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

[RGCheek]

No it is not.Things are not that black and white, my father died of alcoholism so I have some insight on that subject.

It is a choice that is made in small steps, by making a whole bunch of bad choices that have the net effect involved.

Alcoholism runs in my family and when I go out and drink with friends the way I overly enjoy it is a reminder to me that I am sitting on the edge and staring into the abyss of alcoholism. That helps me to reign in my predisposition to drink even more, usually. While I don’t have the choice about wanting to get drunk and take another step toward alcoholism, but I do have the choice to say no to it and not feed that weakness. Some never learn to say no and many of them never learn it because they are told that they have no choice about it.

That is the good that remembering that we have a choice, because we do. Those who think sin is not a choice damn us to being the slaves of our genetics and the church has rejected that a long time ago.

 

[RGCheek]

If there is a child at the table there who is terrified of his/her same sex attraction and looking to see how the parents handle the situation, what would we want him/her to see?

They should be terrified of that attraction because it will lead them astray.

By rejecting it and despising the predisposition they can defeat the urge to do what is not natural.

 

[RGCheek]

When it comes to bringing friends to dinner, the problem of giving bad example to children never arises. There’s usually nothing wrong with bringing a friend to dinner. The problems arise when one brings lovers to dinner, of either sex, since that implies the existence of an illicit sexual relationship.

I suppose it gives a new urgency to the phrase “why can’t we just be friends?”

 

[RGCheek]

I tend to think being an alcoholic or becoming one isn’t a choice.

It is a choice, and realizing that it is a choice helps one to say no to it.

Alcoholics Anonymous teaches its members that they have become alcoholics and that the urge to drink for the is not like the choice to drink for normal people.

After y9ou become an alcoholic, no, it is no longer a choice. You cant unbreak a thing.

But prior to becoming an alcoholic yes, you have the choice.

 

[frobert]

Frankly, the whole issue is not about acceptance or condoning, but exposure to children. The argument may be different if they were not present.

Many parents believe seeing two men as a couple at dinner confuses children. I support their right to enforce their rules. I don’t see anyone telling the people who don’t have a problem exposing children to it to justify why they parent the way they do.

Again, why not address the other side of the coin? There are two responsible parties here.

Jonh,

It is not about exposing children it is about how it is handled. If handled appropriate to age and understanding there is no confusion. Children are likely to be more confused when you deny alienate family members and when you deny them from playing with his/her best friend because the friend has two mommies or daddies. Denying what is will ultimately lead to unintended consequences. I have several nicest and nephews and my spouse has many also there has never been any question of misleading or misinformation in both our extended families. We have been welcome in each others extended milti-generational families as valuable contributing members of both our families. Please note nowhere am I saying that you should condone what you believe is a sin.

 

[SylviaD]

A son living a gay lifestyle is by definition, living outside a Catholic family and the Church. Not that they have been shunned, but that they are not living according to the family or Church’s precepts. An adult is free to make that decision with regards to a family; not with the Church.

And of course it is the height of rudeness and selfishness to be inconsiderate of the position you put others in, especially the family. It isn’t as though this person is ignorant of how the family operates or believes. They have just as much responsibility (if not more, as they are one living a wholly unsafe lifestyles spiritually in this example).

I can’t imagine a son who truly loved his mother as Christ did putting her in a terrible situation, as in this scenario.

So we can disagree on the proper family response, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone could not agree that these things involve serious responsibility on both parties, and that the whole thing could be avoided with a little courtesy and love for the family upfront. As a son, that is what I’d do.

My son never put me in a “terrible situation.” In fact, it was only after reading this article that I recalled that moment and reflected upon the fact that in our family it did not elicit the moral crisis that Cardinal Burke seems to suggest it should. We never even considered withholding an invitation to join us in our family Christmas celebration.

