Cardinal Marx: Church should see positive aspects of homosexual relationships [CWN]

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No. If people choose to keep making rude, condescending insults to others on these boards, they should be prepared for someone to call them out on it. That was at least her fourth or fifth snide and nasty insult made in just the last few pages. She even insulted another poster’s parents earlier.

Don’t expect others to quietly accept nastiness and insults.

I agree with you. There was nothing to back off from and BH is more than capable of mounting thier own defense. However, there are mods. I do think the tone of some posters can be off putting. I’m sure many think that of me. I rarely agree with BH and I have found some of the posts to be quite condescending. However, BH has never gotten into it with me. You can report troublesome posts to the mods. Sometimes I’ve had the mods not see it my way and that is what the “ignore” button is for. My ignore list is not too long but it seems any who I segregate there seem to eventually not be part of CAF any longer. Some do though.

 

[JosieN]

I will leave others to cite the relevant sentence which is well known to all who have read it Josie. You are clearly closed on this matter and your questions merely rhetorical. It will make no difference to your view when you discover Pope Francis disagrees with you.

Here is a quote from the Bible that I feel is important to remember, I realize we are all sinners, and we must have compassion for sinners, but you cannot live according to the desires of the flesh, one must repent and be forgiven to obtain grace.

Romans Chapter 8 verses 12-13

“Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

This is the message of Jesus Christs followers. This is what they preached. If ignorance can leave a person free from sin, then why did the apostles need to preach their message to the world? Their message was to believe in Jesus Christ, repent, and be baptized, then you will receive the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. Why did they need to preach this if sinners are not responsible for their sins? The apostles went out to educate the sinners, so they could repent of them, this is the way to salvation. It is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we are saved. There is no other way.

I believe this means you cannot continue to live according to the flesh and continue to sin with the body, if you do your spirit will die (meaning loss of grace from God), one must put to death the sinful deeds of the body for the spirit to live (meaning being in a state of grace). So I do not see how one can be in the state of grace living the life of a prostitute or a homosexual in a life long relationship, because that keeps them in sin, and not in a state of grace.

This is my opinion, I am basing it on Bible teachings, I do not know where the passage in AL is that pope Francis disagrees with me. I have not read AL, so if you or anyone knows where it is, I would like to hear what he says. I am open for discussion and a better understanding of AL.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Please give the citation for this claim of yours.

If we have committed sinful actions that are, because of missing either full knowledge or willful intent, not either mortally or venially sinful, we must still be purged of our attachment to those sins.

Even for the serious drug addict, they LIKE and are attached to the sensation of being high. Or else they wouldn’t do it. So their attachment to such must be purged before entering Heaven.

I have cited Catholic teaching that purgatory purifies us of temporal effects of our sins AND our attachment to sins. Where is your citation that this attachment needs no purging?

If there is no sin there is no attachment and no purification required for the particular offence in question. Your assumption is that all offences are actual sins.
This is the ongoing error in this thread some of us are attempting to clarify.

Let me repeat that.
Not all wrongs are sins.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So using your standard, then it is imperative that at some point the Church and those in the Church must inform active homosexuals that they must stop committing the grievous sins of sodomy and homosexual acts. And not telling them such would be wrong.

Restraint of wrong doers is the responsibility of the temporal authority not the Church - unless you believe in Sharia or the secular imposition of Canon Law.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, for the latter that went out at the close of medieval times.

Do you feel an equal obligation to do so with every heavy drinker you meet - a good number of which are Catholic priests? Of course we don’t.
Which suggests such exaggerated concerns are culturally conditioned more than commands of Christ.

I’ll not be continuing to discuss these matters with you ZZ as the requisite equanimity and openess needed to have a profitable dialogue I prudently judge to be missing at present.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Does God want people to remain in a state of committing grave matter? Yes or no answer please.

Jesus has already provided the answer:

First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

In other words when we cut the root of sin in our hearts right actions shall eventually follow.
The Pharisees wrongly believed the reverse.

 

[JosieN]

Jesus has already provided the answer:

In other words when we cut the root of sin in our hearts right actions shall eventually follow.
The Pharisees wrongly believed the reverse.

