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

[JimG]

The thing is, the relationship isn’t built on sex, it is built on their love for each other. The sex is a fairly small part of it.

One might say the same thing about an adulterous relationship, or a cohabitation. Sex is but a small part of it, but there is friendship, love, and mutual support. That doesn’t change the fact that the relationship itself is wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The thing is, the relationship isn’t built on sex, it is built on their love for each other. The sex is a fairly small part of it.

For most homosexuals I know this is not true.

 

[tseleehw]

Can you provide the quote which leads you to assume Cardinal Marx contradicts Church Teaching?

And what Church teaching do you believe he contradicts?

This is the exact quote which contradicts church teaching:

It is up to the state “to make regulations for homosexuals so they have equal rights or nearly equal . . . but marriage is another point”, he said. The secular state “has to regulate these partnerships and to bring them into a just position and we as church cannot be against it”.

It contradicts the following Church teaching:

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Why don’t you, as a Catholic, pay some respect to your Cardinals by treating them as innocent until proven guilty and at least research what they actually say.

But no, you prefer to publicly deride him on the basis of heavily cherry picked, incomplete and sensationalized news quotes

And when that doesn’t work you still deride him because “you think…” .

I’m not declaring him guilty. But I will not give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. He lost the benefit of the doubt when he made these troubling statements.

 

[Mark121359]

This is the exact quote which contradicts church teaching:

It is up to the state “to make regulations for homosexuals so they have equal rights or nearly equal . . . but marriage is another point”, he said. The secular state “has to regulate these partnerships and to bring them into a just position and we as church cannot be against it”.

It contradicts the following Church teaching:

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

This cardinal seems to have quite a history of saying controversial statements. He openly promotes Communion for divorced-and-remarried. And at the Synod on the Family, he stated that it was “unrealistic” to ask those living in adultery to refrain from sexual acts prior to being admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. (Huh???) When Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria was asked to respond to this statement, without telling him who said it he responded;* “Who do you think you are…greater than Christ? You cannot name a situation which Christ did not foresee, nor can you tell us that you are wiser than Christ and that you can modify what he has said.” *

Also, in the OP article he said that the Church needs to apologize to gays. I’d like to ask the good cardinal what must the Church apologize to gays for?..for speaking the truth?

Peace, Mark

 

[Blue_Horizon]

For most homosexuals I know this is not true.

What is your objective evidence for such certitude HD?

Do you also hold this is not true of Catholic marriages where we do more objectively know that a majority use contraception…which seems to imply sex is a big deal for them.

The point I am making is not that sex is a big deal for both…I am saying that it is extremely difficult to make the sweeping call you are trying to make.

My own life experience also tells me that most couples in a committed relationship eventually find that sex does become secondary to their mutual affection and care of one another.

Do you actually have any long term gay friends from which to base your judgements on - as opposed to the more vocal outrageous 2nd hand stereotypes we are all familiar with?

We would hardly make sweeping judgements about all heterosexuals based on the antics we see on TV.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The mutual affection perpetuates the relationship, and the relationship perpetuates the intrinsically disordered sex. Evil is at its most dangerous when it is the most completely cloaked in good.

So a dutiful priest who has a l drinking problem that he manages to hide and which in fact effects nobody other than himself and those who knock on the presbytery door of a late Monday night…this man is really dangerous and evil?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

So a dutiful priest who has a l drinking problem that he manages to hide and which in fact effects nobody other than himself and those who knock on the presbytery door of a late Monday night…this man is really dangerous and evil?

The subject matter of this thread is homosexuals and the attempt to value the ‘good’ in their relationship. Feel free to start a new thread on alcoholism and I will gladly contribute.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

One might say the same thing about an adulterous relationship, or a cohabitation. Sex is but a small part of it, but there is friendship, love, and mutual support. That doesn’t change the fact that the relationship itself is wrong.

