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

[JimG]

It can be a problem. Where does one draw the line, if anywhere?

A big family dinner. We have the devout Catholic couple with six kids, some of impressionable age.

We invite the husband’s brother and girlfriend who live together, the gay brother and his partner, the wife’s divorced sister and new husband, along with her ex-husband with whom we are still friends.

The grandparents who have split up are invited along with grandpa’s new girlfriend; we can’t exclude her, nor grandma. And the pederast uncle is there; we just hope he doesn’t bring some young boy with him as a friend. The dope dealing nephew is invited, as is the brother in law accountant who specializes in money laundering. It could get complicated, and the conversations will have to be quite circumspect. Cardinal Burke might have to write a more detailed document to address all this.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - In case the actual problem has been missed, Cardinal Burke did not suggest the son not be welcomed, but whether the son should visit with a homosexual lover in a gathering with children. To refer to a kindly old alcoholic uncle, then question at what age one would mind a child be exposed to this uncle while wasted, or drinking heavily, or swearing. Would you let him teach how to make the perfect martini, and if so, at what age?

We could go on and on with other examples. If a man had a wife and two girlfriends, would you let him bring all three to a family gathering with little children? Would you an old man bring an underage girlfriend? The Cardinal only said that in situations like this:

… the parents in this case could mislead their grandchildren, doing them a disservice “by seeming to condone gravely sinful acts on the part of a family member.”

Sure, there is an age when a moral explanation for welcoming sinners, while condemning only the sin, can be successful. Parents must weigh the level of exposure to the child, the level of innocence of the child and the maturity of the child.

 

[Eternal_One]

He invited everyone.

Matthew25:41
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Revelation 3:16
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

This language is definitely not all inclusive.

This is why it is important for the faithful not to tiptoe around those who are lukewarm, so that they do not end up excluded where it truly counts.

Revelation 3:19
Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.

Would anyone like to correct the words of Our Lord?

 

[signit]

FYI - In case the actual problem has been missed, Cardinal Burke did not suggest the son not be welcomed, but whether the son should visit with a homosexual lover in a gathering with children. To refer to a kindly old alcoholic uncle, then question at what age one would mind a child be exposed to this uncle while wasted, or drinking heavily, or swearing. Would you let him teach how to make the perfect martini, and if so, at what age?

Well, if someone were a direct threat to the children I’d draw the line.

If my aforementioned kindly (alcoholic) uncle was at risk of actually encouraging the kids to drink alcohol (or even mix drinks), or if he was at risk of being violent, then maybe he should be kept away from them

If one or more members of the aforementioned same-sex couple was a predator (one of the earlier posters used the word “pederast” in referring to another situation), then, yes, caution should be shown. Of course I am aware that gays are not all predators or pedophiles and the original question wasn’t about how to handle it if one of the relatives was one.

 

[pnewton]

Whatever threat a person shows, either direct and immediate or corrupting and long-term, I would hope that all would appreciate that parents must err on the side of caution and respect their role when they make a decision in best interest of their children, even if it is inconvenient or hurts one’s feelings.

 

[Burdock]

Some of the posts on here dont suprise me. Im seriously thinking I made a mistake converting, I have been attending the church I left recently where therecis so much more warmth and fellowship and a much more obvious love for jesus that sadly is not evident in the catholic church .

 

[Sy_Noe]

It can be a problem. Where does one draw the line, if anywhere?

A big family dinner. We have the devout Catholic couple with six kids, some of impressionable age.

We invite the husband’s brother and girlfriend who live together, the gay brother and his partner, the wife’s divorced sister and new husband, along with her ex-husband with whom we are still friends.

The grandparents who have split up are invited along with grandpa’s new girlfriend; we can’t exclude her, nor grandma. And the pederast uncle is there; we just hope he doesn’t bring some young boy with him as a friend. The dope dealing nephew is invited, as is the brother in law accountant who specializes in money laundering. It could get complicated, and the conversations will have to be quite circumspect. Cardinal Burke might have to write a more detailed document to address all this.

I keep it pretty simple so I just draw the line at love and at family gathering together with all our warts and eye planks to celebrate the birth of Christ while those of us still on God’s earth are still able to. God forbid the gay son and his partner get hit by a car on Dec 26 and the parents missed one last opportunity to spend time on this earth with their son and his I’m assuming monogamous partner who he loves and neither of which is a pedophile… So for me personally a more detailed document than that isn’t needed.