It would be very helpful, if when you refer to a Bible quote, that you provide the Chapter and verse. You have made a reference to this quote in previous posts also. I would like to know where to find it so I can read the complete paragraph to get a better understanding of what Jesus was talking about and to know more about the people he was talking to. Sometimes one line does not give a clear enough picture of the meaning to those of us who may not be familiar with it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think alot of people would simply like to know, exactly what Cardinal Marx believes about homosexuality.

It’s fairly clear he accepts homosexuality as a condition is no more offensive to God than being born with purple hair.

It is fairly clear he accepts that homosexual acts are seriously disordered, as is getting drunk on a sat night.

It is also fairly clear he accepts that homosexual relationships can still be recognised as places of growth and grace despite the above, esp if other abiding Christian values are present. Just like some of those in irregular marriages.

It is also fairly clear that he accepts the right of the State to create legislation giving some rights to those relationships provided it is not called marriage and does not have all the rights of marriage. Aquinas and the theolgians since had no problem with the state legislating law inimical to some Christian values if it could be prudentialy judged this was necessary to preserve the common good of a society with significant numbers of immature or otherwise unconforming members.

I believe the confusion is due to the less than robust theology of his detractors which is unable to reconcile these points as all perfectly valid Catholic principles.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would be very helpful, if when you refer to a Bible quote, that you provide the Chapter and verse. You have made a reference to this quote in previous posts also. I would like to know where to find it so I can read the complete paragraph to get a better understanding of what Jesus was talking about and to know more about the people he was talking to. Sometimes one line does not give a clear enough picture of the meaning to those of us who may not be familiar with it.

Biblehub is your friend. Just Google and follow your nose .

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It would be very helpful, if when you refer to a Bible quote, that you provide the Chapter and verse. You have made a reference to this quote in previous posts also. I would like to know where to find it so I can read the complete paragraph to get a better understanding of what Jesus was talking about and to know more about the people he was talking to. Sometimes one line does not give a clear enough picture of the meaning to those of us who may not be familiar with it.

Mt. 23:26

I will add that the word Pharisee has become the worst name anyone can be called. Funny, Jesus corrected many and had harsh words for many, and called many to change. But apparently the only ones who have to change are those who like rules… Who seek to follow God’s direction. For these we reserve the most vile of terms. Not sodomite, not adulterer, not murderer but rather “Pharisee”. The ultimate insult! And indeed the inhabitors of hades.

 

[JosieN]

It’s fairly clear he accepts homosexuality as a condition is no more offensive to God than being born with purple hair.

It is fairly clear he accepts that homosexual acts are seriously disordered, as is getting drunk on a sat night.

It is also fairly clear he accepts that homosexual relationships can still be recognised as places of growth and grace despite the above, esp if other abiding Christian values are present. Just like some of those in irregular marriages.

It is also fairly clear that he accepts the right of the State to create legislation giving some rights to those relationships provided it is not called marriage and does not have all the rights of marriage. Aquinas and the theolgians since had no problem with the state legislating law inimical to some Christian values if it could be prudentialy judged this was necessary to preserve the common good of a society with significant numbers of immature or otherwise unconforming members.

I believe the confusion is due to the less than robust theology of his detractors which is unable to reconcile these points as all perfectly valid Catholic principles.

The confusion is how and when did these points become Catholic principles? I think many of us were not aware they were valid Catholic principles until now.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Mt. 23:26
Funny, Jesus corrected many and had harsh words for many… [but] not sodomite, not adulterer, not murderer but rather “Pharisee”.:

This actually is just what Jesus did HD.
He indeed called many to change but his harshest words were not aimed at Sodomites, prostitutes, murderers, tax collectors, lepers, heretics, remarried. They were indeed aimed at the outward rule keepers, Pharisees. And not just Pharisees but law teachers and their Scribes as well.

So I belive you are quite correct and it isn’t really “funny” at all.
That’s what Jesus did.

