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

[RGCheek]

Is that what you think the Bishops are doing ?

Jim

That was MY question. You go get your own questions.

 

[RGCheek]

In today’s work environment, if you withdrew the invitation in the second case you could find yourself at worst with a discrimination lawsuit on your hands and at best some very uncomfortable moments with the HR director. It’s either all of your co-workers, or none of them. Their private lives, in the professional context, are in fact none of anyone’s business.

Thanks for the legal advice, but if I wanted legal advice I would go to a legal begal forum, not a Catholic forum.

What is the churches position on the difference between a non-Catholic that is openly in sin vrs a FALLEN Catholic who is living in sin?

 

[RGCheek]

No I just was watching EWTN News and a couple of interviews. My impression was what some are trying to introduce is simply a new, compassionate, gentler tone. What the Holy Father since the start of his papacy has seemed to be trying to get Catholics to do. I think the idea may be you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I agree in that some Catholics seem to be at war with gays, but on the other hand, the gay political militants make no secret of being at war with the church and that leaves an impression on many Catholics.

Has anyone who is on the side of a more strident tone considered that the tone may have become too harsh in Catholic circles in recent times and Christ called this Pope for this time and these bishops to develop a message in this synod and the one a year from now, that a more compassionate tone and example is needed?

I think that is a good thing if you are right, but the church leaders need to be keen on awareness of those Catholics who have sacrificed to meet the churches guidance at considerable cost. To them the ‘more compassionate tone’ sounds a lot like ‘Don’t ask Don’t tell’ and regard it as merely a half way transitional point toward full embrace of ‘alternative family structures’. The church will then have a second schism within the last century.

To meet people where they are. To welcome them. To surely be able to invite your gay son and his loving partner to eat Christmas dinner with your family.

To meet and welcome is one thing. To give full fellowship to unrepentant sinners is quite another. We are all sinners, but Jesus calls us in the church also to repentance and without repentance there is no valid confession, if I recall correctly, and thus no valid eucharest for the unrepentant recipient.

Is it more compassionate to allow the unrepentant to take communion and take on yet more sin, or is it more compassionate to warn them from taking communion while not fit for it?

It seems to me that the full Gospel message is the best form of mercy:

Acts 2:38

Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 

[OraLabora]

Thanks for the legal advice, but if I wanted legal advice I would go to a legal begal forum, not a Catholic forum.

Well it’s like I tell my kids, my advice is free and you get what you pay for

Fortunately rather than be sarcastic they usually just ignore me…

 

[Sy_Noe]

Why would there be fear or anger? From what source do young children learn to react in such a negative way? Surely it would be better for them to respect the privacy of others? Why should the personal relationships of adults concern them if they are brought up in an atmosphere of acceptance and a respect for personal privacy.

I was wondering the same thing. Who would be fearful and angry that the parents invited their son and his partner to their family Christmas dinner and from whom at the table would the children be learning the anger?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I might want to prepare them first privately. Nothing like stirring up anger or fear in front of a crowd. There is bound to be severe repercussions later with that.

In that case if it’s so important for you to know ahead of time, you might have to inquire then as to else is invited to the family’s Christmas dinner when your invitation is extended.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think that is a good thing if you are right, but the church leaders need to be keen on awareness of those Catholics who have sacrificed to meet the churches guidance at considerable cost. To them the ‘more compassionate tone’ sounds a lot like ‘Don’t ask Don’t tell’ and regard it as merely a half way transitional point toward full embrace of ‘alternative family structures’. The church will then have a second schism within the last century.

Is it more compassionate to allow the unrepentant to take communion and take on yet more sin, or is it more compassionate to warn them from taking communion while not fit for it?

I just caught part of an interview about 90 mins ago on EWTN with Cardinal Burke. And as as someone looking on from outside, even I was surprised of the differences there appeared to be between Cardinals Burke and Kasper. EWTN only had Burke on. I don’t know if they have already or will have Kasper on to respond but it would be interesting to see Cardinal Kasper’s response or to see them debate each other face to face.