Contrary to the picture you paint, my son has never been anything but respectful and has never been insistent about anyone accepting him in any stage of this relationship. And in fact, knowing my son, I’m sure that he would have been hesitant and asked how everyone felt about him bringing his future significant other and made sure they were comfortable, had his brothers and sisters given him the opportunity. Instead they joined forces to preempt any such questions and reassured their brother that they were not only eager to meet this man, but insistent upon it and were zealous in their efforts to make him feel welcome in our home.

I am sure at this point that some reading this post will be rolling their eyes and ready to chastise me for saying so, but I’ve never been more proud of my children or pleased with the way we raised them. We are a family and will always rally in support of one another, despite any criticism leveled at us. When you learn that someone you love is gay, it does change your perspective. Many people immediately dismiss our point of view as being blinded by the love we have for our son, and so be it. I don’t ask that anyone agree with me or approve of our acceptance of our son. Frankly I’m not sure where I would be with this issue without the personal experience. I will set the record straight however, when someone tries to portray my son as “rude,” “selfish,” “inconsiderate,” “discourteous” and “un-loving” of his family because nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Eternal_One]

I have no problem at all welcoming sinners of any kind into my house, whether theyre repentant or not. However, I would expect them not to bring their lifestyle along. If I invited my quirky nudist cousin to Christmas dinner, I’d expect him to be clothed while attending, not naked.

 

[Dawnia]

I have no problem at all welcoming sinners of any kind into my house, whether theyre repentant or not. However, I would expect them not to bring their lifestyle along. If I invited my quirky nudist cousin to Christmas dinner, I’d expect him to be clothed while attending, not naked.

Living in the frozen north, that is never a problem at Christmas.

 

[SylviaD]

I have no problem at all welcoming sinners of any kind into my house, whether theyre repentant or not. However, I would expect them not to bring their lifestyle along. If I invited my quirky nudist cousin to Christmas dinner, I’d expect him to be clothed while attending, not naked.

I have a strict no nudity policy at my dinner table as well.

 

[harlen]

My son never put me in a “terrible situation.” In fact, it was only after reading this article that I recalled that moment and reflected upon the fact that in our family it did not elicit the moral crisis that Cardinal Burke seems to suggest it should. We never even considered withholding an invitation to join us in our family Christmas celebration.

Contrary to the picture you paint, my son has never been anything but respectful and has never been insistent about anyone accepting him in any stage of this relationship. And in fact, knowing my son, I’m sure that he would have been hesitant and asked how everyone felt about him bringing his future significant other and made sure they were comfortable, had his brothers and sisters given him the opportunity. Instead they joined forces to preempt any such questions and reassured their brother that they were not only eager to meet this man, but insistent upon it and were zealous in their efforts to make him feel welcome in our home.

I am sure at this point that some reading this post will be rolling their eyes and ready to chastise me for saying so, but I’ve never been more proud of my children or pleased with the way we raised them. We are a family and will always rally in support of one another, despite any criticism leveled at us. When you learn that someone you love is gay, it does change your perspective. Many people immediately dismiss our point of view as being blinded by the love we have for our son, and so be it. I don’t ask that anyone agree with me or approve of our acceptance of our son. Frankly I’m not sure where I would be with this issue without the personal experience. I will set the record straight however, when someone tries to portray my son as “rude,” “selfish,” “inconsiderate,” “discourteous” and “un-loving” of his family because nothing could be further from the truth.

Thank you for this post…which I found very moving.
I used to be a rigourist, but my experience of divorce in my own family was my Road -to-Damascus.
Four divorces in my family, but love was maintained (apart from one sister who was bitter, only for a while, about her ex. getting an annulment!). Paradoxically “the sanctity of our family” was maintained by accepting without judgement many falls. It could have been shattered by rigid proclamations of principles.
It is possible to know all “about God”… & yet not know God at all.
I am not decrying the use of reason (sometimes it is the best we have) but when Aquinas has his mystical experience he delcared “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.”
It may be some of the best straw we have, but God is so much (vastly more) than anything our reason can produce. (As Aquinas realised)
And He is Love, and that is the path to him. I don’t think you should be perturbed by those who fret over your children seeing loving acceptance of those who deviate from “principles”. Your children will see Love as your primary motivation.
There are many whe are solemnly eager to condemn others according to their “categorisations” when they are on the safe side of all the categorisations, as I once was.
They have a sense of “safety”, security and order. This is the pyschological territory of fundamentalism. But God can propel us into unsafe zones where our sense of Love conflicts with “The Law” . Which you choose then is your God.
God does not judge us by “categories” but only by “Did you feed me…and the least of my brethren”

