knows is wrong because it’s disloyal to someone else (5).

The reason why I would not absolutely ban a gay son and his partner or a son or daughter living with an opposite-sex partner is that these activities aren’t illegal, and aren’t immoral according to what they believe. I would, however, enforce the “under my roof” rule, i.e., they would have to have separate rooms.

And in each case the situation would be explained to the grandchildren, at the right time, in an appropriate manner.

And, again, I wouldn’t say other families are “wrong” if they draw the line differently by banning the gay son.

 

[RGCheek]

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.

He did not saying anything of the sort or even close to it.

Great deflection there, bubba.

 

[RGCheek]

The thing is, with 1, 4, and 5, the activity in question is either illegal (1 and 4) or something practically everyone knows is wrong because it’s disloyal to someone else (5).

But you don’t know that what the gay son is doing with his lover is not also wrong, or the other child living out of wedlock?

The reason why I would not absolutely ban a gay son and his partner or a son or daughter living with an opposite-sex partner is that these activities aren’t illegal, and aren’t immoral according to what they believe.

Why do you imagine that a racist daughter-in-law, or a pedophile or a philanderer or just about any other toxic behavior type of person today would think what they did to be immoral?

And why should it matter when it is YOUR HOUSE and YOU KNOW it is IMMORAL?

Again, the way these responses dove tail with accepting the PC immorality while shunning the nonPC immorality is curious, and makes me wonder if a five year PR campaign by organized groups of people might not make pop-Catholics more tolerant on these others as well.

 

[frobert]

He did not saying anything of the sort or even close to it.

Great deflection there, bubba.

That is the way it comes across. i would welcome your interpretation.

 

[harlen]

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.

Further to my reply (3:27am)

I forgot to say re. (5*) “son brings home mutiple partners”*
What if my son had become a Muslim or Mormon, and had two wives; would that make it better?
And if he had moved to a country where polygamy was customary & legal. Would that influence me or make it less problematic?
Or indeed If I had to live in such a country; would I refuse all society with “normal” polygamous people…refusing to invite or be invited?

I think most people “draw lines” in such situations in different places.
And, as we live in largely secular, post-Christian societies, we often accept that we draw lines with a view to the persons as well as to principles.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

A bit of hyperbole non? I don’t see how you can equate the above with an ordinary same-sex couple at a family dinner. Most of the same-sex couples I know would be as discrete about their sex lives at a dinner as would a heterosexual couple. I have never known anyone to bring a prostitute to a family dinner and brag about it (maybe at worst introduce her as a “girlfriend”). I wouldn’t know if a person is having sex with their dog unless they say so, a thief or fraudster would also have to brag about it for others at the table to know about it, and I doubt a son would bring multiple girlfriends to a family dinner. Mind you racism is one that one does see fairly commonly at family dinners. Maybe not “white power”, but certainly covert or mildly overt racism is fairly common even in polite company.

What you are in short saying is that sinners, in general, wouldn’t be invited to the table, which seems rather at odds with what Jesus did.

If I applied your criteria to my dinner table, I wouldn’t even be able to attend myself because, well, I am a sinner. Though I wouldn’t brag about my sins at the table.

 

[Dawnia]

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.

You forgot #6. The family member who comes to family gatherings looking for a date or just a hookup.

 

[signit]

You forgot #6. The family member who comes to family gatherings looking for a date or just a hookup.

1. That one might be the biggest “no” of all, as this is something that could disrupt the family gathering, or interfere with the rights of others to enjoy the event.

Similarly, in 1-5 above, or in the case of the gay son or the child with the opposite-sex partner, there would be a definite “no” if I thought the person in question could be a threat to someone else at the event, or might try to undercut my own religious teachings to the younger kids (e.g., if the gay son were likely to go behind my back and tell one of the younger kids, “Your grandfather’s a Catholic and he thinks we’re wrong. But the Catholic Church is wrong about this. . . .”).

 

[signit]

But you don’t know that what the gay son is doing with his lover is not also wrong, or the other child living out of wedlock?

Why do you imagine that a racist daughter-in-law, or a pedophile or a philanderer or just about any other toxic behavior type of person today would think what they did to be immoral?

And why should it matter when it is YOUR HOUSE and YOU KNOW it is IMMORAL?

Again, the way these responses dove tail with accepting the PC immorality while shunning the nonPC immorality is curious, and makes me wonder if a five year PR campaign by organized groups of people might not make pop-Catholics more tolerant on these others as well.

