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

[Gailgirl]

Pope Francis has made no compromises.

Perhaps. But you must admit that the subject matter of the synod does ‘raise some eyebrows’. For example, “..pastors should recognize that there are positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitations." What does this mean? Why aren’t these positive aspects listed? Scripture is clear that this is sin. Christ died for sin, and He can free us from sin when we repent and walk with Him. This is the positive aspect that is to be noted, nothing else.
Or the comment, “….gay people have “gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community”. What does this mean? On the contrary, only through Jesus do we receive spiritual gifts, qualities, abundant living and eternal life. None of these involve homosexual activity. If you have people in a habitual sinful lifestyle, what do they offer the church?. They need to repent. The church is an anecdote to the world’s ways, and whether homosexual sin or heterosexual sin outside of marriage, sexual sin is a sin against the body and soul.
Or, …"The church must welcome and accept gay people and unmarried couples….” What does this mean? The Church should have an open door to the lost. That is what Christianity is all about; to preach the gospel to the lost…the power of God unto salvation to all who believe (Rom 1:16). Churches are filled with lost people and we should welcome them…in order to preach the gospel, to acquaint them with Jesus and what He has done for them. We need to enable them to see their sin in light of a Holy God, and offer an opportunity to repent and “internalize” the crucifixion of Christ on the cross, and be transformed. What is meant by ‘accepting’ homosexuals? Semantics? Is it accepting them through the doors to hear, or into the fellowship of membership? If so, it is in contradiction to the Bible’s instruction to the Church. If this is what is meant, you’ll have to throw out church discipline. You’ll have to leave out offensive passages that condemn certain types of behavior. And you will have done to the church what God extensively warned Israel not to do throughout the Old Testament. The book of Judges is an excellent example of the Israelites assimilating into pagan society, and God rescuing them time and again. The New Testament gospels, letters, and pastoral epistles all warn against the world infiltrating the church. Galations is especially direct. The Church is an anecdote to the world’s sinful ways, not part of it.
You see, what the synod said to the press is confusing, at best. But they received the subject matter from within.
I am praying for the best in our leadership. You said the Pope did not compromise. I hope he stands firm on the truth of Tradition and Scripture. But when he was Cardinal in Argentina he was against the gay marriage measure, yet spoke out in a heated meeting of bishops in 2010 and advocated a highly unorthodox solution: that the church in Argentina support the idea of civil unions for gay couples. As he faced one of the most acute tests of his tenure as head of Argentina’s church, he showed another side as well, supporters and critics say: that of a deal maker willing to compromise and court opposing sides in the debate, detractors included. Far different than former Pope Benedict, as Jimmy Akin’s interview with Benedict demonstrates (this interview is still available on Akin’s website I believe).
My apologies for a long post. Part of me feels the Pope missed an opportunity to state to the world that homosexuals are not to be discriminated against or mistreated, but the Church can never accept sexual deviancy as normal when the Scripture’s state it is an unnatural practice (Rom 1) that will harm their body and souls, as is the case with unrepentant heterosexual promiscuity. While this seems to be a blossoming world wide behavior, we rely on solid spiritual leadership to stand firm in the faith. God is not mocked. If the Pope is trying to win some over with kindness and acceptance, he is failing to see that love without truth is not love. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end is destruction.” Prov 14:12
Gailgirl

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Perhaps. But you must admit that the subject matter of the synod does ‘raise some eyebrows’. For example, “..pastors should recognize that there are positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitations." What does this mean? Why aren’t these positive aspects listed? Scripture is clear that this is sin. Christ died for sin, and He can free us from sin when we repent and walk with Him. This is the positive aspect that is to be noted, nothing else.

