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

[frobert]

That gay son did the right thing and showed respect for the wishes of his parents, but that is less typical these days of militant homosexual normalization.

To a great many people to even suggest that there is qualitative dfiferences between men and women or gays and straights is akin to espousing racism.

You appear to be confused, while there is a small minority of militant gays, that are analogous to a small minority of ultra conservatives in religion and politics, it is more likely that most sons and daughters from loving families will go out of their way to respect their parents wishes as will the parents when the occasion arises.

You are also confused about gays espousing racism on qualitative differences. Gays are fighting discrimination and denial of civil rights which have similarities with discrimination and civil rights of other races and minorities. That said it is evident that there are militants on both sides of the divide that do not deserve respect from anyone.

 

[Arandur]

Here’s my take. I’ve seen this played out in my family and in others for years. I think you should try to maintain as regular contact as you can - often you are at the “not speaking” stage where contact is completely lost (no current address, email, etc.), so obviously you do what you can. I have seen these things go on for years - problems with alcoholism, drugs, relationships that parents/family don’t approve of, prostitution, run-ins with the law, kids falling away from the Church. A lot of times the estranged person is young; I will say that as I have gotten older I have watched most of these estrangements heal. But to say it doesn’t involve contrition on the part of the offender is just plain wrong. I agree the family has to relent too. But frankly when people are messed up they cause a lot of harm not just to themselves but others. I had a stepsister who used to break into our house and steal stuff when I was in junior high then run off with her boyfriend to California, even Mexico once. My stepmom would go get her time and again - lots of drama. That didn’t get resolved for about 15 years when my stepsister settled down - every time you were nice to her you paid a very high price and accomplished absolutely nothing other than to enable her - she just used people. I was the one who told her where we kept the spare key so she could use the shower. (I see her now at family gatherings but honestly don’t really trust her.) Really helping people like that is complicated. Sometimes setting boundaries is a good thing.

Thank you. I agree that it can be complicated.

I’m now facing a situation that I’m growing concerned about with my sister. I’ll probably start another thread about this somewhere to ask for ideas, but since it’s relevant to a family-handling of “marriage” and “pastoral approach” discussion, I’ll mention it briefly here.

Some people have already touched on somewhat analogous situations to family members married outside the Church, or otherwise irregular marriages, and keeping communication open, etc.

What about trying to help prevent such a situation from occurring?

The basics: family member fast becoming involved with someone long-distance (Internet), whose family lives far away; both close to their families, both Catholic but not very deep in their faith; only met in person once, so far, but still getting serious, talking about potential marriage.

Of course, red flags go up: long distance relationship, hardly having met each other, families many states apart…other factors, too, but lets just say it seems a challenging situation. I think she knows it and is afraid of the family being very concerned (there was even a comment my Mom made, trying to be lighthearted, about her not telling them much about him, asking whether my sister was going to let her help her plan a wedding or if she was going to “elope;” she said “well that depends on you,” in a way that sounds like she fears disapproval).

So the question is, how do you try to help a family member like that, not strong in the faith, avoid a potentially-bad marriage situation?

How do you give good counsel while being sensitive, trying to avoid your loved one withdrawing?

I’m not trying to pre-judge the relationship–something like that could work out, though in my own experiences, I think the challenges and dangers are very great. I’d like to at least be able to counsel her about what to try to figure out and watch for before getting married, and how to really prepare for marriage. Wish I had done that sooner. You always think you have time. Then again, it really didn’t seem like it was going to be a problem for her.

Of course, for a Catholic, “eloping” should be unthinkable. Marriage should unite families, not disregard them. But if someone is possibly considering doing something that might lead to you having to make a tough decision about things like attending weddings or being anything other than totally welcoming to every family event, how do you try to counsel against it without it seeming like you’re pre-judging or pushing them away with “if you do this, then I will have to…?”

 

[FollowChrist34]

Thank you. I agree that it can be complicated.

