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

[Sy_Noe]

I do not see insisting on taking a homosexual lover with you as valuing family. Why not simply attend alone? In any case, while I may not agree with you, I would like to return to what was actually said, namely, that

Anyone who knows children know that this is a possibility, especially at younger ages. Quite frankly, explaining the situation is only marginally useful, as most kids learn more by modeling behavior than being taught behavior.

Now the flips side of this is that we must also teach them that all people have dignity and deserve to be loved. I hope we can at least agree that some of the language here would not be appropriate for children.

There’s no “may” about it. We don’t agree. And that’s fine with me. I’m fine agreeing to disagree. The thing is if Catholics are going to begin being more welcoming of homosexuals and at first meeting them where they are, like it or not, the gay son may consider his lover as part of his family. And again in the real world, the children can not be shielded from homosexuals forever. So at the Christmas family dinner table seems not the worst place to me. And parents can then instruct their children hopefully with the command to love thy neighbor, about who they saw and who they will yet see out in the real world.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that children always get the raw end of the deal in these discussions. “Well, we can’t protect them forever.” “They’ll have to deal with the real world.” “They’ll just have to get used to it.”

So children have their families broken apart through divorce. Their parents split up the household and the kids have to travel back and forth if they want to see both parents. We have no qualms about putting them into situations where adults’ objective sin provides tons of bad example from an early age. If a relative brings a gay lover to their house, they’ll just have to deal with it. If their dad brings his new girlfriend, the same applies; and if their mom, now dad’s ex, shows up as well, they’ll have to deal with the tensions that might arise. Who ever worries about the kids? It’s what the adults want that counts. What ever happened to being protective of children?

 

[Sy_Noe]

It seems to me that children always get the raw end of the deal in these discussions. “Well, we can’t protect them forever.” “They’ll have to deal with the real world.” “They’ll just have to get used to it.”

So children have their families broken apart through divorce. Their parents split up the household and the kids have to travel back and forth if they want to see both parents. We have no qualms about putting them into situations where adults’ objective sin provides tons of bad example from an early age. If a relative brings a gay lover to their house, they’ll just have to deal with it. If their dad brings his new girlfriend, the same applies; and if their mom, now dad’s ex, shows up as well, they’ll have to deal with the tensions that might arise. Who ever worries about the kids? It’s what the adults want that counts. What ever happened to being protective of children?

As with most, this thread seems to have different camps and is going around in circles with no consensus to be reached.

Jim, no one is trying to harm the children at the Christmas family dinner here. Not unless an adult wants to burst out in anger at the dinner table because 2 gay adult men are eating Christmas dinner. Which would certainly make things more tense to be sure.

All it is, is simply called life, the real world. We don’t live in a perfect world. We don’t live in a world where everyone is the same. Children can be taught as well to love thy neighbor. To respect others even if we don’t agree with their life choices. To surely be able to share a Christmas meal. Love and respect will lessen the tension. Peace and God bless!

 

[sszorin]

Me neither. My family is a wide spectrum and runs the gamut. We have practicing Catholics, non practicing, family members who attend other faith communities, others who haven’t set foot in a church in yrs. Some are married. Some single. Some “shack up”. Of family currently nearby me, I’m actually the only one who attends Christmas services. To date it’s always been a Christmas Eve vigil Mass. But we all gather together afterwards for our family Christmas Eve dinner. I can’t imagine why Burke or anyone would question family celebrating Christmas together be the family members straight or gay or regardless of their living arrangements. Part of Christmas is about family. The Holy Family celebrated the first Christmas together in a manger. None of us in our families may be as perfect. But we are all God’s children. Created by Him. And we only have one family and life is too short to shun someone in it, especially at Christmas, a special time of love, just because they may not live up to a certain standard. If Catholics are going to exclude homosexuals and their partners at the family Christmas dinner table, then might as well exclude all who are perceived to sin. And not much food will be needed at the dinner table.

Very nice, I agree with you. Being kind and not judgmental towards each other is the right way to build human communities. A family should welcome and be thrilled to see each of its members at a family gathering, even those who happened to rape and strangle a child and are on the run from the law.