 

[pnewton]

No it is not.Things are not that black and white, my father died of alcoholism so I have some insight on that subject.

That is an opinion, not a fact. In any case, acting on temptation is a choice, albeit one in which culpability may be mitigated. In the case above, having a gay lover is a definite choice, and an immoral one.

 

[pnewton]

I am curious. Those that would allow the son to come over. Would you let a heterosexual son come over if he was stepping out with his mistress and leaving his wife at home, unconditional love and all.

 

[Burdock]

That is an opinion, not a fact. In any case, acting on temptation is a choice, albeit one in which culpability may be mitigated. In the case above, having a gay lover is a definite choice, and an immoral one.

I do not believe people actually choose to be gay. Things are not that simple, my stepbrother is gay and he knew that he felt that way before he was a teenager.

 

[phil19034]

I do not believe people actually choose to be gay. Things are not that simple, my stepbrother is gay and he knew that he felt that way before he was a teenager.

While you don’t chose to be gay, you do choose to act on your attractions.

Just like a married person chooses to cheat on their spouse when attracted to someone else.

Just like single people choose to fornicate.

All are mortal sins.

Who we are attracted to isn’t sinful, it’s what we do with those attractions that can be sinful.

 

[pnewton]

I do not believe people actually choose to be gay. Things are not that simple, my stepbrother is gay and he knew that he felt that way before he was a teenager.

When I said it was an opinion, I did not mean it was a bad opinion. I agree with you, sort of, that some people have an attraction toward people of the same sex, perhaps by genetics, perhaps by environment, or perhaps some combination of the two. This attraction is not a fault. Likewise, some people are prone to promiscuity, or perhaps prone to violent anger. Most of us have some sins we attracted to. Sometimes the attraction is intense. We are culpable only for our actions, and even then that culpability might be diminished by the lessening of our will. This is why we cannot judge others. The Church does not judge others. She only deems what actions and thoughts are objectively sinful. No temptation is sinful.

 

[OraLabora]

All are mortal sins.

This always drives me a bit crazy, but in reality all are grave sins. Culpability makes it mortal of the other two remaining conditions are met: full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

It’s not inconceivable for instance, that for someone poorly catechized, that full knowledge is lacking, and that for some addictive temptations or under certain conditions, full consent of the will is not present, thus making the culpability non-mortal.

This is something none of us are qualified to determine; it’s between penitent and confessor. The issue is that the gravity of the sin is objective, but knowledge and consent of the will are rather subjective and thus only a trained confessor is positioned to make that determination.

 

[signit]

I am curious. Those that would allow the son to come over. Would you let a heterosexual son come over if he was stepping out with his mistress and leaving his wife at home, unconditional love and all.

As one who would probably let the son come over:

I would probably not allow the married heterosexual son to visit, especially not with the mistress.

This is something which in my view is quite a bit worse; breaking marriage vows, and I would not want to be a party to that. This is worse than two men living together or an unmarried male-female couple living together according to their morality which is not my morality (which, as I said, if I did allow, I’d be sure to explain to the younger guests). This is wrong on another level.

 

[Arandur]

I do not believe people actually choose to be gay. Things are not that simple, my stepbrother is gay and he knew that he felt that way before he was a teenager.

Usually not deliberately (though one has to wonder about the degree of choice in cases of those who identify as bisexual, or long-married people who then “come out”).