By positive aspects it refers to the fact that there can potentially be good things in the relationships despite the relationships

Or the comment, "….gay people have “gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community”. What does this mean? On the contrary, only through Jesus do we receive spiritual gifts, qualities, abundant living and eternal life. None of these involve homosexual activity. If you have people in a habitual sinful lifestyle, what do they offer the church?. They need to repent. The church is an anecdote to the world’s ways, and whether homosexual sin or heterosexual sin outside of marriage, sexual sin is a sin against the body and soul.

The lives of gay people do not revolve around sex, some aren’t sexually active and some are even virgins.

Or, …"The church must welcome and accept gay people and unmarried couples…." What does this mean? The Church should have an open door to the lost. That is what Christianity is all about; to preach the gospel to the lost…the power of God unto salvation to all who believe (Rom 1:16). Churches are filled with lost people and we should welcome them…in order to preach the gospel, to acquaint them with Jesus and what He has done for them. We need to enable them to see their sin in light of a Holy God, and offer an opportunity to repent and “internalize” the crucifixion of Christ on the cross, and be transformed. What is meant by ‘accepting’ homosexuals? Semantics? Is it accepting them through the doors to hear, or into the fellowship of membership? If so, it is in contradiction to the Bible’s instruction to the Church. If this is what is meant, you’ll have to throw out church discipline. You’ll have to leave out offensive passages that condemn certain types of behavior. And you will have done to the church what God extensively warned Israel not to do throughout the Old Testament. The book of Judges is an excellent example of the Israelites assimilating into pagan society, and God rescuing them time and again. The New Testament gospels, letters, and pastoral epistles all warn against the world infiltrating the church. Galations is especially direct. The Church is an anecdote to the world’s sinful ways, not part of it.

By accept I assume it means treat them like they are humans as opposed to some monstrous bogeyman.

You see, what the synod said to the press is confusing, at best. But they received the subject matter from within.
I am praying for the best in our leadership. You said the Pope did not compromise. I hope he stands firm on the truth of Tradition and Scripture. But when he was Cardinal in Argentina he was against the gay marriage measure, yet spoke out in a heated meeting of bishops in 2010 and advocated a highly unorthodox solution: that the church in Argentina support the idea of civil unions for gay couples. As he faced one of the most acute tests of his tenure as head of Argentina’s church, he showed another side as well, supporters and critics say: that of a deal maker willing to compromise and court opposing sides in the debate, detractors included. Far different than former Pope Benedict, as Jimmy Akin’s interview with Benedict demonstrates (this interview is still available on Akin’s website I believe).

Supporting civil unions does not compromise Catholic teaching in the slightest.

My apologies for a long post. Part of me feels the Pope missed an opportunity to state to the world that homosexuals are not to be discriminated against or mistreated, but the Church can never accept sexual deviancy as normal when the Scripture’s state it is an unnatural practice (Rom 1) that will harm their body and souls, as is the case with unrepentant heterosexual promiscuity. While this seems to be a blossoming world wide behavior, we rely on solid spiritual leadership to stand firm in the faith. God is not mocked. If the Pope is trying to win some over with kindness and acceptance, he is failing to see that love without truth is not love. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end is destruction.” Prov 14:12
Gailgirl

 

[Peter_Plato]

Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, both who were living lives in mortal sin.

He was condemned by the Pharisees who saw this as an abomination.

How will we respond to those living in sin, like Jesus or the Pharisees ?

Jim

The question is whether we actually do respond like Jesus with the full Gospel message of conversion to sinners (including our own complete conversion so that we act in Christ) or do we respond like the culture around us and gloss over or let things slide pretending that is the “Christian” way?

The problem with invoking the “what would Jesus do?” clause is that the “like” is only a superficial “like” and not the deep “in the person of” kind of like.

That is the crux of the problem, it seems to me, that those who advocate the welcoming are supplying half the answer and those advocating the righteousness are giving the other half. Jesus did both: he ate with sinners but invited them to repentance and the Kingdom.