 

[Megan7]

It seems to me that children always get the raw end of the deal in these discussions. “Well, we can’t protect them forever.” “They’ll have to deal with the real world.” “They’ll just have to get used to it.”

So children have their families broken apart through divorce. Their parents split up the household and the kids have to travel back and forth if they want to see both parents. We have no qualms about putting them into situations where adults’ objective sin provides tons of bad example from an early age. If a relative brings a gay lover to their house, they’ll just have to deal with it. If their dad brings his new girlfriend, the same applies; and if their mom, now dad’s ex, shows up as well, they’ll have to deal with the tensions that might arise. Who ever worries about the kids? It’s what the adults want that counts. What ever happened to being protective of children?

:clapping::tiphat:

Excellent post, Jim. I agree with you. Then when we hear of children killing others, with violent behavior, violent teenagers, young adults (school, college shootings, etc.) We wonder how it happened Oh, and if they end up as atheists, how did that happen? It seems as if people just think of their own pleasures, the me me me culture, and children can just figure it all out on their own…What a selfish society we have created, truly sad… Oh, and protecting the children??? Watch out, you will be called a conservative, a homophobic, bigot, cold hearted, crazy individual with an agenda :banghead: Children do not matter at all… Expose them to all kinds of evil, disordered behavior, bad examples, etc. they will have to learn one day anyway, right? (sarc)

God bless,

+Pax.

 

[RGCheek]

As opposed to hating them into Hell?

How does one do that without removing the Free Will of those involved?

 

[sszorin]

Why the need to label those who disagree with Cardinal Burke “cafeteria Catholics” or morally lax or Protestant? Can we not have a reasonable discussion under the same rules established for the Synod, i.e. able to speak our minds freely without recrimination? We’re all adults here and such labelling is very much unnecessary.

Moreover since when is a private dinner in a private home making a public impression to any other than busybodies who have no business spying and commenting on who I invite to dinner?

Thank you for some common sense. Now, would you be so kind and talk to my wife and help her to understand and accept that I will invite to Christmas dinner my mistress and also a local prostitute who comforted me a few times when both my wife and my mistress were non compliant when I needed them. You can talk to her by phone or by email and calmly explain to her that"we are all adults here", that there should be freedom and no recrimination and that these women are for me an extended family.
Please let me know.

 

[Emily2014]

Very nice, I agree with you. Being kind and not judgmental towards each other is the right way to build human communities. A family should welcome and be thrilled to see each of its members at a family gathering, even those who happened to rape and strangle a child and are on the run from the law.

:tsktsk:

With respect, you are totally misunderstanding Sy Noe’s post!
Can only request that you read through his earlier posts to enable you to accurately interpret his views.

 

[pnewton]

How does one do that without removing the Free Will of those involved?

Free will remains a constant, love or hate. Love can give a false sense of security. Hate can stiffen the pride. Another poster said that false charity loves people into Hell. So do not people have free will, as you say? The same poster used a derogatory insult to refer to homosexuals. Surely situations occur where strong language can harm, just as there are situations where ostracizing can be harmful. Cardinal Burke’s language was not absolute for a reason. He pointed out a danger, a legitimate concern that should be weighed. As Jim reminded us, the welfare of children can not be disregarded for the welfare of the son. Those who believe in unconditional acceptance do this. Likewise, unconditional rejection of the son can also serve as a stumbling block. See, Jesus knew that stumbling must occur, free will as you say. However, he warned us not to serve as the instrument of stumbling.

In the situation of the family dinner, there is no one answer. If I were pushed, I would say attempt a compromise. This would show that the son is still valued. If he then refuses to compromise, it is he that is rejecting the parents. Parents already have the job of having their heart broken by children. It is in the contract.

 

[sszorin]

:tsktsk:

With respect, you are totally misunderstanding Sy Noe’s post!
Can only request that you read through his earlier posts to enable you to accurately interpret his views.

With equal respect, you did not pay attention to some sentences in his post and to their implications.

1 “My family is a wide spectrum and runs the gamut.”** - “wide spectrum” means from white to black
2 “*I can’t imagine why Burke or anyone would question family celebrating Christmas together be the family members straight or gay or regardless of their living arrangements.”