As far as the Eucharist, I guess it depends on the direction the Catholic Church wants to go. I only know who faithful Catholics believe is the current successor to Peter, has said it is medicine and nourishment not a prize for the perfect.

 

[Joan92]

Inviting a gay partner into your home for a meal gives the public impression you agree with the disordered relationship—JUST what the good Cardinal said. Why are the non-Catholics and the cafeteria Catholics trying to convince those that are strict Catholics to have a lax conscience? Blur the lines, confuse boundaries? Not follow the magisterium? Receiving the Eucharist worthily is church doctrine. If you don’t agree with that, we have a word for it: PROTESTANT.

Why are you trying to convince people to be disobedient to the church on THIS forum? This creeps me out.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think that is a good thing if you are right, but the church leaders need to be keen on awareness of those Catholics who have sacrificed to meet the churches guidance at considerable cost. To them the ‘more compassionate tone’ sounds a lot like ‘Don’t ask Don’t tell’ and regard it as merely a half way transitional point toward full embrace of ‘alternative family structures’. The church will then have a second schism within the last century.

Is it more compassionate to allow the unrepentant to take communion and take on yet more sin, or is it more compassionate to warn them from taking communion while not fit for it?

It seems to me that the full Gospel message is the best form of mercy:

Acts 2:38

Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

As far as schism, I just watched an EWTN interview with Burke 2 hrs ago. And as someone on the outside even I was surprised at the differences there appeared to be between Burke and Cardinal Kasper. EWTN only had Burke on. I don’t know if they already have had or will have Kasper on to answer.

Though I don’t equate eating family Christmas dinner with the Eucharist, I only know who Catholics believe is the current successor to Peter, has said it is medicine and nourishment, not a prize for the perfect. Peace.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Inviting a gay partner into your home for a meal gives the public impression you agree with the disordered relationship—JUST what the good Cardinal said. Why are the non-Catholics and the cafeteria Catholics trying to convince those that are strict Catholics to have a lax conscience? Blur the lines, confuse boundaries? Not follow the magisterium? Receiving the Eucharist worthily is church doctrine. If you don’t agree with that, we have a word for it: PROTESTANT.

Why are you trying to convince people to be disobedient to the church on THIS forum? This creeps me out.

I don’t agree with everything. That’s why I don’t practice. But I don’t think anyone is doing any such thing. We’re just having a relatively cordial discussion I hope. No one as far as I can tell is trying to creep you out. There are just some of us, apparently it seems to me including some Catholics who attend Mass regularly and practice, who might see the invitation as simply expressing love for their son and expressing what Jesus commanded: Loving thy neighbor. In this case their son’s partner by simply inviting him to Christmas dinner. Not necessarily that it means the parents agree or not with the relationship. Peace, love and blessings to all.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Inviting a gay partner into your home for a meal gives the public impression you agree with the disordered relationship—JUST what the good Cardinal said. Why are the non-Catholics and the cafeteria Catholics trying to convince those that are strict Catholics to have a lax conscience? Blur the lines, confuse boundaries? Not follow the magisterium? Receiving the Eucharist worthily is church doctrine. If you don’t agree with that, we have a word for it: PROTESTANT.

Why are you trying to convince people to be disobedient to the church on THIS forum? This creeps me out.

Hi Joan, I got to thinking yes there is the word Protestant but I recall reading Fr Grondin in an answer he gave on “Ask an Apologist” last month saying “Once baptized Catholic, or received into the Church, that person is always considered a Catholic.” But anyway mainly I got to thinking maybe this will help you. The Cardinals, all Catholic, themselves are debating and discussing. From listening to Cardinal Burke on EWTN, he clearly seemed to not agree with Cardinal Kapser on more than one matter. And I heard a Korean bishop say there are differences among participants in the synod. But dialogue is still going on. Peace be with you.

 

[SJMink]

Whether one sees a family member or not is irrelevant. Explaining the truth about their sin in a charitable manner is the correct thing to do.

False charity plays pretend in front of family and friends, gives scandal to others and ‘loves’ the sodomite son right into Hell.

