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

[Lion_IRC]

PRmerger;14056720:

Yeah. That’s why you should be correcting these “traditionalist Catholics”.

I have been doing so.

Accusing your fellow Catholics of immorality and accusing them of solely wanting to satisfy their ego is not “correction”.

 

[irenaeus1]

That’s as helpful as opining all Blackboxes are colored black Irenaeus.
Perhaps we can move beyond the literal and discuss what different people from different times in different languages and cultures are really saying by taking a wider focus than zooming in on a 3 worded phrase?

Just simply commenting on your zoomed-in literal 5 worded phrase.

 

[twf]

The parallel is a poor one.

There is an appropriate one, however.

Just as one greatly impoverishes oneself by recourse to a catechism written for a community over 400 years ago – when one properly benefits from hearing the voice of the Church today speaking to today with the knowledge it has today – one would greatly impoverish oneself reading either the New Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures relying on biblical scholarship of 150 or more year ago, antecedent to the Ecole Biblique, for example.

The Roman Catechism brought together a handful of experts of its day. Of course, a very great deal has happened in theology since those days. And The Catechism of the Catholic Church results from the collaboration of some of the greatest scholars of the era in which it was crafted.

What a joy and delight it was, for example, to spend time in the Holy Land with the benefit of modern archaeology’s insights – rather than relying on the outdated scholarship of ages long past that contained the merest fraction of what can be known today.

I would also add, Father, that the Catechism draws upon Byzantine and Syriac theology and tradition, at least to a small degree…in a way that previous Catechisms available to the Latin Church did not. It is much richer for that.
As a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, I would suggest that reading a 400 year old Catechism without the guidance of the living Magisterium is little different than reading the Bible without the guidance of the living Magisterium…

 

[irenaeus1]

Therfore if we are going to have an intelligent discussion the grist will be objective deeds like killing, adultery, fornication which are not morally biased to begin with.

Such deeds a moral theologian does NOT strictly call “morally wrong.” They are called “disordered” or grave matter. We do not yet have enough information to decide the moral quality of them. The word moral implies some degree of consent or understanding in the agent.

I am not going to relitigate this…if you had taken the time to come up to speed on this thread it’s been explained many times by many persons other than myself here.
You either get it or you don’t sorry.

The number of times and the number of people who have explained it on this thread is irrelevant. Increased frequency with which something is uttered does not make the utterance true. You either get it or you don’t - sorry.

There are some acts which do not require additional information to decide the moral quality of them.

“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain ‘irremediably’ evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person…. Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances or intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.” (CCC 1756)

Therefore, the person’s intention and the circumstances, such as pressure or duress, cannot change a morally evil act, such as murder, blasphemy, or adultery, into a morally good act. We cannot do evil so good will come from it. Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention, nor by circumstances, nor by other acts.

 

[Rau]

This is a dangerous way to phrase this. Someone committing grave sins may not have the eternal guilt of those sins reckoned against them, but they are committing grave offenses in the eyes of God. Grave offenses that somehow** IF** they are saved in spite of those sinful actions, they will still spend much time and suffering in Purgatory for them.

In the real world, as opposed to hypotheticals we write about, it is not possible to know the disposition of another’s soul. So while you might anticipate something based on what you think you know - you really cannot foresee it at all.

 

[JosieN]

In the real world, as opposed to hypotheticals we write about, it is not possible to know the disposition of another’s soul. So while you might anticipate something based on what you think you know - you really cannot foresee it at all.

By believing in Jesus Christ and the teachings of Christianity, as taught in the Catechism of the Church and the Holy Bible souls are saved from the fires of hell. Based on the teachings alone we may not know the disposition of another’s soul but we can certainly use them to guide people in the right direction and warn others of the consequences when they follow the wrong path.

 

[Rau]

…Based on the teachings alone we may not know the disposition of another’s soul but we can certainly use them to guide people in the right direction and warn others of the consequences when they follow the wrong path.