 

[signit]

The grandparents who have split up are invited along with grandpa’s new girlfriend; we can’t exclude her, nor grandma. And the pederast uncle is there; we just hope he doesn’t bring some young boy with him as a friend. The dope dealing nephew is invited, as is the brother in law accountant who specializes in money laundering. It could get complicated, and the conversations will have to be quite circumspect. Cardinal Burke might have to write a more detailed document to address all this.

While we’re on this:

There was also my mother’s cousin who got a military pension on the basis of a phony disability. I was simply told, by my father with the cousin not present, that his conduct was not acceptable.

The cousin’s simply being at family functions was in no way an encouragement for us to do what he did.

 

[Burdock]

Some of the posts on here dont suprise me. Im seriously thinking I made a mistake converting, I have been attending the church I left recently where therecis so much more warmth and fellowship and a much more obvious love for jesus that sadly is not evident in the catholic church .

 

[JimG]

Some of the posts on here dont suprise me. Im seriously thinking I made a mistake converting, I have been attending the church I left recently where therecis so much more warmth and fellowship and a much more obvious love for jesus that sadly is not evident in the catholic church .

I apologize if we cause you to think this way through this discussion board. You would find most of us more agreeable in person, I think, than you do in the context of a forum like this. On a forum, the point is often moral clarity, in person, the point is interpersonal communication. My best friend while working at my last job held views on most issues which were quite antithetical to mine—on matters of politics, social issues, and religion. That did not affect our friendship. If he had been on CAF, however, I would have had to disagree sharply with him most of the time!

 

[pnewton]

Some of the posts on here dont suprise me. Im seriously thinking I made a mistake converting, I have been attending the church I left recently where therecis so much more warmth and fellowship and a much more obvious love for jesus that sadly is not evident in the catholic church .

I would note that the internet will never be as warm as fellowship in person. Also, the type of judgment that we must all avoid is that which goes beyond actions and judging the hearts of others, as in, “and a much more obvious love for jesus that sadly is not evident in the catholic church.” Most other Christians believe that God alone knows our hearts. Does your Church teach this and do believe it? If not, then what is your method for know the love of God others hold in their hearts? Personal agreement with your opinions?

 

[pnewton]

I keep it pretty simple so I just draw the line at love and at family gathering together with all our warts and eye planks to celebrate the birth of Christ while those of us still on God’s earth are still able to. God forbid the gay son and his partner get hit by a car on Dec 26 and the parents missed one last opportunity to spend time on this earth with their son and his I’m assuming* monogamous* partner who he loves .

Might I ask what bearing this has? Would a son with more partners not be invited, or a new partner?

Also, what if a parent were killed and a son missed the last opportunity to be with him or her because he refused to visit without some homosexual lover he has? I would not see his reason, whatever it might be, as more valid that a parent protecting their little children.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I apologize if we cause you to think this way through this discussion board. You would find most of us more agreeable in person, I think, than you do in the context of a forum like this. On a forum, the point is often moral clarity, in person, the point is interpersonal communication. My best friend while working at my last job held views on most issues which were quite antithetical to mine—on matters of politics, social issues, and religion. That did not affect our friendship. If he had been on CAF, however, I would have had to disagree sharply with him most of the time!

I understand what Burdock means though. CAF posts used to surprise me too and I still struggle with it and I can be repelled from the faith by many comments. I’m unclear though if they are a majority or just a very vocal minority, some maybe even saying whatever, hiding behind the internet. when they might not in real life. I keep trying to remind myself CAF is not the CC. And I do see many here even right on this thread with a kinder, gentler approach who would not ban the gay son and partner from the family Christmas dinner. But I wonder if some who take the harsher approach even realize the stumbling blocks they may be placing? I appreciate your words in this post though. God bless.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well, if someone were a direct threat to the children I’d draw the line.

If my aforementioned kindly (alcoholic) uncle was at risk of actually encouraging the kids to drink alcohol (or even mix drinks), or if he was at risk of being violent, then maybe he should be kept away from them

If one or more members of the aforementioned same-sex couple was a predator (one of the earlier posters used the word “pederast” in referring to another situation), then, yes, caution should be shown. Of course I am aware that gays are not all predators or pedophiles and the original question wasn’t about how to handle it if one of the relatives was one.

