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

[OraLabora]

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.

What is it, at face value, that is illicit about coming to dinner with a friend, a girlfriend or a boyfriend? For all we know they could be just dating, or the same-sex couple just friends; “partner” can mean a whole lot of things including “partner” in a business venture. Most people I’ve ever had over for dinner and have come with a friend haven’t exactly delved into the sexual details of their relationship. Perhaps I’m just old-fashioned or live among old-fashioned people, but sexual intimacy is usually something kept private.

Clearly if a man I know is married shows up with his mistress I’ll know what’s going on, and so may others. I would certainly bristle more against having a man with his mistress than I would against a same-sex couple particularly if everyone else at the table knew his wife.

I’m sure even the guy engaged in bestiality wouldn’t even brag about it at the table if I allowed guests to bring their pets.

Can we stop trying to make blanket generalizations on this thread and realize that each situation can and should be evaluated on its own merits? Clearly if I have say, an alcoholic cousin, I’d be happy to invite him if he’s on the wagon, but probably won’t if he has the habit of getting drunk at family functions. Similarly if I have a gay relative that just lives discretely with his or her partner, I will consider them differently than someone who would make a point of turning my dinner into a activist’s soapbox.

There seems to be a singular lack of common sense in the arguments I’m reading, they just strike me as trying to win argument points rather than guide truly pastoral action.

 

[OraLabora]

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?

Once, a while ago, I was having my car serviced at the dealership. An adjustment knob had broken off the driver’s seat. When presented the bill, I asked why I had to pay for the knob because the car was still under warranty. The service writer, who was new, became very embarrassed and apologetic and felt really bad about the (very minor… $40) mistake.

My answer to him was “Don’t worry about it, I’ll give others heck for making a mistake when I stop making them myself”. He indicated that he wished I’d explain my philosophy of life to his boss.

We are all, bar none, sinners. Without exception. I know that the straight, happy and decent couple sitting at my dinner are sinners like the gay guest is a sinner, and like myself for that matter. We all have free will, and the freedom to exercise it and the freedom to form our consciences, something some of us to better than others perhaps because we’re on a different point on our faith walk.

Yes we all draw lines on behaviour we consider acceptable. I tend though, to limit that to behaviour at the table. What sins are on his or her heart, are no more of my business as mine are theirs. If the family member acts with reasonable decorum at the table is all I ask. There’s no quicker way to not get a repeat invite from me than making a complete fool of yourself at the table. I mean “wearing a lampshade on your head” type fool, not just making unintelligent comments or being boring conversationalists. It is thoroughly pointless to ague endlessly about where each of one draws our line in the sand. Nobody is converting anyone else over to their view. We have those in favour mutually self-congratulating each other, and those against doing the same thing. It’s not exactly a faith-building exercise that leads to inner conversion is it?

On a more practical level, if a gay relative did prance around naked at a pride parade I’m unlikely to know about it unless he or she told me. I don’t attend pride parades, and I don’t have TV on which to watch them.

I have to ask though, why this focus on one particular sin?

I have to admit that I’m embarrassed to say I once thought rigidly about gays myself. I realized it was because I was reluctant to confront my own particular deep-seated sin, that in fact I hated myself for. Once I realized that, I stopped focusing so much on the sins of others. I’m not saying it’s the case for everyone here, but on the odd chance that it might be, I must say it was cathartic to make that realization and realizing what I had to work on was my own relationship with God, not with others’.

 

[RGCheek]

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…

But not all sinners are organized and demanding social acceptance and pushing their way into inappropriate settings to make people feel uncomfortable. Show me the national organization that is trying to get philandering socially acceptable. And when you do let that gay couple come over, you seem to be comfortable with the implication to your conservative family, that they can either take or lump it, you dont care about their sensibilities or offending them. What makes sinners outside the church get higher priority than maintaining the peace of your own household and showing respect for other CATHOLICS already part of your family?

This is nothing more than playing the politically correct advocate, and when polygamy is the subject of the PR blitz from all the PC outlets, where will you stand then? OR when it happens with any other PC approved sexually deviant sin?