• • What if somebody lives like a child rapist and murderer ? It’s a lifestyle too.
    3 “Part of Christmas is about family… But we are all God’s children…And we only have one family and* life is too short to shun someone in it**, especially at Christmas, a special time of love, just because they may not live up to a certain standard*.” - Exactly ! The rapists and murderers have just different view of what is right and what is wrong.
    4 “If Catholics are going to exclude homosexuals and their partners at the family Christmas dinner table, then might as well exclude all who are perceived to sin. And not much food will be needed at the dinner table." *
    Exactly again ! …especially “all who are perceived to sin” And child rapists sin mightily but as the comment says, that is no reason to exclude them from heartfelt and cosy Christmas family dinner.
    5 "…And not much food will be needed at the dinner table*.”
    Precisely, that is why let us close our eyes to the sins of others so that much food will be needed at the Christmas dinner table.

 

[signit]

It seems to me that children always get the raw end of the deal in these discussions. “Well, we can’t protect them forever.” “They’ll have to deal with the real world.” “They’ll just have to get used to it.”

So children have their families broken apart through divorce. Their parents split up the household and the kids have to travel back and forth if they want to see both parents. We have no qualms about putting them into situations where adults’ objective sin provides tons of bad example from an early age. If a relative brings a gay lover to their house, they’ll just have to deal with it. If their dad brings his new girlfriend, the same applies; and if their mom, now dad’s ex, shows up as well, they’ll have to deal with the tensions that might arise. Who ever worries about the kids? It’s what the adults want that counts. What ever happened to being protective of children?

Thank you for some common sense. Now, would you be so kind and talk to my wife and help her to understand and accept that I will invite to Christmas dinner my mistress and also a local prostitute who comforted me a few times when both my wife and my mistress were non compliant when I needed them. You can talk to her by phone or by email and calmly explain to her that"we are all adults here", that there should be freedom and no recrimination and that these women are for me an extended family.
Please let me know.

We seem to have two issues here.

We as Catholics shouldn’t, for example, have gay relationships, get divorced and remarried, visit prostitutes, etc., not just because it’s wrong for us but also because we want to avoid setting a bad example for the younger relatives. I assume we all agree on that.

The original question, though, was what we should do when it’s another member of the extended family, not us, that doesn’t obey the Church teachings. I suggested in my earlier posts that there might be a solution short of banning the offender from setting foot in the home. Obviously we wouldn’t tell the younger kids how wonderful it is that their older cousin has a gay lover and that that’s perfectly fine according to God’s law. But we could express our disapproval privately as Mom and Dad did with me.

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you for some common sense. Now, would you be so kind and talk to my wife and help her to understand and accept that I will invite to Christmas dinner my mistress and also a local prostitute who comforted me a few times when both my wife and my mistress were non compliant when I needed them. You can talk to her by phone or by email and calmly explain to her that"we are all adults here", that there should be freedom and no recrimination and that these women are for me an extended family.
Please let me know.

Sorry but that’s a private matter for you to work out

 

[SylviaD]

“Cardinal Burke agreed that the parents should make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son. But he argued against bringing the son and his partner to a family dinner.”

This is not just a hypothetical for me and my husband, as we do have a gay son. And years ago we faced this situation without any of the debate speculated upon by those imagining this as a hypothetical moral dilemma. There was never any question as to whether or not we would extend an invitation. Of course we invited them.

Suggesting that parents “make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son,” sounds very nice, but what does that really mean? When we move away from the ambiguity of that statement toward something specific, like an invitation to Christmas dinner, it provides far more insight into what this so called “love” looks like. And it turns out to look a lot like the absence of love. Had we decided against Cardinal Burke’s advice and decided that we no longer loved our son, would we not revoke our invitation to Christmas dinner? Whether we followed his advice or rejected it, the result is exactly the same, in that our son is excluded from our family gathering. Perhaps our so called “loving” motives would be known to us, but indistinguishable from a malevolent motive to anyone unable to read our minds.

It disturbs me how flippantly the word “love” is thrown around in regard to this issue, as if its mere mention excuses every pernicious suggestion that follows.