I’m now facing a situation that I’m growing concerned about with my sister. I’ll probably start another thread about this somewhere to ask for ideas, but since it’s relevant to a family-handling of “marriage” and “pastoral approach” discussion, I’ll mention it briefly here.

Some people have already touched on somewhat analogous situations to family members married outside the Church, or otherwise irregular marriages, and keeping communication open, etc.

What about trying to help prevent such a situation from occurring?

The basics: family member fast becoming involved with someone long-distance (Internet), whose family lives far away; both close to their families, both Catholic but not very deep in their faith; only met in person once, so far, but still getting serious, talking about potential marriage.

Of course, red flags go up: long distance relationship, hardly having met each other, families many states apart…other factors, too, but lets just say it seems a challenging situation. I think she knows it and is afraid of the family being very concerned (there was even a comment my Mom made, trying to be lighthearted, about her not telling them much about him, asking whether my sister was going to let her help her plan a wedding or if she was going to “elope;” she said “well that depends on you,” in a way that sounds like she fears disapproval).

So the question is, how do you try to help a family member like that, not strong in the faith, avoid a potentially-bad marriage situation?

How do you give good counsel while being sensitive, trying to avoid your loved one withdrawing?

I’m not trying to pre-judge the relationship–something like that could work out, though in my own experiences, I think the challenges and dangers are very great. I’d like to at least be able to counsel her about what to try to figure out and watch for before getting married, and how to really prepare for marriage. Wish I had done that sooner. You always think you have time. Then again, it really didn’t seem like it was going to be a problem for her.

Of course, for a Catholic, “eloping” should be unthinkable. Marriage should unite families, not disregard them. But if someone is possibly considering doing something that might lead to you having to make a tough decision about things like attending weddings or being anything other than totally welcoming to every family event, how do you try to counsel against it without it seeming like you’re pre-judging or pushing them away with “if you do this, then I will have to…?”

I never know how to deal with these things. I always tell people exactly what I think which usually gets me nowhere. I mean well but I would not recommend it as an approach. (I am a LOT kinder than I sound here, but still it doesn’t work.) On the other hand, humoring people in their weaknesses is equally useless. I would actually speak my peace as charitably as possible and be prepared to face the consequences - rejection or whatever. (to me that is the best thing for her) You are probably right it’s a questionable situation that will end badly. It is so easy to romanticize these things - but you pay such a high price for it in time. It’s human nature though to do that; you won’t change it. People learn these things the hard way. Maybe talk to a priest you know that you can approach and that you respect? Again, my guess is she won’t listen and will do what she wants. Maybe the key is getting yourself ready to be there for her when things do start to really derail. She’ll need even more help then. Maybe you’ll be lucky and things will turn out well! I hope so.

 

[manualman]

When I hear the words “but only say the word and I shall be healed”, I am profoundly reassured. All the pity that we deny that healing to those who are seeking but aren’t quite there yet…

But is someone who is defiantly proud of his sin “seeking but not quite there yet?” It’s uncomfortable to say so, but someone in a ‘gay marriage’ or who abandoned a spouse and now obstinately simulates a ‘second marriage’ is objectively looking God in the eye and telling Him to “go stuff” his morality. How is that reconcilable with receiving Eucharist?

 

[OraLabora]

But is someone who is defiantly proud of his sin “seeking but not quite there yet?” It’s uncomfortable to say so, but someone in a ‘gay marriage’ or who abandoned a spouse and now obstinately simulates a ‘second marriage’ is objectively looking God in the eye and telling Him to “go stuff” his morality. How is that reconcilable with receiving Eucharist?

You are putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about the defiant, I am talking about the struggling of which we all are, homosexual or not. There but for the grace of God go I.

 

[harlen]

But is someone who is defiantly proud of his sin “seeking but not quite there yet?” It’s uncomfortable to say so, but someone in a ‘gay marriage’ or who abandoned a spouse and now obstinately simulates a ‘second marriage’ is objectively looking God in the eye and telling Him to “go stuff” his morality. How is that reconcilable with receiving Eucharist?