The moral course, the right choices, has nothing to do with whether or not other’s will be held culpable for their choices.

 

[Rau]

Obviously murder, by the very semantic definition is always morally wrong.
But one cannot see murder, one only sees killing.
Therfore if we are going to have an intelligent discussion the grist will be objective deeds like killing, adultery, fornication which are not morally biased to begin with.

Such deeds a moral theologian does NOT strictly call “morally wrong.” They are called “disordered” or grave matter. We do not yet have enough information to decide the moral quality of them. The word moral implies some degree of consent or understanding in the agent.

These are interesting thoughts Blue. I am trying to reconcile them with teachings such as:

“Fornication is intrinsically evil.” “Intrinsically evil acts are always wrong to choose”.

[Note: Choice is key. Insane persons, mentally ill, etc. get excused from the entire discussion. ]

Blue - can you elaborate on what leads you to group “killing” and “fornication” (say) into the same category viz. words without moral content? Maybe also elaborate on why “murder” and “fornication” must be in different categories - ie. the former having moral content, and the latter not.

I’m also wondering whether you see morality as only being adjudicated if culpability is also able to be adjudicated. Or are the two separable?

Is it possible to commit an act of murder, but have reduced or negligible culpability for the act?

 

[JosieN]

The moral course, the right choices, has nothing to do with whether or not other’s will be held culpable for their choices.

Maybe we cannot know about the culpability of other sinners choices, but what about our own choices, are we culpable for our choices? If we are then we must guide others in the right way, because then they also are culpable for their own choices, and they may need help in knowing right from wrong.

My dictionary defines culpability as blameworthy; deserving blame.

 

[Rau]

Maybe we cannot know about the culpability of other sinners’ choices…

Which is all I have said.

 

[JosieN]

Which is all I have said.

We are all blameworthy, sins our own fault unless we are mentally unable to understand what a sin is. If we refuse to acknowledge the existence of sin, we are still culpable, if we deny what we are doing is sinful when it is a sin, we are still culpable. We are to seek and find the answers, then show others the way to Christ and his teachings. Putting on a blindfold does not help anyone.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Just simply commenting on your zoomed-in literal 5 worded phrase.

Hence the suggested politeness that if you come into a TV program half way it is not impolite to feel no obligation to explain everything all over to the newbie.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The number of times and the number of people who have explained it on this thread is irrelevant."

Not when it comes to latecomers and standard protocols for conversation latecomers my friend. See below.
I won’t be engaging further as no good comes of “discussion” with those prudently judged to be unreceiving.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue - can you elaborate on what leads you to group “killing” and “fornication” (say) into the same category viz. words without moral content? .

Well I am probably as much a student as yourself re the fine moral subtleties involved in where this discussion could go Rau. I am more confident about what is likely mistaken than what is correct.

However I have always found it interesting that the Magisterium in recent centuries has always prefered an English translation of the ambiguous words in the Commandments as “Thou shalt not kill” rather than murder. Fornication isnt in the Commandments but I could go with Adultery if you are happy with that.

We also need to keep in mind that in common parlance the English words “evil” and “sin” are also ambiguous words. Among other things they can refer to two completely different categories: “moral evil” or “physical evil”.

For me the English word “murderer” almost always falls into the former.
The word “killer” almost always into the latter.

Though I have had disagreements from some who would not call our soldiers “killers”.
Yet that to me cannot be denied. If you kill people for a living you are a killer - but you may well not be a murderer.

Though I think those US soldiers who push the missile button on Drones simply because a superior tells them they are dealing to non-innocent civilians … are murderers myself.
Thats probably a bit unfair - if they are young and coerced they may well not be culpable, but their superiors I believe would be.
Yes, I have recently been watching Eye in the Sky .