…as opposed to insulting him into Hell?

Where in the Catechism can one find homosexuals referred to as “sodomites”.

Mr. Newton, sorry if my correct use of the English language offends your sensibilities.

My sensibilities are not offended, but this is a Catholic website. I asked if you found that term in the Catechism. Is it Catholic or does it go beyond the language of Catholicism? In secular parlance, it is* not* a neutral term.

If one has the goal of evangelization, helping people get to Heaven, I cannot imagine using such language. It has not helped Westboro Baptist Church evangelize, if that is what you were going for.

False charity plays pretend in front of family and friends, gives scandal to others and ‘loves’ the intrinsically disordered son right into Hell.

 

[AnnArbor]

False charity plays pretend in front of family and friends, gives scandal to others and ‘loves’ the intrinsically disordered son right into Hell.

But you are still being inaccurate. Not all gay people are sodomites, And not all sodomites are homosexual. The terms are not, in fact, interchangeable.

 

[Burdock]

False charity plays pretend in front of family and friends, gives scandal to others and ‘loves’ the intrinsically disordered son right into Hell.

No it doesn’t, you are not going to change them by not having them to join you.It is not for us to judge and say they will go to hell. Its upvto god to jydge NOT us.

 

[PaulinVA]

What Would Jesus Do (WWJD) is not helpful in most situations, because none of us is Jesus. The answer in every case of WWJD is that he would call out the sin, forgive the sinner, and call them to repentance. None of us can do that. He. Was. God.

The real question is What Should *** ***I Do. How can we covert our son/daughter/niece/nephew if we don’t allow them in the same room as everyone else?

 

[SJMink]

No it doesn’t, you are not going to change them by not having them to join you.It is not for us to judge and say they will go to hell. Its upvto god to jydge NOT us.

The Church teaches that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin will be condemned to Hell. We are .not to judge the state of another’s soul but we can judge their actions and we’re obligated as Catholics to admonish the sinner.

It is inappropriate to have a family member engaged in.blatant mortal sin at family functions because it gives the impression of approval for that sin and gives scandal to others.

 

[AnnArbor]

The Church teaches that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin will be condemned to Hell. We are .not to judge the state of another’s soul but we can judge their actions and we’re obligated as Catholics to admonish the sinner.

It is inappropriate to have a family member engaged in.blatant mortal sin at family functions because it gives the impression of approval for that sin and gives scandal to others.

I doubt they are actually going to engage in mortal sin at the dinner table.

 

[SJMink]

I doubt they are actually going to engage in mortal sin at the dinner table.

No where in my comments did I imply that the reason a family member should not be invited to a family function was because of a concern they’d engage in mortal sin at the dinner table.

 

[AnnArbor]

No where in my comments did I imply that the reason a family member should not be invited to a family function was because of a concern they’d engage in mortal sin at the dinner table.

Sorry – I misquoted. You said,

"It is inappropriate to have a family member engaged in.blatant mortal sin at family functions "

I also doubt the family member will be engaging in blatant mortal sin at family functions.
If what you mean is that someone who commits mortal sin should be excluded from all family functions – how are you going to determine that? Do you know who around your dinner table is engaging in sex without being open to life? Who abused his/her spouse or child? Who missed Mass without a serious reason?

We never really know the state of another’s soul. It’s enough to try to work on our own souls.

 

[SJMink]

Sorry – I misquoted. You said,

"It is inappropriate to have a family member engaged in.blatant mortal sin at family functions "

I also doubt the family member will be engaging in blatant mortal sin at family functions.
If what you mean is that someone who commits mortal sin should be excluded from all family functions – how are you going to determine that? Do you know who around your dinner table is engaging in sex without being open to life? Who abused his/her spouse or child? Who missed Mass without a serious reason?

We never really know the state of another’s soul. It’s enough to try to work on our own souls.

You are correct that we don’t know who is in a state of mortal sin.

A family member who identifies themself as homosexual and living with their ‘partner’ makes their mortal sin public thereby causing scandal. That’s the distinction.