Are they?
If we “look God in the eye” it is subject-to-subject.
To “objectivise” this is to seek a fundamentalist certainty about nailing down someone else’s sin.
Many condemn others freely on the assumption that the people in marginalised situations couldn’t give a hoot. Speaking as someone who entered a second marriage 30 years ago, I can tell you I do not subjectively spit in God’s eye.
In fact I stayed away for 28 years, thinking I was unwanted & unworthy, then decided that if God was truly Love & Mercy I should return.
Most of the Catholics I know are completely comfortable with this. Perhaps I should go away again for the sake of a few (that might exist?) so that they can feel their congregation is “objectively pure”.
Or should I abandon a 30 year marriage & family in the name of a short marriage that was a total mistake and mutually divorced 35 years ago? That is where the logic of “objectification” would lead; and it would be totally impossible, causing nothing but pain to all & sundry…except for the mental comfort of a few who can’t rest until everybody is conforming to the law neatly and tidily.
For the past thirty years I have been faithful to this marriage, raising a family with a fair share of struggles and hardships. But you say I have been “obstinately simulating a second marriage”. Well it felt real to me; and this dissolves the real lives of my family into a mist of legalistic definitions.

So I don’t think they are telling God to “go stuff” His morality. They may be saying to other people (& even the Church) that it’s not always so simple.
Perhaps we need a Statute of Limitations or a Penitential Process (that would equally be followed for other sins).
Or, as I said elsewhere, “Adultery” could be seen as the initial act of abandoning one marriage for another…rather than focussing on the sex act as the ever-renewing sin. Stangely the “abandonment” (Divorce) of spouse (& even children) is tolerated by the Church! And even the contraction of another alternative marriage & family is forgiven,…on condition you live “as-brother-and-sister”. So the core evil of divorce/adultery is accepted & forgiven…as long as you give up sex!
I find this very strange and a bit obsessed with sex.

 

[Emily2014]

For the past thirty years I have been faithful to this marriage, raising a family with a fair share of struggles and hardships. But you say I have been “obstinately simulating a second marriage”. Well it felt real to me; and this dissolves the real lives of my family into a mist of legalistic definitions.
.

Nobody has the right to judge or criticise you and any suggestion of required celibacy within your marriage is rude, extremely intrusive and unacceptable!
Trust in the absolute Love of Our Blessed Lord. He alone knows your heart and the strength of a 30 yr marriage. Suggest respectfully that you get on with your life, rejoice in your loving marriage and Thank God for each other.
May Our Merciful God, who Is Love bless you and ease your worries.

 

[manualman]

…Or should I abandon a 30 year marriage & family in the name of a short marriage that was a total mistake and mutually divorced 35 years ago? That is where the logic of “objectification” would lead; and it would be totally impossible, causing nothing but pain to all & sundry…except for the mental comfort of a few who can’t rest until everybody is conforming to the law neatly and tidily.
For the past thirty years I have been faithful to this marriage, raising a family with a fair share of struggles and hardships. But you say I have been “obstinately simulating a second marriage”. Well it felt real to me; and this dissolves the real lives of my family into a mist of legalistic definitions.

So I don’t think they are telling God to “go stuff” His morality. They may be saying to other people (& even the Church) that it’s not always so simple.
Perhaps we need a Statute of Limitations or a Penitential Process (that would equally be followed for other sins).
Or, as I said elsewhere, “Adultery” could be seen as the initial act of abandoning one marriage for another…rather than focussing on the sex act as the ever-renewing sin.

In other words, you’re more sophisticated than that simpleton Jesus who told us that no man can tear asunder what God joined? How is this NOT telling him to “go stuff” his morality? I recognize it’s hard, but is Jesus required to give us an easy life?