By “inviting,” I suspect most of us will only apply half of the “what would Jesus do” precisely because we don’t want to appear as if we are self-righteous or demonstrate in an obvious way that we have “a problem” with the sin in question. Clearly, Jesus has “a problem” with sin, AND he calls the sinners to repentance - which is part of the reason he was crucified by those who refused to give up their sins.

Now it might be that those who refuse to invite sinners don’t do so because they don’t want to bear the pain of potential confrontation or conflict with those who refuse to give up sin or perhaps they just don’t have a handle on how to constructively invite sinners to repentance the way Jesus did and make a difference in the life of a sinner, but let’s not fool ourselves that just by inviting sinners we are actually doing what Jesus did.

We aren’t because they don’t seem to be repenting.

That may be because they are Pharisees and don’t want to give up their sin, but I doubt that is so in all cases. However, the only way to find out, seemingly, is to set down the invitation. If we refuse or cannot do so, then, it would seem we are not completely acting the way Jesus would, so perhaps we only merit half the credit, just as those who refuse to approve of sin but don’t invite sinners to repentance only merit half the credit.

It appears that neither “half-baked” position is better or worse than the other, because we can’t seem to “go all the way” with our love, as Jesus did. We either fear rejection or fear persecution, which accounts for the two sides on “inviting sinners.”

We know the truth, however. And that involves living the Gospel without reservation. Inviting to the meal AND inviting to repentance.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The question is whether we actually do respond like Jesus with the full Gospel message of conversion to sinners (including our own complete conversion so that we act in Christ) or do we respond like the culture around us and gloss over or let things slide pretending that is the “Christian” way?

The problem with invoking the “what would Jesus do?” clause is that the “like” is only a superficial “like” and not the deep “in the person of” kind of like.

That is the crux of the problem, it seems to me, that those who advocate the welcoming are supplying half the answer and those advocating the righteousness are giving the other half. Jesus did both: he ate with sinners but invited them to repentance and the Kingdom.

By “inviting,” I suspect most of us will only apply half of the “what would Jesus do” precisely because we don’t want to appear as if we are self-righteous or demonstrate in an obvious way that we have “a problem” with the sin in question. Clearly, Jesus has “a problem” with sin, AND he calls the sinners to repentance - which is part of the reason he was crucified by those who refused to give up their sins.

Now it might be that those who refuse to invite sinners don’t do so because they don’t want to bear the pain of potential confrontation or conflict with those who refuse to give up sin or perhaps they just don’t have a handle on how to constructively invite sinners to repentance the way Jesus did and make a difference in the life of a sinner, but let’s not fool ourselves that just by inviting sinners we are actually doing what Jesus did.

We aren’t because they don’t seem to be repenting.

That may be because they are Pharisees and don’t want to give up their sin, but I doubt that is so in all cases. However, the only way to find out, seemingly, is to set down the invitation. If we refuse or cannot do so, then, it would seem we are not completely acting the way Jesus would, so perhaps we only merit half the credit, just as those who refuse to approve of sin but don’t invite sinners to repentance only merit half the credit.

It appears that neither “half-baked” position is better or worse than the other, because we can’t seem to “go all the way” with our love, as Jesus did. We either fear rejection or fear persecution, which accounts for the two sides on “inviting sinners.”

We know the truth, however. And that involves living the Gospel without reservation. Inviting to the meal AND inviting to repentance.

That doesn’t make a shred of sense

 

[Peter_Plato]

That doesn’t make a shred of sense

What doesn’t? The part that Pharisees don’t want to give up their sin? Or the part that sinners can be Pharisees?

Do you think sinners can’t be Pharisees or Pharisees can’t be sinners?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What doesn’t? The part that Pharisees don’t want to give up their sin? Or the part that sinners can be Pharisees?

Do you think sinners can’t be Pharisees or Pharisees can’t be sinners?