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.

I bet they don’t welcome neo-Nazis, or the KKK. Got a case of them welcoming practicing Aryan Brotherhood members?

 

[RGCheek]

We are all, bar none, sinners. Without exception. I know that the straight, happy and decent couple sitting at my dinner are sinners like the gay guest is a sinner, and like myself for that matter. We all have free will, and the freedom to exercise it and the freedom to form our consciences, something some of us to better than others perhaps because we’re on a different point on our faith walk.

We are all sinners but not all penitent sinners which is what Jesus Christ calls us to be.

I have to ask though, why this focus on one particular sin?

Because this particular group of sinners who practice this particular sin are demanding that their sin be treated as no longer a sin and they are taking an incremental approach to getting there and you are falling for it.

I have to admit that I’m embarrassed to say I once thought rigidly about gays myself. I realized it was because I was reluctant to confront my own particular deep-seated sin, that in fact I hated myself for. Once I realized that, I stopped focusing so much on the sins of others. I’m not saying it’s the case for everyone here, but on the odd chance that it might be, I must say it was cathartic to make that realization and realizing what I had to work on was my own relationship with God, not with others’.

I am quite happy that Jesus did not take this attitude and instead, realizing the serious consequence of sin, was willing to die a horrific death on a Roman cross in order to spare me the consequences before God of my sin. All I need to do to accept the Grace He now offers me is to REPENT and be baptized (done, done) and then continue to walk in His light. Why do you seem to gloss over that little nit pick about repenting and submitting ourselves to Gods Will?

What other sin has so many advocates demanding their sin be accepted as normal?

 

[signit]

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?

They would be allowed to attend but not allowed to talk about it.

If they did, I’d first say, “C’mon, Greg, we don’t have to hear about that stuff here . . .”

 

[signit]

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?

I still think just about anyone would know of the cultural condemnation of pedophilia/zoophilia/philandering; just about anyone who was brought up in even a minimally Christian home, and even if they weren’t, they should know enough about the world around them to know that those activities are widely considered wrong.

Even if that person says, “all faiths are wrong and I’m right,” they’ve got to think about that a little and say, “if all faiths think it’s wrong it might be for some reason.”

 

[OraLabora]

ç
I bet they don’t welcome neo-Nazis, or the KKK. Got a case of them welcoming practicing Aryan Brotherhood members?

Again, ridiculous hyperbole.

What a waste of time this discussion has become. I’ve said my piece, I’m out of here. Carry on with your mental gymnastics without me.

 

[RGCheek]

I still think just about anyone would know of the cultural condemnation of pedophilia/zoophilia/philandering; just about anyone who was brought up in even a minimally Christian home, and even if they weren’t, they should know enough about the world around them to know that those activities are widely considered wrong.

Even if that person says, “all faiths are wrong and I’m right,” they’ve got to think about that a little and say, “if all faiths think it’s wrong it might be for some reason.”

Um, no, they don’t. They don’t care what anyone else thinks; they are convinced that morality is a sham for the most part and that what they do doesn’t hurt anyone.

Why do you disengage your moral framework from the clear teaching of the church and attach it instead to something as flimsy and ambiguous as some fictional social consensus.

There aint no there there.

 

[RGCheek]

Again, ridiculous hyperbole.

There is no hyperbole to it. The gay welcoming subset of Roman Catholics do not extend their welcome indiscriminately but only to politically correct groups, suggesting that for them it isn’t Rome calling the shots here.

Politically incorrect groups, like the Aryan Brotherhood, the KKK, and the neo-Nazis groups do not get this kind of welcome you speak of, why not?

What a waste of time this discussion has become. I’ve said my piece, I’m out of here. Carry on with your mental gymnastics without me.

IT isn’t mental gymnastics; it is the use of reason, the Bible and the Magisteriums decision past and present to try and sort through what is intended vrs what is merely claimed but unsupported like you smears about hyperbole.

 

[John_Savage]

My experience is that people who want to make distinctions between varieties of non reproductive non conjugal sex rely on “it just is” types of arguments. When you have the zeitgeist on your side, the need to argue logically diminishes.