Let’s be clear on this, the church has never said that you should “stay away” if you struggle with sin and consistently fail. I do too. What she says is that while we’re in a state of mortal sin we shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. It’s a reminder I need rather often too, I admit. It’s hard on the pride to sit in the pew while everybody steps over you to go up and receive. But the fact that it’s hard doesn’t prove that it isn’t what is right. In fact, what’s easy is usually what ISN’T right…

Adultery is more than merely “the sex act” with someone other than your spouse. It is the entirety of the unfaithfulness. I don’t mean to rub salt in your wounds, but I simply can’t see that we have the ability to over-rule Jesus’ explicit teachings. We’re to conform ourselves to Him, not the other way round.

If you’re internally convinced that your first marriage never was a valid union due to some legitimate defect, but some external circumstance prevents the issuance of a nullity decree, consider attending mass, but asking for a spiritual communion instead of physically receiving. The Eucharist is not magic, it is Grace. Grace is a gift, not a force that can be manipulated. It’s probable that obeying and refraining from receiving while still attending mass and forming your kids in faith while wrestling with the issue of sin and obedience in your conscience will place you in a better position to receive Grace than defiantly demanding to receive.

As you’ve probably noticed, I tend towards blunt. I’m not condemning nor judging you, I just think we need clarity. You can call that fundamentalism if it makes you feel better, but smudging the boundaries of what is true does nobody any favors in the long run.

 

[CNormal]

Very well said, Manualman.

 

[pnewton]

Adultery is more than merely “the sex act” with someone other than your spouse. It is the entirety of the unfaithfulness. I don’t mean to rub salt in your wounds, but I simply can’t see that we have the ability to over-rule Jesus’ explicit teachings. We’re to conform ourselves to Him, not the other way round.

Two things I would like to note. First, the Catholic Church does view the sex act as the definition of adultery in at least one major aspect. A couple who is in an illicit second marriage may still receive communion if they are living with out this act. In this case, it is not adultery.

Second, no one is suggesting that we over-rule the teaching of Jesus. Everyone here seems to be wanting to conform to him. Jesus did not give grounds for receiving communion. The authority of the Church does grant some leeway. Jesus told the apostles that whatever they bind or loose on Earth will be bound or loosed in Heaven. This is also a teaching of Jesus we should not oppose.

 

[harlen]

In other words, you’re more sophisticated than that simpleton Jesus who told us that no man can tear asunder what God joined? How is this NOT telling him to “go stuff” his morality? I recognize it’s hard, but is Jesus required to give us an easy life?

Let’s be clear on this, the church has never said that you should “stay away” if you struggle with sin and consistently fail. I do too. What she says is that while we’re in a state of mortal sin we shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. It’s a reminder I need rather often too, I admit. It’s hard on the pride to sit in the pew while everybody steps over you to go up and receive. But the fact that it’s hard doesn’t prove that it isn’t what is right. In fact, what’s easy is usually what ISN’T right…

Adultery is more than merely “the sex act” with someone other than your spouse. It is the entirety of the unfaithfulness. I don’t mean to rub salt in your wounds, but I simply can’t see that we have the ability to over-rule Jesus’ explicit teachings. We’re to conform ourselves to Him, not the other way round.

If you’re internally convinced that your first marriage never was a valid union due to some legitimate defect, but some external circumstance prevents the issuance of a nullity decree, consider attending mass, but asking for a spiritual communion instead of physically receiving. The Eucharist is not magic, it is Grace. Grace is a gift, not a force that can be manipulated. It’s probable that obeying and refraining from receiving while still attending mass and forming your kids in faith while wrestling with the issue of sin and obedience in your conscience will place you in a better position to receive Grace than defiantly demanding to receive.

As you’ve probably noticed, I tend towards blunt. I’m not condemning nor judging you, I just think we need clarity. You can call that fundamentalism if it makes you feel better, but smudging the boundaries of what is true does nobody any favors in the long run.

