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

[Havard]

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.

Nowhere in that post do I see that the person you quoted say anything about the Cardinal except in disagreement with the substance of his argument. By definition, a personal attack occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Nowhere in that post do I see that the person you quoted say anything about the Cardinal except in disagreement with the substance of his argument. By definition, a personal attack occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.

I am glad you asked. I am more than happy to explain.

I responded to the post which said:
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.
The “him” here referred to is the person of His Eminence, Reinhard Cardinal Marx, President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Member of the Council of Cardinals advising Pope Francis on those issues confided to the Council of Nine. His Eminence is also the Archbishop of Munich and Freising.

First it is an established norm that the only one who can pass judgement on a Cardinal is the Holy Father himself.

From the Code of Canon Law:
*Can. 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1401:

1/ those who hold the highest civil office of a state;

2/ cardinals;

3/ legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops;

4/ other cases which he has called to his own judgment.*
It is not enough to say “I’m not declaring him guilty” – that would be presumption in the extreme for any lay person or even cleric – but simply to say “I do not give him the benefit of the doubt” is in fact to speak in a way a Catholic cannot on the issue of judging not just a Cardinal, but a specifically named Cardinal, or his statements in a published forum that the bishops of the diocese/region have conceded the privilege of using the title “Catholic” as part of their proper name.

Beyond all of this, and the prerogatives of the Cardinal, also codified in special law related to the College, I am also going by what is stated in the rules of the Catholic Answers Forum:
*Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

/…/

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782&page=3*
The comment of saying HE (meaning His Eminence) “lost the benefit of doubt”…I do not see how that can be understood as not violating the points above…because we are not talking about a theological position in the abstract; we are talking about what was pronounced by the person of the President of German Conference of Bishops who is also the President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community.

How, please can passing such a judgment on such a personage who is utterly above and beyond the judgement of ANYONE on this thread be seen as anything other than “negative”, “rude”, and – above all – “disrespectful” to not only a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church but actually one of the highest ranking ecclesiastics in the entire Church?

In point of fact, the Holy Father has already clarified all these points. When the reporter aske the Pope about the Cardinal’s remarks, he responded in part:
I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness – like that “Marxist Cardinal” said [laughs] – must not only ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended. But she must ask forgiveness to the poor too, to women who are exploited, to children who are exploited for labor. She must ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons. The Church must ask forgiveness for not behaving many times
So, now there is no argument to be advanced. We, the Church, are indeed to do what Cardinal Marx said…ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended, and all the others listed. Cardinal Marx has been affirmed by the Pope and the ONLY response on the part of any Catholic now is to completely acknowledge that and comply.

As a priest, I am surprised and disappointed by many of the things I am reading in this thread and several others.

 

[TCEL]

The attitude of not questioning any cleric in authority seems a throwback to a time so many progressives rail against. The word “sheeple” comes to mind. I recall a family member reminiscing that in their day, priests and such were not to be questioned, period. I also recall how many people currently claim this created a toxic atmosphere which helped foster cover-ups. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. When all the dust settles, truth will out, so I’m not too worried about it. I for one don’t feel too caught up in this specific shin-dig.

 

[bilop]

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?

I’n what way is a priest who drinks too much equivalent to those engaged in homosexual acts? You’re comparing a minor weakness to grave sin.

 

[bilop]

I am glad you asked. I am more than happy to explain.

I responded to the post which said:
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.
The “him” here referred to is the person of His Eminence, Reinhard Cardinal Marx, President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Member of the Council of Cardinals advising Pope Francis on those issues confided to the Council of Nine. His Eminence is also the Archbishop of Munich and Freising.

First it is an established norm that the only one who can pass judgement on a Cardinal is the Holy Father himself.

From the Code of Canon Law:
*Can. 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1401:

1/ those who hold the highest civil office of a state;

2/ cardinals;

3/ legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops;

4/ other cases which he has called to his own judgment.*
It is not enough to say “I’m not declaring him guilty” – that would be presumption in the extreme for any lay person or even cleric – but simply to say “I do not give him the benefit of the doubt” is in fact to speak in a way a Catholic cannot on the issue of judging not just a Cardinal, but a specifically named Cardinal, or his statements in a published forum that the bishops of the diocese/region have conceded the privilege of using the title “Catholic” as part of their proper name.