 

[Seamus_L]

So far, the most critical comment from Cardinal Marx on the subject of homosexuality, that I’ve been able to find, is that he could not officially bless a union between two people of the same sex, but that he would pray for their relationship if asked.

 

[tseleehw]

The confusion is how and when did these points become Catholic principles? I think many of us were not aware they were valid Catholic principles until now.

Yes, I agree with this. I do not see any way that being in a homosexual relationship (assuming sexual acts are taking place) can be a state of grace, except perhaps through invincible ignorance, which I’m not really buying as a possibility, especially if such a couple is in regular communication with a priest about their situation. His point about legal recognition of homosexual unions is particular problematic and in my opinion is directly opposed to Church teaching on this subject. I agree with Seamus L’s post above that it is definitely not clear what Cardinal Marx’s beliefs on homosexuality actually are. As such, and in the absence of any clarification of his remarks, we are left to mere speculation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The confusion is how and when did these points become Catholic principles? I think many of us were not aware they were valid Catholic principles until now.

Which is why untrained lay people need to be a little more humble about their limitations when attempting to publicly disagree with their respected leaders who clearly work from these, for them, we’ll known principles. Not everything can be found in a Catechism…as is the case with a French English dictionary when in France .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, I agree with this. I do not see any way that being in a homosexual relationship (assuming sexual acts are taking place) can be a state of grace, except perhaps through invincible ignorance, which I’m not really buying as a possibility, especially if such a couple is in regular communication with a priest about their situation. His point about legal recognition of homosexual unions is particular problematic and in my opinion is directly opposed to Church teaching on this subject. I agree with Seamus L’s post above that it is definitely not clear what Cardinal Marx’s beliefs on homosexuality actually are. As such, and in the absence of any clarification of his remarks, we are left to mere speculation.

It doesn’t matter if you personally do not “buy it.”
The church in its pastoral practise and Confessional guidelines to confessors clearly does “buy it.”
And not only on grounds of impaired understanding but also due to conditions of weakened consent.
Just check the CCC in the discussion on masturbation.
Not strangely Pope Francis quoted that article in AL.

 

[JosieN]

Mt. 23:26

I will add that the word Pharisee has become the worst name anyone can be called. Funny, Jesus corrected many and had harsh words for many, and called many to change. But apparently the only ones who have to change are those who like rules… Who seek to follow God’s direction. For these we reserve the most vile of terms. Not sodomite, not adulterer, not murderer but rather “Pharisee”. The ultimate insult! And indeed the inhabitors of hades.

Mathew Chapter 23 verse 25

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.”

I referred to my Bibles footnotes for a better understanding. Here is what it said. “The scribes and Pharisees are compared to cups carefully washed on the outside but filthy within. Self-indulgence: the Greek word here translated means lack of self control, whether in drinking or sexual conduct.”

I think it means the Pharisees are living lives that lack self-control, while pretending on the outside that they are holy and good. To clean the inside of the cup, they must get rid of the filth, by living good clean lives (lives free from sin), and not lives of self-indulgence. I am open for discussion if anyone disagrees.

I used a Saint Joseph Edition of The New American Bible,( an after Vatican II Bible), it has a letter from Pope Paul VI in it dated September 18th, 1970.

 

[tseleehw]

It doesn’t matter if you personally do not “buy it.”
The church in its pastoral practise and Confessional guidelines to confessors clearly does “buy it.”

I am not arguing against the concept of invincible ignorance in general, I am just not convinced that someone living in this day and age is not culpable for being in a homosexual relationship, or not knowing of the church’s teaching, except in the most extreme of circumstances. Perhaps such a situation is possible. But I would argue that such a situation is exceedingly rare and hardly worth arguing and mincing words over. I admit that I have no concrete proof of this, but I have never met someone who wasn’t at least aware of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, even if they didn’t agree with it. Is there some sort of hypothetical or real-world example of this?

I guess the overarching question is, do other bishops and Cardinals agree with Cardinal Marx’s sentiments here? I respect his position, but he is only one bishop of the Church. I would be curious if the majority of other bishops and Cardinals agree with these perspectives.