Hi,
I accept the bluntness is not malicious. And it’s hard not use loaded words. You think my calling the need for objective certainties “fundamentalism” is unfair. And I think your “need for clarity” is very often a cover for fundamentalist judgementalism.
God (and all religious truth) is ultimately unknowable. We get glimpses as St Paul put it “as through a glass darkly”, (call this “Smudging the boundaries”?) we put words to these insights, but these words can only ever be guides and pointers toward the road to the experience of God. The best such writer was Aquinas, who refused to write another word after his direct mystical experience…calling all his work “straw”. But it’s the only “straw” we have, and we have our need to intellectualise, codify, legalise and systematise so we continue to work on “this straw” it until we have turned it into tablets of stone.
But this whole tendancy puts primary what is secondary & vice versa.
And “Fundamentalism” grows from this. We recognise the Protestant bibliolatry with their cold, dead black-and-white God-Facts …“as it is written”. But this pschology occurs equally amongst catholics (me too!) when we tend to treat encyclicals in the same way.
Fundamentalism is the reduction of God to our world of worldy “facts”, which being absolutely certain, we can clobber others with them.
The opposite of fundamentalism is mysticism.
The fact is Catholic Education (50’s & 60’s) mislead us about doctrinal history. When I did a Theol. degree in the 80’s I really struggled to accept what a “simplistically distorted” view I’d been given.
I see that like me, you know the current “official” CDF view. But it has changed over time. Why not look here for a short overview arcc-catholic-rights.org/marriage.htm

As for “over-ruling Jesus’s explicit teachings”. It’s been done in other areas. He said not one point of the Law would ever pass away…but when Peter & Paul felt a pastoral need for Gentile Converts they just dispensed with it!!!
Or try “Thou shalt not kill”
Furthermore, Jesus mentions a man divorcing a wife to take another. When Jewish men did this the women were left without support and spoilt for other men. This “adultery” was socially unjust.
Many centuries later Christian morality was more and more sexualised and the social Gospel suppressed. Guess why?
So the “wrongness” of “adultery”, was now invested in the sex,… rather than in the abandonment, or destruction of another’s support.

Finally, How do you know I am “defiantly demanding to receive.”?
That’s not how I feel.

 

[Parisian]

Every family member is invited. There will be no public displays of affection (kissing, holding hands etc…) unless you are man & wife.

 

[manualman]

Fundamentalism is the reduction of God to our world of worldy “facts”, which being absolutely certain, we can clobber others with them.
The opposite of fundamentalism is mysticism.

Minor quibble in the scheme of things, but if fundamentalism is an erroneous approach to relationship to God (and I agree that it is), then it’s opposite is NOT mysticism. There are generally errors on BOTH sides of the truth. The opposite error from fundamentalism is unbridled rationalization. Which, IMO, is FAR more rampant in our society than fundamentalism is.

I don’t know you or the facts of your case. But I do know that human nature is such that we tend to abhor the sins we are least inclined to commit so that we feel better about ourselves in regards to the sins we ARE tempted towards. This explains, for example, why the guy who is sleeping with his girlfriend considers gay sex to be the sexual uber-sin. Thinking that way helps anesthetize his own conscience. Again, I don’t know you, but this portion of your post might hint that your disdain for ‘fundamentalist’ thinking might suggest an inclination towards rationalizing. Something to consider, anyways.

Rationalizing sin is very nearly the national pastime these days and appears to me to be a LOT more common than fundamentalism.

 

[harlen]

Minor quibble in the scheme of things, but if fundamentalism is an erroneous approach to relationship to God (and I agree that it is), then it’s opposite is NOT mysticism. There are generally errors on BOTH sides of the truth. The opposite error from fundamentalism is unbridled rationalization. Which, IMO, is FAR more rampant in our society than fundamentalism is.