 

[Rau]

We are all blameworthy, sins our own fault unless we are mentally unable to understand what a sin is. If we refuse to acknowledge the existence of sin, we are still culpable, if we deny what we are doing is sinful when it is a sin, we are still culpable. We are to seek and find the answers, then show others the way to Christ and his teachings. Putting on a blindfold does not help anyone.

Josie- I’m not sure why you direct your thoughts here to me.

 

[Rau]

We also need to keep in mind that in common parlance the English words “evil” and “sin” are also ambiguous words. Among other things they can refer to two completely different categories: “moral evil” or “physical evil”.

For me the English word “murder-]er/-]” almost always falls into the former.

Yes.

The word “kill-]er/-]” almost always into the latter.

There is always physical evil in the unnatural death of a person. It’s just that kill/killing is silent on whether the act in question entailed moral evil.

I look forward to any further response you may have to my post #605

 

[JosieN]

Josie- I’m not sure why you direct your thoughts here to me.

Sorry, that was not nice of me. I was just posting my thoughts at the time.

 

[Paganus]

Maybe Cardinal Marx should make a video showing the Church all the positive aspects of homosexual relationships. Then we see exactly what he means.

 

[Rau]

Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich has said that the Church should “say sorry” for mistreatment of homosexuals.

More…

Specifically… "Cardinal Marx recalled that during last year’s meeting of the Synod of Bishops, he had provoked a strong reaction by saying that **a faithful and loving relationship between homosexuals has some of the same positive benefits as a marital relationship. **When he made that remark, the cardinal reported, “some were shocked, but I think it’s normal. You cannot say that a relationship between a man and a man, and they are faithful, that is nothing, that has no worth.”

One wonders how the Cardinal’s remarks might be received were the relationship in question one that is loving and faithful, but without sexual implication. * Would he have compared it to Marriage? Evidently such a relationship would contain positive elements, and arguably less negative elements than a sexual relationship. So, such a relationship can have good elements.

Introduce sexual activity into the relationship. Do some good elements still remain. I think it’s clear that they do, notwithstanding the additional flaw added. Is he suggesting the sexual content itself is not a flaw, but one of the “positives”, one of the items of “worth” - I seriously doubt it! [At most, he observes that one sexual partner is less flawed than many.] And for this reason - the comparison with marriage is a poorly made one.

Thus, I would have thought these ideas, when thought about objectively, would not be controversial. There are few persons whose actions are 100% worthless, 100% evil. The relationship of Bonny and Clyde no doubt had positive elements.

One wonders what implications the Cardinal wishes to draw from his observation.*

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Specifically… "Cardinal Marx recalled that during last year’s meeting of the Synod of Bishops, he had provoked a strong reaction by saying that **a faithful and loving relationship between homosexuals has some of the same positive benefits as a marital relationship. **When he made that remark, the cardinal reported, “some were shocked, but I think it’s normal. You cannot say that a relationship between a man and a man, and they are faithful, that is nothing, that has no worth.”

One wonders how the Cardinal’s remarks might be received were the relationship in question one that is loving and faithful, but without sexual implication. * Would he have compared it to Marriage? Evidently such a relationship would contain positive elements, and arguably less negative elements than a sexual relationship. So, such a relationship can have good elements.

Introduce sexual activity into the relationship. Do some good elements still remain. I think it’s clear that they do, notwithstanding the additional flaw added. Is he suggesting the sexual content itself is not a flaw, but one of the “positives”, one of the items of “worth” - I seriously doubt it!* [At most, he observes that one sexual partner is less flawed than many.] And for this reason - the comparison with marriage is a poorly made one.

Thus, I would have thought these ideas, when thought about objectively, would not be controversial. There are few persons whose actions are 100% worthless, 100% evil. The relationship of Bonny and Clyde no doubt had positive elements.

One wonders what implications the Cardinal wishes to draw from his observation.

Yes I’ve always wondered why the people who say these things don’t publicly endorse other deviances. I’m sure incestuous relationships have love and benifits. Polyamourous ones, even abusive ones.