The part that you call people who are often barely religious Pharisees despite the fact that Pharisees were obsessed with religious law to the point of adding layers to it. You’ve mislabeled the Pharisees as it would actually be the people who refuse to invite sinners who’d be the Pharisees instead of the people who have far more in common with the tax collector and prostitute.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The part that you call people who are often barely religious Pharisees despite the fact that Pharisees were obsessed with religious law to the point of adding layers to it. You’ve mislabeled the Pharisees as it would actually be the people who refuse to invite sinners who’d be the Pharisees instead of the people who have far more in common with the tax collector and prostitute.

I see your point. Perhaps I should have used pharisee instead of Pharisee.

Do you suppose it was their obsession with religious law that Jesus was condemning?

This would seem odd because Jesus expected his followers to “sell all they had” to follow him, to leave mother and father and let the dead bury their dead, etc., which seems a kind of obsession. Not only that but he said not one dot or tittle would be removed from the law until it was fulfilled.

Do you suppose Jesus would refuse to invite the Pharisees to dinner? Or do you suppose Jesus would say it was bad for Pharisees to be Pharisees but okay for sinners to be sinners?

You see, I respectfully disagree with your view of what it is that is wrong with being a Pharisee. First off, Paul was a Pharisee and that fact was not enough to condemn him. The lower case pharisee comes from the upper case one because many Pharisees exemplified a problem that is not restricted to being one of them. Or to being religious.

The problem is refusing to accept that one is a sinner, but also in the belief that because one IS something (Pharisee, Child of Abraham, Saved, etc) one cannot sin. The same attitude, paradoxically, comes up when someone sees themself as a “sinner” and therefore assumes they are right with God merely because they accept that they are a sinner. The paradox comes up when the belief is presented that a person who is a sinner is not doing anything wrong by being a sinner, but only when they actually sin. But what constitutes “being a sinner” if not a propensity towards sinning? A disorientation of sorts?

Isn’t holiness a proper orientation towards God? Isn’t that what we are all called to?

In my view a pharisee is someone who refuses to accept that they can or do sin AND therefore refuses to change not just their ways but the way they are. Their actions are right, by definition, because they can do no wrong AND because they do no wrong they must be right. A self-justifying proposition which is what self-righteousness is.

Now, your view of “sinners” comes perilously close to that definition of pharisee. You seem to have a view that “being a sinner” is what is acceptable to God and, therefore, accepting that one is a sinner means they don’t have to change anything about their attitude - that it is sufficient to recognize that you are a sinner and all will be well. Perhaps.

But it certainly comes across as “self-righteous” in its own way. That “sinners” are somehow better than pharisees because they are or view themselves as sinners rather than pharisees. I have no reason to suppose that to be true.

However, if pharisees are those trapped in a kind of self-reinforcing state of self-righteousness, then “sinners” of the kind you hold up in your example are just as susceptible to this kind of self-righteousness that prevents them from becoming truly holy, just as pharisees are, just with different sins.

Pharisees think that by doing everything prescribed by the law, they have made themselves righteous.
Your view seems to be that as long as, for example, homosexuals do not break any commandments they are, therefore, righteous. In other words, merely not sinning makes a person right.

Is it the case, then, that pharisees are wrong BECAUSE they follow all the rules? That it is merely the fact that they truly are no longer sinners that makes them sinners? Couldn’t it be that if they really are no longer sinners, they are truly righteous? Does the fact that they have become righteous make them, ipso facto, a sinner?

On the other hand, is it the case that sinners are right merely because they are sinners? Once they no longer sin, they must then become pharisees, so better to remain sinners and not become pharisees?

I suspect, the truth is somewhere else.

The reality lies in the difference between being and doing. That someone is not actively sinning does not make them righteous and neither does it make them, necessarily, self-righteous pharisees. One must become holy, not just refrain from sin.

This is the problem I have with the idea of homosexual orientation. It is an “orientation” towards a sin, which is still problematic. To be holy means not merely refraining from sin, but to have no orientations towards sin in order to be made right. Not merely appear right like pharisees or anyone else who merely stops sinning, but to be remade from the inside out so there exists no proclivity or orientation to sin.