To me, it’s just common sense that there CAN be some good to a relationship that involves “friendship, love, and mutual support”. That doesn’t in any sense cancel out the bad, sinful aspects of homosexual, adulterous, or merely unchaste relationships.

I think anyone who denies this is the case, but just hammers on how sinful and wrong certain relationships are, really loses credibility.

There are cases of immigrant men who leave their families at home, meeting women in the US, and winding up with two households, one in their home country, one in the US. Of course adultery is a sin, even in such circumstances, but I suspect that simply berating such men and telling them to cease living in sin, wouldn’t do much.

And certainly, if such sinful relationships produce children, a pastoral response is very complicated. And while same-sex relations can’t produce biological children, many in same-sex relationships do wind up becoming “parenting dyads” for children, whether biologically related to one of them or not.

That being said, it does seem that Cardinal Marx’s apparent support of same-sex civil marriage actually might be contrary to the Magisterium. But I’m not sure that the idea that there are positive aspects to homosexual relationships, is itself contradicting Magisterial teaching.

 

[JimG]

To me, it’s just common sense that there CAN be some good to a relationship that involves “friendship, love, and mutual support”. That doesn’t in any sense cancel out the bad, sinful aspects of homosexual, adulterous, or merely unchaste relationships.

I think anyone who denies this is the case, but just hammers on how sinful and wrong certain relationships are, really loses credibility.

There are cases of immigrant men who leave their families at home, meeting women in the US, and winding up with two households, one in their home country, one in the US. Of course adultery is a sin, even in such circumstances, but I suspect that simply berating such men and telling them to cease living in sin, wouldn’t do much.

And certainly, if such sinful relationships produce children, a pastoral response is very complicated. And while same-sex relations can’t produce biological children, many in same-sex relationships do wind up becoming “parenting dyads” for children, whether biologically related to one of them or not.

That being said, it does seem that Cardinal Marx’s apparent support of same-sex civil marriage actually might be contrary to the Magisterium. But I’m not sure that the idea that there are positive aspects to homosexual relationships, is itself contradicting Magisterial teaching.

There can be positive aspects to any kind of personal relationship. But to the extent that the relationship itself is morally questionable–such as homosexual, adulterous, bigamous, cohabitation, such good aspects serve only to deepen the hold on individuals of a morally bad relationship. Of course children are badly affected by the bad relationships of adults.

I remember reading somewhere that those in monastic and religious communities were sometimes warned against the dangers of forming “particular friendships,” since such quasi exclusive BFF type friendships tended to detract from the common mission and could be personally harmful to spiritual formation. I don’t know if that is emphasized any longer or not…

 

[ToeInTheWater]

There can be positive aspects to any kind of personal relationship. But to the extent that the relationship itself is morally questionable–such as homosexual, adulterous, bigamous, cohabitation, such good aspects serve only to deepen the hold on individuals of a morally bad relationship. Of course children are badly affected by the bad relationships of adults.

I agree with this as well. What I have an issue with, are people who denigrate certain relationships as obviously selfish, shallow, based only on lust, etc. I’ve seen many posts where someone posts “my BF/GF doesn’t share my views on pre-martial chastity” and the usual advice is “then leave because they don’t love you, they obviously just want you for sex”. And that’s certainly true in many such cases. But secular society has taught many people that if someone does NOT want to have sex with you, they must not truly love you. To the point that many women assume a man who doesn’t want sex, have a high chance of being gay.

I remember reading somewhere that those in monastic and religious communities were sometimes warned against the dangers of forming “particular friendships,” since such quasi exclusive BFF type friendships tended to detract from the common mission and could be personally harmful to spiritual formation. I don’t know if that is emphasized any longer or not…

Well, I’ve also heard that “particular friendship” is just an euphemism for “same sex affair” and that those rules were meant to actually guard against monks and nuns falling to temptation to have such affairs. I can’t cite any sources right now, though. Possibly people who assume that are merely showing their own skewed thinking that the only emotionally intimate relationships are sexual ones.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There can be positive aspects to any kind of personal relationship. But to the extent that the relationship itself is morally questionable–such as homosexual, adulterous, bigamous, cohabitation, such good aspects serve only to deepen the hold on individuals of a morally bad relationship. Of course children are badly affected by the bad relationships of adults.