But what I have heard for years from a variety of psychiatrists and such is that sexual issues (and gender issues) almost always can be traced pretty strongly to environmental issues–usually relationships with parents and family. We know that abuse certainly increases prevalence of sexual disorders.

More specifically, in the case of same sex attraction, one of the strongest and most common links is a lack of a loving father figure–either an absent father, an emotionally-distant one, or abuse one, etc. That rarely was there a good, solid, positive relationship through childhood with both parents (and particularly the father).

This speaks to the damage of sin and the importance of love and a loving family–particularly traditional marriage, where there is a permanent commitment and biological parents are tied to their children (which statistically, sociologically and psychologically, has strongly been shown to be the safest and best environment for children in all possible ways).

It is also more evidence about how destructive it has been to have a fatherless society. Fatherlessness (or poor relationships with fathers) leads to so many ills. Most people know that it dramatically introduces incidence of crime; poverty – especially for women and children, but also long-term poverty throughout the lives of the children; and even atheism. I find the last one pretty indicative, too. Without a good father figure, your image of and relationship with authority is broken, your view of relationships is harmed, your whole worldview is broken. Atheism has been linked strongly with that–and can be said to be a mental disorder. It is often a deficiency arising from developmental lack or trauma.

 

[frobert]

Usually not deliberately (though one has to wonder about the degree of choice in cases of those who identify as bisexual, or long-married people who then “come out”).

But what I have heard for years from a variety of psychiatrists and such is that sexual issues (and gender issues) almost always can be traced pretty strongly to environmental issues–usually relationships with parents and family. We know that abuse certainly increases prevalence of sexual disorders.

More specifically, in the case of same sex attraction, one of the strongest and most common links is a lack of a loving father figure–either an absent father, an emotionally-distant one, or abuse one, etc. That rarely was there a good, solid, positive relationship through childhood with both parents (and particularly the father).

This speaks to the damage of sin and the importance of love and a loving family–particularly traditional marriage, where there is a permanent commitment and biological parents are tied to their children (which statistically, sociologically and psychologically, has strongly been shown to be the safest and best environment for children in all possible ways).

It is also more evidence about how destructive it has been to have a fatherless society. Fatherlessness (or poor relationships with fathers) leads to so many ills. Most people know that it dramatically introduces incidence of crime; poverty – especially for women and children, but also long-term poverty throughout the lives of the children; and even atheism. I find the last one pretty indicative, too. Without a good father figure, your image of and relationship with authority is broken, your view of relationships is harmed, your whole worldview is broken. Atheism has been linked strongly with that–and can be said to be a mental disorder. It is often a deficiency arising from developmental lack or trauma.

I am glad you qualified your statements with “I have heard for years.”

If you examine the actual studies you will find that while the percentage of gays under treatment may fit your criteria you will also find a high percentage of heterosexuals in treatment that also fit your criteria. That the percentage is higher for gays than for heterosexuals is easily explained by the many forms of homosexuality which fit in with your remarks about a fatherless society. If you are interested in this aspect of homosexuality may I suggest a classic referrence - “Homosexuality and Pseudohomosexuality” by Lionel Ovesey.

 

[ProVobis]

This always drives me a bit crazy, but in reality all are grave sins. Culpability makes it mortal of the other two remaining conditions are met: full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

It’s not inconceivable for instance, that for someone poorly catechized, that full knowledge is lacking, and that for some addictive temptations or under certain conditions, full consent of the will is not present, thus making the culpability non-mortal.

This is something none of us are qualified to determine; it’s between penitent and confessor. The issue is that the gravity of the sin is objective, but knowledge and consent of the will are rather subjective and thus only a trained confessor is positioned to make that determination.

Ora, this is true, but OTOH the Church still pushes for frequent communion, and it only seems natural for many to rationalize their sins to a less grave status in order to “please” the Church, the ministers of communion, and perhaps even themselves.