Yes, I do have a tough time seeing a gay couple being excluded at a Christmas dinner. But my family are all atheists, so there aren’t really any restrictions. I am perhaps under the most suspicion for being Catholic - that’s about as close to a sin as we get; however I am welcome. That said, I probably spend as many Christmases away from my family as with them. But I agree here you do have the problem of the children seeing the gay couple. I like the idea of explaining to the children beforehand about our duty of charity toward people in sin. Or if some parents are uncomfortable with that (and I wouldn’t judge them for it if they were), why not have a separate get together with the gay couple, say a brunch or a drink close to Christmas away from the house. A lot of people have multiple Christmas celebrations with different sets of friends/family. We all can only do what we can do. I would just do the most Christian thing I could handle. A friend of mine’s daughter-in-law’s mother has come out gay and lives with her partner; the daughter-in-law is Evangelical Christian. She has a new baby; she and her husband visit the mother with their baby in a very limited way. The daughter has told her mother how she feels and that she is doing everything she can to keep relations in accordance with her faith. Sounds fine to me. Although there is some friction on both sides, I think the mother is also ok with that approach.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Might I ask what bearing this has? Would a son with more partners not be invited, or a new partner?

Also, what if a parent were killed and a son missed the last opportunity to be with him or her because he refused to visit without some homosexual lover he has? I would not see his reason, whatever it might be, as more valid that a parent protecting their little children.

You left out the part that I assume neither of the 2 gay men at this family’s dinner table are pedophiles from whom the little children need protected. And just as I and Signet didn’t become alcoholics or Signet didn’t lie about a disability, the little children aren’t going to go on and become gay just because they have a Christmas family dinner on Dec 24 or 25 where 2 gay adults are present to join the family of one of them for dinner. But since I just can’t wrap my head around all this exclusion and this thread is making my head hurt, I’m going off for some fresh air for right now. Maybe I’ll be back later.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This language is definitely not all inclusive.

This is why it is important for the faithful not to tiptoe around those who are lukewarm, so that they do not end up excluded where it truly counts.

Would anyone like to correct the words of Our Lord?

You need to read the entire chapter, not just the one verse you quoted.

In Mathew 25, before the verse you posted Jesus said;

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations* will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

In the verse you quoted, it was the self-righteous Jesus said would not enter the Kingdom of God.

Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ 40i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41* j Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Mathew 25:37-41

Jim

 

[pnewton]

You left out the part that I assume neither of the 2 gay men at this family’s dinner table are pedophiles from whom the little children need protected.

I would not have included that because it has nothing to do with this topic. The statement by Cardinal Burke had nothing to do with eminent threat to the children, as in exposure to a pedophile. No one has suggested this. The threat that they would need protected from is being led to accept homosexual behavior as just an alternative to moral sexual activity, or celibacy. Parents have to determine when a child is able to understand that people can be loved without endorsing behavior.

I also think it good to point out that the parent or the son can adapt to meet for the Holidays. In my opinion, a parent wanting to protect their child has a better reason than a person not wanting to have one dinner away from their lover.

In addition to “all gays are not pedophiles” straw man, another is that the son in question is being excluded. He is not. It is only his homosexual lover in a situation that a child might be morally misled that is being excluded. In reality, most situations could be resolved with compromise and a loving parent, as well as the loving son, can find that compromise.

 

[pnewton]

You need to read the entire chapter, not just the one verse you quoted.

In Mathew 25, before the verse you posted Jesus said;

In the verse you quoted, it was the self-righteous Jesus said would not enter the Kingdom of God.

Jesus does not call them self-righteous.

The lesson we need to take from this is the one who is doing the judging and it sure isn’t us. The orthodox Catholic can not judge the gay person. The gay person cannot judge the orthodox Catholic. There is a little of both going on and we need to watch ourselves not to slip into that judgmentalism that is most likely to trip us up.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Jesus does not call them self-righteous.

The lesson we need to take from this is the one who is doing the judging and it sure isn’t us. The orthodox Catholic can not judge the gay person. The gay person cannot judge the orthodox Catholic. There is a little of both going on and we need to watch ourselves not to slip into that judgmentalism that is most likely to trip us up.

Yes, love, mercy and forgiveness are a two way street. Otherwise, what’s the point.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jesus does not call them self-righteous.

.

Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,

Looks like you want to split hairs over the word, “righteous.”

You don’t believe it means, “self-righteous.”

OK

Jim