I think the pedophile/zoophile/philanderer knows full well what they’re doing is wrong; they’re condemned by just about every faith.

The racist daughter-in-law may or may not know what she’s doing is wrong; she may not realize she’s a racist; she may have had ideas put into her head by someone else. But, as I said, if there’s any offensive talk at the gathering I would immediately object.

The gay son or the person living out of wedlock probably knows it’s against my beliefs but has considered the matter and according to their belief system, concluded that it’s not wrong. And that person might be unlikely to change, having considered Catholic teaching but having also seen how people live in the world around them. So I don’t think not allowing them under my roof would get them to accept Catholic teachings, although as I said I would still impose the “under my roof” rule.

 

[RGCheek]

A bit of hyperbole non? I don’t see how you can equate the above with ***an ordinary ***same-sex couple at a family dinner. .

Wow, what is ordinary about that?

That’s like saying there is an ordinary elephant that walks in eggshells without crushing them.

 

[SWolf]

You forgot #6. The family member who comes to family gatherings looking for a date or just a hookup.

HAHAHA!

If you go to family reunions to pick up chicks, you might be a redneck. - Jeff Foxworthy

 

[RGCheek]

I think the pedophile/zoophile/philanderer knows full well what they’re doing is wrong; they’re condemned by just about every faith. .

There is a growing attitude among many that faiths don’t have authority at all, and so the unanimity of all faiths on the topic is irrelevant tot hem,. They live by their own lights.

So would that make it OK?

 

[OraLabora]

Wow, what is ordinary about that?

That’s like saying there is an ordinary elephant that walks in eggshells without crushing them.

C’mon you know full well what I mean. I mean “run of the mill” same-sex couples, which is what most of them I’ve met are. They’re just trying to get on with their lives as the rest of us are. They aren’t trying to force anything down anyone’s throats, nor do they prance nearly naked in gay pride parades (most I know would be horrified at the prospect). They just want to be left alone and treated with the respect and dignity that every human being deserves.

I really struggle with the attitudes of some Christians, including Catholics, towards others who engage in sins different than their own. I wonder what it is they hate in themselves that makes them so vitriolic against others.

There but for the grace of God go I…

Situational ethics is not all about theoretical, sterile debates on doctrine, it’s about real life situations with real people and real sinners. We’d do well to remember that all sinners were made in God’s image, and carry the indelible mark of Christ in them. It’s why Benedictines welcome all who show up at the gate as if Christ Himself was at the door, unconditionally. It’s something the world could do well to practice rather than making other sinners the target of whatever it is they feel they need to fire at them.

 

[John_Savage]

To answer my own question, I have three children. I’d let them attend family functions with most of the behaviors above, but they would not be able to show evidence of their behavior. They could not wear racist t-shirts or bring the people with whom they have the illicit relationship.

The answer to whether any behavior above will be accepted in the future is “yes” if the culture really concentrated on mainstreaming it, The process would work on people who don’t have a competing standard.

If there were a TV show about zoophilia and the colleges started coming up with studies programs and theories, soon people would ask, “well, who does it hurt?” We all know the answer is “nobody.”

It’s interesting that Germany just legalized bestiality and incest.

 

[John_Savage]

Unless you’re willing to allow any of the behaviors above, you’re just drawing a different line, one that looks suspiciously like what’s acceptable in mainstream culture.

And, what if they did like to prance around naked at Gay Pride festivals? Would you then not allow them?

C’mon you know full well what I mean. I mean “run of the mill” same-sex couples, which is what most of them I’ve met are. They’re just trying to get on with their lives as the rest of us are. They aren’t trying to force anything down anyone’s throats, nor do they prance nearly naked in gay pride parades (most I know would be horrified at the prospect). They just want to be left alone and treated with the respect and dignity that every human being deserves.

I really struggle with the attitudes of some Christians, including Catholics, towards others who engage in sins different than their own. I wonder what it is they hate in themselves that makes them so vitriolic against others.

There but for the grace of God go I…

Situational ethics is not all about theoretical, sterile debates on doctrine, it’s about real life situations with real people and real sinners. We’d do well to remember that all sinners were made in God’s image, and carry the indelible mark of Christ in them. It’s why Benedictines welcome all who show up at the gate as if Christ Himself was at the door, unconditionally. It’s something the world could do well to practice rather than making other sinners the target of whatever it is they feel they need to fire at them.