And what message would it send to my grandchildren, when the uncle they know and love, who has been an important part of every Christmas they’ve ever known, is suddenly not welcomed anymore at our family gathering? Would they not receive the message that our love is conditional and could possibly be revoked at any time, at least in any practical sense. “We love your uncle, but this Christmas, we’re going to love him from afar, as we don’t want him here,” is not a message that young children are going to understand, but it is a message that would have an extraordinary impact.

It is easy to speculate about a hypothetical moral dilemma when there are no actual consequences you have to face. Our Church leaders need to listen to families who are not just dealing with these issues in theory or why have these families participate at all!!!

 

[harlen]

As with most, this thread seems to have different camps and is going around in circles with no consensus to be reached.

Jim, no one is trying to harm the children at the Christmas family dinner here. Not unless an adult wants to burst out in anger at the dinner table because 2 gay adult men are eating Christmas dinner. Which would certainly make things more tense to be sure.

All it is, is simply called life, the real world. We don’t live in a perfect world. We don’t live in a world where everyone is the same. Children can be taught as well to love thy neighbor. To respect others even if we don’t agree with their life choices. To surely be able to share a Christmas meal. Love and respect will lessen the tension. Peace and God bless!

Thank you for your compassionate good sense.
The rigourist camp want us to offer a “truth” (of condemnation) to gays & remarrieds “out of true charity”…“to save them from hell”
Does anyone say we should tell comfortably-off Catholics (or indeed all Western Catholics) that they must share all they have…“to save them from hell” (because that’s what the first Catholics did)?
Should we tell Catholic soldiers they must give up their profession… " to save them from hell"?
The problem for rigourists is they believe in the development of doctrine when it comes to Mariology but they think moral teachings have not changed…they have. They changed concerning killing, usery and the sharing of goods, to name a few.
The sexual domain has retained some absolutes (because it was written by celibates perhaps?) but this to has changed radically. Look up the Medeaval Penintentials if you want to scare yourself.
In a secularised world (where celibates are losing their monopoly on telling non-celibates how to live the intimate-life) we must expect a sea-change in understanding.

 

[JimG]

It doesn’t take long for the ripples of the synod to spread.

In a debate yesterday in Hutchinson, Kansas between 1st District congressional candidates, the topic of same sex marriage came up. One candidate said he supported the 2005 amendment to the Kansas constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The other candidate said he supported equal rights under the law for all, including gays. He also made reference to a recent Vatican document saying that same sex couples can offer good things to communities.

 

[OraLabora]

“Cardinal Burke agreed that the parents should make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son. But he argued against bringing the son and his partner to a family dinner.”

This is not just a hypothetical for me and my husband, as we do have a gay son. And years ago we faced this situation without any of the debate speculated upon by those imagining this as a hypothetical moral dilemma. There was never any question as to whether or not we would extend an invitation. Of course we invited them.

Suggesting that parents “make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son,” sounds very nice, but what does that really mean? When we move away from the ambiguity of that statement toward something specific, like an invitation to Christmas dinner, it provides far more insight into what this so called “love” looks like. And it turns out to look a lot like the absence of love. Had we decided against Cardinal Burke’s advice and decided that we no longer loved our son, would we not revoke our invitation to Christmas dinner? Whether we followed his advice or rejected it, the result is exactly the same, in that our son is excluded from our family gathering. Perhaps our so called “loving” motives would be known to us, but indistinguishable from a malevolent motive to anyone unable to read our minds.

It disturbs me how flippantly the word “love” is thrown around in regard to this issue, as if its mere mention excuses every pernicious suggestion that follows.

And what message would it send to my grandchildren, when the uncle they know and love, who has been an important part of every Christmas they’ve ever known, is suddenly not welcomed anymore at our family gathering? Would they not receive the message that our love is conditional and could possibly be revoked at any time, at least in any practical sense. “We love your uncle, but this Christmas, we’re going to love him from afar, as we don’t want him here,” is not a message that young children are going to understand, but it is a message that would have an extraordinary impact.