That may be difficult to swallow for both Pharisees and sinners because pride gets in the way for the pharisee and sin gets in the way for the sinner.

The place at the wedding feast is set for both. The pharisee may think of themselves as too good to sit with sinners, but his mistake is that he doesn’t recognize himself as a sinner and, therefore, won’t “change” into the garment provided. However, the sinner who won’t give up their sin or refuses to see it as sin could likewise not want to “change” but take pride in what they “are.” That is, pride in being a sinner and therefore refusing to change into a true non-sinner from the inside out. Both are sins of pride, just pride regarding the kind of person one takes pride in, I suppose.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In short:

A sinner who sees him/herself as better than a Pharisee is being as much a “pharisee” as the pharisee.

 

[Brendan]

The part that you call people who are often barely religious Pharisees despite the fact that Pharisees were obsessed with religious law to the point of adding layers to it. You’ve mislabeled the Pharisees as it would actually be the people who refuse to invite sinners who’d be the Pharisees instead of the people who have far more in common with the tax collector and prostitute.

Peter would be correct in one aspect of the pharistical movement. The Pharisees considered themselves to be sinless. They did not see themselves are being in need of conversion, Jesus had nothing to tell them.

Of the deeply religious, the opposite is true, they tend to be the most frequent participants in confession, while the opposite is true of many who live in sin. They see no sin in their practices. They do not listen to the moral commands of Christ.

In that respect they are most certainly pharisees.

 

[Rin]

Of the deeply religious, the opposite is true, they tend to be the most frequent participants in confession, while the opposite is true of many who live in sin.

The Pharisees were also among the most frequent participants in temple sacrifices, which were also (among other things) done in remission of sin. The opposite was true of many tax collectors and prostitutes.

The comparison between gay people and Pharisees simply doesn’t hold water. It is ad hoc, and requires that you single out only one aspect.

The Pharisees were among the most practicing religious of their day. They used their religious participation as a way to elevate themselves above others. I have met many a person like that in my life, and yes, several of them (those who were Catholic) would be very quick to point out their frequent participation in confession as an alibi. They’d also speak of themselves as wretched sinners, yet act as if they were superior.

Acknowledging sin is a central part of Christianity. Of course pharisaical Christians will “acknowledge” their sin. Very publicly at that. Today’s version of the prayer in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector could well be “O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, fornicators, actively gay, the remarried, as also is this Democrat. I go to Mass every Sunday; I confess and acknowledge all my sins.”

 

[harlen]

The question is whether we actually do respond like Jesus with the full Gospel message of conversion to sinners (including our own complete conversion so that we act in Christ) or do we respond like the culture around us and gloss over or let things slide pretending that is the “Christian” way?..

That is the crux of the problem, it seems to me, that those who advocate the welcoming are supplying half the answer and those advocating the righteousness are giving the other half. Jesus did both: he ate with sinners but invited them to repentance and the Kingdom.
By “inviting,” I suspect most of us will only apply half of the “what would Jesus do” precisely because we don’t want to appear as if we are self-righteous or demonstrate in an obvious way that we have “a problem” with the sin in question. Clearly, Jesus has “a problem” with sin, AND he calls the sinners to repentance - which is part of the reason he was crucified by those who refused to give up their sins.

 

[harlen]

There’s a lot of talk on here about “inviting gays”… only in order to “invite them to repent”

Compare this with “inviting other sinners to repent”

For many years the Church has “invited” our Western Societies to put people before profit; and to share the fruits of the Earth; and share its resources with justice for all as*** an essential of the Gospel.
We have not*** heeded this “invitation to repent”.
On the contrary we have been on a orgy of increasing wealth-concentration and disparity, and blasphemously we have raised "greed " to a virtue.
Many Christians (particularly in the U.S.) are flagrant, proud sinners in this regard.
They even oppose Healthcare for the poor; an obscenity to UK Christians.
But do we stop “inviting” them to repent?
Do we stop inviting them to dinner?
Do we refuse all society with such people?
Do we refuse them communion?
No

Francis is right about our recent obsession with sexual sins.