Finally, you can’t argue that attitudes change in unexpected ways for some varieties of sexual expression AND that there’s a natural knowledge that prevents the acceptance of others

 

[FollowChrist34]

There is no hyperbole to it. The gay welcoming subset of Roman Catholics do not extend their welcome indiscriminately but only to politically correct groups, suggesting that for them it isn’t Rome calling the shots here.

Politically incorrect groups, like the Aryan Brotherhood, the KKK, and the neo-Nazis groups do not get this kind of welcome you speak of, why not?

Yes, exactly. This is what always amazes me in the debate about gay behavior and marriage. We didn’t start the discussion. I couldn’t have cared less about it until legalization of gay marriage came along. We’re being forced into a defensive position - with this one group. And, no, other sinners don’t get the same tender, enlightened treatment…

I ironically actually agree that it is inappropriate to judge others; but I likewise don’t even accept that we are being “judgmental.” That is a smear tactic, code for you don’t accept and approve of me as I am. Unless you completely accept their position in “mercy,” you are “judgmental.” Not much more to it than that I am afraid. Black and white.

 

[RGCheek]

Yes, exactly. This is what always amazes me in the debate about gay behavior and marriage. We didn’t start the discussion. I couldn’t have cared less about it until legalization of gay marriage came along. We’re being forced into a defensive position - with this one group. And, no, other sinners don’t get the same tender, enlightened treatment…

I ironically actually agree that it is inappropriate to judge others; but I likewise don’t even accept that we are being “judgmental.” That is a smear tactic, code for you don’t accept and approve of me as I am. Unless you completely accept their position in “mercy,” you are “judgmental.” Not much more to it than that I am afraid. Black and white.

 

[OraLabora]

Yes, exactly. This is what always amazes me in the debate about gay behavior and marriage. We didn’t start the discussion. I couldn’t have cared less about it until legalization of gay marriage came along. We’re being forced into a defensive position - with this one group. And, no, other sinners don’t get the same tender, enlightened treatment…

I ironically actually agree that it is inappropriate to judge others; but I likewise don’t even accept that we are being “judgmental.” That is a smear tactic, code for you don’t accept and approve of me as I am. Unless you completely accept their position in “mercy,” you are “judgmental.” Not much more to it than that I am afraid. Black and white.

Odd. I thought this was a discussion about whom to invite to dinner. Somehow you’re conflating it with acceptance of gay “marriage”? ( note the quotation marks. There is no such thing as same sex “marriage”).

Though I’ve written to my member of parliament urging the government not to legalize same-sex marriage, that has nothing to do with being cordial and welcoming to a gay member of the family even though I believe him to be deluded into thinking that same-sex “marriage” is anything more than a parody of the real thing.

Don’t make the mistake of assuming that being “accepting” equivalent to “approving”. On the substance we agree. It’s on the means of reaching out to gays that we differ. St. Paul says something about truth without love being a clanging cymbal…

 

[Arandur]

I think the key complicating factor is children. Adults can gather around a dinner table just fine; even obstinate sinners can be engaged at dinner.

It’s the presence of children, particularly young children, that can change the considerations. And it’s not cut and dry. But Jesus was sensitive to such matters, I think (“He who causes any of these little ones to fall…”).

And we need to be particularly sensitive, because the culture has been so aggressive at targeting children at very young ages to normalize homosexuality and all kinds of sexual deviance and gender confusion. The culture directly targets little children to indoctrinate them, undermine parents, destroy the family.

It may not be the intent of gay couples to advance these cultural causes, but I think in most cases their presence, accepted into the family setting, could do it subtly but powerfully.

So it is something of which to be careful.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Odd. I thought this was a discussion about whom to invite to dinner. Somehow you’re conflating it with acceptance of gay “marriage”? ( note the quotation marks. There is no such thing as same sex “marriage”).

Though I’ve written to my member of parliament urging the government not to legalize same-sex marriage, that has nothing to do with being cordial and welcoming to a gay member of the family even though I believe him to be deluded into thinking that same-sex “marriage” is anything more than a parody of the real thing.