 

[graciew]

I agree with you. There was nothing to back off from and BH is more than capable of mounting thier own defense. However, there are mods. I do think the tone of some posters can be off putting. I’m sure many think that of me. I rarely agree with BH and I have found some of the posts to be quite condescending. However, BH has never gotten into it with me. You can report troublesome posts to the mods. Sometimes I’ve had the mods not see it my way and that is what the “ignore” button is for. My ignore list is not too long but it seems any who I segregate there seem to eventually not be part of CAF any longer. Some do though.

Here is the crux.

Do not get in and also do not let anybody in. Just standing across the door counting penalties on the black book taking points off…

We want to learn.And listen.
Is that so diffficult to get?

 

[OraLabora]

I am not arguing against the concept of invincible ignorance in general, I am just not convinced that someone living in this day and age is not culpable for being in a homosexual relationship, or not knowing of the church’s teaching, except in the most extreme of circumstances. Perhaps such a situation is possible. But I would argue that such a situation is exceedingly rare and hardly worth arguing and mincing words over. I admit that I have no concrete proof of this, but I have never met someone who wasn’t at least aware of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, even if they didn’t agree with it. Is there some sort of hypothetical or real-world example of this?

I guess the overarching question is, do other bishops and Cardinals agree with Cardinal Marx’s sentiments here? I respect his position, but he is only one bishop of the Church. I would be curious if the majority of other bishops and Cardinals agree with these perspectives.

You’re missing the third element of mortal sin: full consent of the will. To a large extent that depends on the degree to which we are enslaved to our passions, whether they be sex, alcohol, or drugs. It is perhaps possible to be invincibly ignorant if outside the Church, but within it I agree that it would be a pretty rare person indeed who isn’t well aware of Church teaching on homosexuality. A poorly formed conscience may disagree of course but that’s another issue.

However enslavement to passions is something every penitent is at risk of developing, and any confessor will take this into consideration. As CS Lewis once said more or less along these lines: God gives far more credit to a sex addict giving up sex one single time than to a person who never experienced that passion and never fell into that sin. Of course we all have our passions or blind spots, you could call me a potatochipaholic, but at least it isn’t grave matter (yet). But for someone who is deeply attached to grave sin, all I can say is “there but for the grace of God go I”. I’ve never experienced same-sex attraction, so I can’t win any points for not falling into that sin. But I do know how devilishly difficult it is to avoid potato chips (and the impact on my weight!), and I’ll never condemn a homosexual for experiencing the same level of attachment to his or her sin even if it is grave matter.

It really is a matter for them to work out first in their conscience, and then if they feel a spark drawing them into the Church, with their confessor. My experience with addiction, and my physician wife would corroborate this, is that before someone seeks help they have to hit rock bottom. You can’t exhort an alcoholic to give up the drink and it’s the same with disordered addiction to sex.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here is the crux.

Do not get in and also do not let anybody in. Just standing across the door counting penalties on the black book taking points off…

We want to learn.And listen.
Is that so diffficult to get?

I guess it depends on what you are learning.

There is much condemnation and judgement for those who wish to follow the rules. Rules of God.

If a homosexual posts about how they feel outside of the church and don’t understand why the church is against sodomy. We are quick to preach mercy. To point to how the CCC says we should not discriminate. We are slow, perhaps even reluctant to provide the truth to them. We almost bury it and dismiss it as part of old documents from old times from old people. We are ashamed of our Lord’s wish for a holy people. We fear being labeled mean more than we fear for souls.

Now, should someone post about rules, about right and wrong, about commands and following them we scream “Pharisee!” And we talk down to them, we treat them without the very mercy we claim to have.

Imagine if the way people have talked to those they call “Pharisee” was the same way we talked to homosexuals, or any sinner. We would be kicked off the boards.

Until the time we treat each person with the same respect and preach the truth fairly to each WE are the hypocrites and we are not preaching the gospel.

People die and people have died for the gospel. But it would seem our anger, our contempt and our willingness to chastise only pertains to those who wish the commands be heeded and the teachings proclaimed.

It’s a joke. A sad, sad joke of our modern thought process.