At least be consistent.

 

[pnewton]

Do we stop inviting them to dinner?

Just to clarify, the question is not refusing to dine with a homosexual family member. It is only the prudence involved in having a family member bring an active homosexual partner to a dinner with family members that includes children of varying ages. One’s voting records cannot be reflected in showing up for dinner, making this analogy irrelevant for the *specific *topic, though it does bear on the general idea of acceptance of sinners.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s a lot of talk on here about “inviting gays”… only in order to “invite them to repent”

Where was the conditional “ONLY in order to invite them to repent” ever made except by you?

No, the reason to invite anyone is not ONLY to invite repentance, merely that it shouldn’t be avoided. If you truly love someone you want what is best for them and that is determinable independent of what they believe is good for them. Of course, if they are resistant to what love is speaking and continue to flaunt or insist that sin is love, then the inherent difference has to be acknowledged.

Some may claim love just involves letting others do what ever they want. There is a strong case to be made that that isn’t God’s view on what constitutes love.

The argument that because we have massively failed to invite repentance in other areas means that we should, likewise, massively fail in this area is simply a poor argument. Think about it. Basically, the claim is that BECAUSE we haven’t succeeded or tried elsewhere we should not do so here.

The other problem with the argument is that political issues like healthcare and poverty are not ones that can be dealt with at a family level and are much more complex than an individual’s sexual sins or personal outlook on sex which can be addressed on a one-to-one level. How do you know that when someone is invited to dinner that the issues of poverty or universal health care are avoided at a personal level by those advocating defending traditional conjugal marriage?

Then, of course, we have those who simply won’t allow “religious” views on any vaguely political topic, so we have you barking on one side and they barking on the other, which makes coming up with acceptable discussion strategy or argument that satisfies both you and they somewhat of a challenge. Care to offer some advice on that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s a lot of talk on here about “inviting gays”… only in order to “invite them to repent”

Compare this with “inviting other sinners to repent”

For many years the Church has “invited” our Western Societies to put people before profit; and to share the fruits of the Earth; and share its resources with justice for all as*** an essential of the Gospel.
We have not*** heeded this “invitation to repent”.
On the contrary we have been on a orgy of increasing wealth-concentration and disparity, and blasphemously we have raised "greed " to a virtue.
Many Christians (particularly in the U.S.) are flagrant, proud sinners in this regard.
They even oppose Healthcare for the poor; an obscenity to UK Christians.
But do we stop “inviting” them to repent?
Do we stop inviting them to dinner?
Do we refuse all society with such people?
Do we refuse them communion?
No

Francis is right about our recent obsession with sexual sins.

At least be consistent.

What is funny here is that I, personally, am trying to be consistent.

I don’t generally associate with those who put profit before people, yet, at some level everyone, including me, is guilty of it. Yet, I can’t disassociate from myself.
Does my own failure mean I should therefore stop making the claim that people ought to be valued higher than profit?

That seems to be the implication of your “argument.”

I don’t generally associate with those who would deny healthcare to the poor, yet I don’t agree that such a program should involve making the providers wealthy and the middle class impoverished. So, one could advocate healthcare for the poor without, necessarily, agreeing that Obamacare is anything like an acceptable means of doing so, since it is a disaster waiting to happen. I have defended the Canadian model because it is a workable and working one.

When I invite others to dinner, the topics of health care and poverty do not get intentionally left untouched for fear of reaction. I may even think twice about inviting someone who puts profits over people or denies that the poor deserve proper health care. In fact, those might be reasons to disassociate from them, even if they are family until, at least, they get their priorities straight as measured by how loudly and adamantly they proclaim their distorted views.