Don’t make the mistake of assuming that being “accepting” equivalent to “approving”. On the substance we agree. It’s on the means of reaching out to gays that we differ. St. Paul says something about truth without love being a clanging cymbal…

I am guilty of generalizing here. I am referencing widespread social pressure on this issue which has solidified around the gay marriage argument. The idea that one is “intolerant” has come into vogue if one expresses reservations about gay behavior on just about any level. I do think this is the backdrop of this discussion, whether we like it not. And I did comment earlier in the thread (quite awhile ago) that I did not know what I would do, and that it was important to be charitable to the son and protect the child. I suggested separate celebrations. I am not gay but if I were I would think twice about going to a dinner where children were present and putting my parents in an awkward situation if I knew them to be devout Catholics. I would actually really struggle with the guilt of it. I can’t honestly see myself insisting on it. But I don’t know that much about it. Just saying - there are two sides to it. And, again, I do see inviting the couple as an option. But it’s just one option - whether it is the best one I don’t know.

 

[John_Savage]

I am guilty of generalizing here. I am referencing widespread social pressure on this issue which has solidified around the gay marriage argument. The idea that one is “intolerant” has come into vogue if one expresses reservations about gay behavior on just about any level. I do think this is the backdrop of this discussion, whether we like it not. And I did comment earlier in the thread (quite awhile ago) that I did not know what I would do, and that it was important to be charitable to the son and protect the child. I suggested separate celebrations. I am not gay but if I were I would think twice about going to a dinner where children were present and putting my parents in an awkward situation if I knew them to be devout Catholics. I would actually really struggle with the guilt of it. I can’t honestly see myself insisting on it. But I don’t know that much about it. Just saying - there are two sides to it. And, again, I do see inviting the couple as an option. But it’s just one option - whether it is the best one I don’t know.

I think inviting the homosexual person, but not his lover, to the function is a fine compromise.

 

[oneofmany]

thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tcmassie/breaking_pope_ousts_top_vatican_judge_after_incendiary_anti_gay_comments

“Breaking: Pope Ousts Top Vatican Judge Known For Incendiary Anti-Gay Comments”

Well this is looked upon as a demotion of Card. Burke and people on secular web sites are dancing about it as Pope Francis agreeing with gays, etc.

 

[OraLabora]

I think inviting the homosexual person, but not his lover, to the function is a fine compromise.

Another compromise would be that (s)he would refer to the other partner simply as a “friend”. My son, who is not gay, often has one or more of his male friends over for dinner. He’ll have his girlfriend over too when he’s dating someone. Whether he is sleeping with her or not is not relevant to coming to dinner because he keeps it to himself and doesn’t talk about his sex life at the table and nor does his girlfriend.

I would expect the same degree of decorum from a gay family member coming to dinner with a “friend”.

 

[pnewton]

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

However, they are objectively as close as any example can be. Therefore, it is a valid question. How far does unconditional love, which has been given as the benchmark, extend. I hold the above should still not be excluded from the family, in all case, yet in some cases either the person would have to accommodate the host, respecting both his beliefs and the possible influence on any children, and compromising when that it is asked of him or her.

 

[RGCheek]

I think the key complicating factor is children. Adults can gather around a dinner table just fine; even obstinate sinners can be engaged at dinner.

It’s the presence of children, particularly young children, that can change the considerations. And it’s not cut and dry. But Jesus was sensitive to such matters, I think (“He who causes any of these little ones to fall…”).

And we need to be particularly sensitive, because the culture has been so aggressive at targeting children at very young ages to normalize homosexuality and all kinds of sexual deviance and gender confusion. The culture directly targets little children to indoctrinate them, undermine parents, destroy the family.

It may not be the intent of gay couples to advance these cultural causes, but I think in most cases their presence, accepted into the family setting, could do it subtly but powerfully.

So it is something of which to be careful.

I agree. The children should take the primary consideration, and I wouldn’t have wanted mine to see drug addiction, gambling obsession, sexual perversion or any other kind of moral degeneracy portrayed as normal.