I remember reading somewhere that those in monastic and religious communities were sometimes warned against the dangers of forming “particular friendships,” since such quasi exclusive BFF type friendships tended to detract from the common mission and could be personally harmful to spiritual formation. I don’t know if that is emphasized any longer or not…

Yes. Everything that is said in defense of how “healthy” homosexual relationships are could also be said of incestuous ones.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The subject matter of this thread is homosexuals and the attempt to value the ‘good’ in their relationship.

In other words you are unable to justify the universal moral applicability of the somewhat heavy, unproven platitude served on us .

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The mutual affection perpetuates the relationship, and the relationship perpetuates the intrinsically disordered sex. Evil is at its most dangerous when it is the most completely cloaked in good.

Do you have any concrete theological documents that support such a viewpoint?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

In other words you are unable to justify the universal moral applicability of the somewhat heavy, unproven platitude served on us .

In other words, I recognise trolling.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Do you have any concrete theological documents that support such a viewpoint?

That’s a bit like asking if I have any concrete theological documents that support the notion that if I drop a ball off a building it will fall to the ground. It’s something in the category of common sense, not revealed Faith.

But I can certainly quote a number of passages from the Old and New Testaments that give the inspired word of God’s attitude towards homosexuals. It is somewhat different to valuing the good in their relationship.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I guess the pope just echoed the cardinal.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I guess the pope just echoed the cardinal.

Yes. Know the feeling of being on a roller coaster where the section of track just beyond the highest point has been removed?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

German clergymen instigated the Photian schism, a German clergyman triggered the Great Schism, a German clergyman started the Protest Revolt… Now, German clergymen are for adulterous and homosexual relationships. See the pattern?

I find this to be a horrible statement. It is an attack upon His Eminence, which is already bad enough.

As a priest, I have known Cardinal Marx for years. He is an outstanding ecclesiastic who, I have every confidence, will make many and valuable contributions to the Church in Germany, in Europe, and beyond given the great breadth and depth of knowledge, his wisdom – and the great confidence that the Holy Father has in Cardinal Marx, and for good reason.

Beyond that, this statement is utterly defamatory against Germany and against Germans in the face of the incredible contributions to the global Church that have been made by Germany and by her saints, her clergy, her laity, and their incredible generosity.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

That’s a bit like asking if I have any concrete theological documents that support the notion that if I drop a ball off a building it will fall to the ground. It’s something in the category of common sense, not revealed Faith.

But I can certainly quote a number of passages from the Old and New Testaments that give the inspired word of God’s attitude towards homosexuals. It is somewhat different to valuing the good in their relationship.

I’ve seen all sorts of things claimed as common sense that are neither common nor sense so forgive my dubiousness.

Yes, I’m sure you can come up with all sorts of Bible quotes about the immortality of gay sex, but that isn’t what I was asking about.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m not declaring him guilty. But I will not give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. He lost the benefit of the doubt when he made these troubling statements.

This is a statement that is frankly unimaginable.

It is not your place at all – or that of anyone other than the Holy Father himself – to presume to judge a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church.

Cardinal Marx is an outstanding, gifted, as well as a very remarkable ecclesiastic. I hold the greatest esteem – personally, as well as for his work in so many areas…as a bishop of his own diocese, his leadership in the conferences of bishops on the continent, his theological insights and his close collaboration with the Holy Father.

The Church is greatly blessed to have leaders such as we have in the present moment and we give thanks to God for them.

I would hope that the officials of Catholic Answers would not allow personal attacks against His Eminence to continue in this fashion.