So, to be consistent in terms of those who advocate for a gay life style, you may draw your own conclusions about what is consistent with the above.

 

[harlen]

The other problem with the argument is that political issues like healthcare and poverty are not ones that can be dealt with at a family level and are much more complex than an individual’s sexual sins or personal outlook on sex which can be addressed on a one-to-one level. How do you know that when someone is invited to dinner that the issues of poverty or universal health care are avoided at a personal level by those advocating defending traditional conjugal marriage?

What is more sinful…That some humans are attracted to members of their own sex and forming a couples, or, that a tiny percentage of humanity selfishly pillage the earth for more materials goods and wealth than they can ever use whilst others are starved, or work as “slaves” in this globalised economy?
Let’s get a sense of proportion, priorities and focus .

Because it is hard for us to deal with these huge sins of ours,… does not excuse us obsessing about the lesser sins of others.
If we cannot reform ourselves (and our BIG sins are economic & social justice sins) why are we trying to take the motes out of the eyes of others?
It is a psychological diversion. We don’t want to tackle our real sin.

 

[John_Savage]

Some would say that a free market system helps the poor. The US is the destination of choice for a lot of poor people, after all.

What is more sinful…That some humans are attracted to members of their own sex and forming a couples, or, that a tiny percentage of humanity selfishly pillage the earth for more materials goods and wealth than they can ever use whilst others are starved, or work as “slaves” in this globalised economy?
Let’s get a sense of proportion, priorities and focus .

Because it is hard for us to deal with these huge sins of ours,… does not excuse us obsessing about the lesser sins of others.
If we cannot reform ourselves (and our BIG sins are economic & social justice sins) why are we trying to take the motes out of the eyes of others?
It is a psychological diversion. We don’t want to tackle our real sin.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is more sinful…That some humans are attracted to members of their own sex and forming a couples, or, that a tiny percentage of humanity selfishly pillage the earth for more materials goods and wealth than they can ever use whilst others are starved, or work as “slaves” in this globalised economy?
Let’s get a sense of proportion, priorities and focus.

Because it is hard for us to deal with these huge sins of ours,… does not excuse us obsessing about the lesser sins of others.

Well, then, let’s start on the largest sin of all and do nothing about any other sin until that one gets solved, shall we? Admittedly, it does require a radically sequential - even retentive - approach, but you sure have given us a great start by identifying the big’uns. :bowdown2:

If we cannot reform ourselves (and our BIG sins are economic & social justice sins) why are we trying to take the motes out of the eyes of others?
It is a psychological diversion. We don’t want to tackle our real sin.

What is “our” real sin, as if “WE” even sin at all?

This “lump everyone together and treat everybody as one big sinner” approach is certainly a novel view of sin, especially with you doing the really challenging work of meticulously ordering and identifying the “big” sins as opposed to the “motes.”

The highly technical and specific identifiers you have used - economic and social justice sins - have basically solved all the major issues already, since the real issue in moral reform is identification - and by pointing out the culprits, as you have, ensures that they will quickly disappear down rabbit holes allowing us to move forward at a breathtaking pace.

Man, am I hyped! :extrahappy:

Wait…

Maybe I missed your point? :ehh:

Perhaps you were claiming we can’t possibly change the big issues so we had better stop trying to change the small ones? Is that what you intended?

What a bummer, then?

Somehow, it seems I just don’t have a handle on your meaning. Sorry. :hypno:

 

[Gailgirl]

By positive aspects it refers to the fact that there can potentially be good things in the relationships despite the relationships

The lives of gay people do not revolve around sex, some aren’t sexually active and some are even virgins.

By accept I assume it means treat them like they are humans as opposed to some monstrous bogeyman.

Supporting civil unions does not compromise Catholic teaching in the slightest.

Interesting response.
Gailgirl

 

[ProVobis]

Cardinal Burke can’t be all bad if the Huffington Post is all over him.

huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/cardinal-raymond-burke_b_6154122.html