It is easy to speculate about a hypothetical moral dilemma when there are no actual consequences you have to face. Our Church leaders need to listen to families who are not just dealing with these issues in theory or why have these families participate at all!!!

Thank you for your witness. It makes this situation something much more than hypothetical talking points. It’s hard for those who are not parents (like Card. Burke) to understand what a parent would feel in such a circumstance. I have three sons and if ever one of them discovered he was gay, he and his partner would be more than welcome at our table. Our home will remain our sons’ home for as long as either my wife or I or both are alive. It will always be a safe haven for them to return to, unconditionally.

 

[TMC]

“Cardinal Burke agreed that the parents should make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son. But he argued against bringing the son and his partner to a family dinner.”

This is not just a hypothetical for me and my husband, as we do have a gay son. And years ago we faced this situation without any of the debate speculated upon by those imagining this as a hypothetical moral dilemma. There was never any question as to whether or not we would extend an invitation. Of course we invited them.

Suggesting that parents “make every effort to show their continuing love for their gay son,” sounds very nice, but what does that really mean? When we move away from the ambiguity of that statement toward something specific, like an invitation to Christmas dinner, it provides far more insight into what this so called “love” looks like. And it turns out to look a lot like the absence of love. Had we decided against Cardinal Burke’s advice and decided that we no longer loved our son, would we not revoke our invitation to Christmas dinner? Whether we followed his advice or rejected it, the result is exactly the same, in that our son is excluded from our family gathering. Perhaps our so called “loving” motives would be known to us, but indistinguishable from a malevolent motive to anyone unable to read our minds.

It disturbs me how flippantly the word “love” is thrown around in regard to this issue, as if its mere mention excuses every pernicious suggestion that follows.

And what message would it send to my grandchildren, when the uncle they know and love, who has been an important part of every Christmas they’ve ever known, is suddenly not welcomed anymore at our family gathering? Would they not receive the message that our love is conditional and could possibly be revoked at any time, at least in any practical sense. “We love your uncle, but this Christmas, we’re going to love him from afar, as we don’t want him here,” is not a message that young children are going to understand, but it is a message that would have an extraordinary impact.

It is easy to speculate about a hypothetical moral dilemma when there are no actual consequences you have to face. Our Church leaders need to listen to families who are not just dealing with these issues in theory or why have these families participate at all!!!

Thank you for sharing this. I could not agree more.

 

[pnewton]

Again, because most of the above has nothing to do with Cardinal Burke’s statement, nothing was said about not welcoming the son. The problem was having him and his homosexual partner in a situation with children who could take such welcoming as condoning behavior.

One person above said they will always welcome her son. Good for her. Cardinal Burke did not address her situation. He did not give any advice in this situation. He spoke about protecting young children who could still be at a vulnerable age.

 

[Arandur]

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 ?

We need to remember that Jesus’s first words (in at least one of the Gospels, IIRC) and first step of his commands is “Repent!”

Yes, he offers unlimited mercy. The mercy of “Go and sin no more.” Mercy requires recognition that there is sin–and then repentance from it.

This becomes for us something difficult to live out when facing a culture that is trying mightily to forget and destroy any concept of sin. It is especially hard for parents, and for the faithful closest to “battleground” issues of our sinful culture that try to convince us to accept and approve of sin.

Yes, we need to meet our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and keep communication with them. But we must also recognize sin and what God truly calls us all to. That is the Gospel–freedom from sin, through Grace! NOT freedom to sin, through "tolerance!"

So the big question is, HOW do we “love the sinner and hate the sin;” how, in this day and age, to you reach the sinner so that you can exercise that Spiritual Work of Mercy: “To admonish the sinner.”

 

[Sy_Noe]

Again, because most of the above has nothing to do with Cardinal Burke’s statement, nothing was said about not welcoming the son. The problem was having him and his homosexual partner in a situation with children who could take such welcoming as condoning behavior.

Sylvia wrote, “This is not just a hypothetical for me and my husband, as we do have a gay son. And years ago we faced this situation without any of the debate speculated upon by those imagining this as a hypothetical moral dilemma. There was never any question as to whether or not we would extend an invitation. Of course we invited them.”

Them.