I don’t know you or the facts of your case. But I do know that human nature is such that we tend to abhor the sins we are least inclined to commit so that we feel better about ourselves in regards to the sins we ARE tempted towards. This explains, for example, why the guy who is sleeping with his girlfriend considers gay sex to be the sexual uber-sin. Thinking that way helps anesthetize his own conscience. Again, I don’t know you, but this portion of your post might hint that your disdain for ‘fundamentalist’ thinking might suggest an inclination towards rationalizing. Something to consider, anyways.

Rationalizing sin is very nearly the national pastime these days and appears to me to be a LOT more common than fundamentalism.

I didn’t mean that mysticism was a simple, direct, unqualified, opposite to fundamentalism. But as an “erroneous approach to relationship to God” (as you put it) I think it pretty much stands up usefully.
Mysticism is a direct “spiritual” experience of God… that the subject says words cannot express. (“Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” )
Rationalism, in the service of faith, nonetheless attempts to codify, permit, explain and excuse this experience. It can be humble or arrogant.
Fundamentalism is alternative, less sophisticated, “intellectual”, approach to God.
It feigns docility (as simple, unquestioning obedience) but is often highly aggressive.
It is intellectual certainty, based solely on submission to an authority. It demands the same submission by all.

But I do know that human nature is such that we tend to abhor the sins we are least inclined to commit

True. There is a lot of “Virtue” that is no more than “The absence of temptation or opportunity”.

Again, I don’t know you, but this portion of your post might hint that your disdain for ‘fundamentalist’ thinking might suggest an inclination towards rationalizing. Something to consider, anyways.

I was a dreadful Catholic Fundamentalist. Probably guilty of rationalisation now. Who knows, perhaps God will make me a mystic one day. But that is pure gift

 

[frobert]

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.

It may be acceptable for you not to be associated with family that don’t meet your personal approval, that is your choice. It does not matter to me what your motives or reasons are. There is no reason to argue with someone else standard unless they are pushing it on others. I am happy that I am a valued part of the two families that I value the most in my life. The point I would like to make is that when one is a guest in another’s home they should act appropriately.

 

[Gailgirl]

I have enjoyed all these comments. I also think we need more Cardinal Burkes. I am having a difficult time following the biblical logic of Pope Francis with regard to the entire homosexual issue. The Church welcomes all people in order to minister to them and preach the gospel. We should not discriminate, we should not hate, we should not exclude from dialog those in the homosexual lifestyle. We must remember our Lord paid the penalty for all sins on Calvary, and the message of the gospel is ‘peace with God’ through this sacrifice and power to achieve victory over sin, no matter what form it takes. This is the message the Church should convey and no compromise is necessary.
Gailgirl

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I have enjoyed all these comments. I also think we need more Cardinal Burkes. I am having a difficult time following the biblical logic of Pope Francis with regard to the entire homosexual issue. The Church welcomes all people in order to minister to them and preach the gospel. We should not discriminate, we should not hate, we should not exclude from dialog those in the homosexual lifestyle. We must remember our Lord paid the penalty for all sins on Calvary, and the message of the gospel is ‘peace with God’ through this sacrifice and power to achieve victory over sin, no matter what form it takes. This is the message the Church should convey and no compromise is necessary.
Gailgirl

Pope Francis has made no compromises.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Pope Francis has made no compromises.

True, he did not write the mid-term report.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I have enjoyed all these comments. I also think we need more Cardinal Burkes. I am having a difficult time following the biblical logic of Pope Francis with regard to the entire homosexual issue. The Church welcomes all people in order to minister to them and preach the gospel. We should not discriminate, we should not hate, we should not exclude from dialog those in the homosexual lifestyle. We must remember our Lord paid the penalty for all sins on Calvary, and the message of the gospel is ‘peace with God’ through this sacrifice and power to achieve victory over sin, no matter what form it takes. This is the message the Church should convey and no compromise is necessary.
Gailgirl

You are exactly right!!

You no doubt will be quite heartened to see this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=919775

 

[McCall1981]

For anyone interested, here is an online petition thanking Card Burke for his service:

lifesitenews.com/petitions/thank-you-cardinal-burke-for-your-vatican-service