Beyond all of this, and the prerogatives of the Cardinal, also codified in special law related to the College, I am also going by what is stated in the rules of the Catholic Answers Forum:
Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

/…/

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782&page=3
The comment of saying HE (meaning His Eminence) “lost the benefit of doubt”…I do not see how that can be understood as not violating the points above…because we are not talking about a theological position in the abstract; we are talking about what was pronounced by the person of the President of German Conference of Bishops who is also the President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community.

How, please can passing such a judgment on such a personage who is utterly above and beyond the judgement of ANYONE on this thread be seen as anything other than “negative”, “rude”, and – above all – “disrespectful” to not only a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church but actually one of the highest ranking ecclesiastics in the entire Church?

In point of fact, the Holy Father has already clarified all these points. When the reporter aske the Pope about the Cardinal’s remarks, he responded in part:
I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness – like that “Marxist Cardinal” said [laughs] – must not only ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended. But she must ask forgiveness to the poor too, to women who are exploited, to children who are exploited for labor. She must ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons. The Church must ask forgiveness for not behaving many times
So, now there is no argument to be advanced. We, the Church, are indeed to do what Cardinal Marx said…ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended, and all the others listed. Cardinal Marx has been affirmed by the Pope and the ONLY response on the part of any Catholic now is to completely acknowledge that and comply.

As a priest, I am surprised and disappointed by many of the things I am reading in this thread and several others.

I am sorry Father, but this is too far. No one in the Church has the authority to make us apologize for wrongs we did not commit. If you have never harmed a gay person individually, you have no obligation to apologize.

There is certainly no obligation to apologize for merely stating that homosexuality is disordered, and homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

Likewise, I remain free to believe that the soft-soap approach to the sinfullness of things like homosexuality and divorce and remarriage that the Pope is employing is inadvisable, and will lead more souls to sin than to repentence.

God Bless

 

[MaryT777]

I am sorry Father, but this is too far. No one in the Church has the authority to make us apologize for wrongs we did not commit. If you have never harmed a gay person individually, you have no obligation to apologize.

There is certainly no obligation to apologize for merely stating that homosexuality is disordered, and homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

Likewise, I remain free to believe that the soft-soap approach to the sinfullness of things like homosexuality and divorce and remarriage that the Pope is employing is inadvisable, and will lead more souls to sin than to repentence.

God Bless

I think the press has a big part in the misconstrued words of the Pope which is no surprise to me. Some of his words as reported by the press have led some non Catholics (some I know anyway) to think the Pope has officially changed Catholic doctrine to support homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. IE, actively engaging in homosexual sex acts.

Some think it’s a great plan to change the teaching of “disordered” to “judge not” and those that still believe it’s best to remain chase are confused.

Mary.

Mary.

 

[bilop]

I think the press has a big part in the misconstrued words of the Pope which is no surprise to me. Some of his words as reported by the press have led some non Catholics (some I know anyway) to think the Pope has officially changed Catholic doctrine to support homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. IE, actively engaging in homosexual sex acts.

Some think it’s a great plan to change the teaching of “disordered” to “judge not” and those that still believe it’s best to remain chase are confused.

Mary.

Mary,

You are very correct that the press twists the Pope’s words to push their own agenda.

For that reason, it is imprudent for Pope Francis to speak extemporaneously on such weighty issue. He should know by now what they are going to do, and should take pains to avoid easily twistable statements.

These kind of issues did arise under previous Popes, but it was once every 5 years, as opposed to once every 2 months, b/c they were far more precise in their speech.

God Bless!

 

[J_Peterson]

Mary,

You are very correct that the press twists the Pope’s words to push their own agenda.

For that reason, it is imprudent for Pope Francis to speak extemporaneously on such weighty issue. He should know by now what they are going to do, and should take pains to avoid easily twistable statements.

These kind of issues did arise under previous Popes, but it was once every 5 years, as opposed to once every 2 months, b/c they were far more precise in their speech.

God Bless!

How do you know he’s speaking extemporaneously? I imagine he put a lot of thought into these ideas. Are Jesuits known for speaking on the fly without thinking things through?

 

[bilop]

How do you know he’s speaking extemporaneously? I imagine he put a lot of thought into these ideas. Are Jesuits known for speaking on the fly without thinking things through?

I certainly hope he is speaking extemporaneously. If not, we have far graver problems.

In any case, the fact that the Vatican often amends and corrects his statements would indicate they are extemporaneous.

God Bless

 

[TCEL]

I happen to agree with Pope Francis’ overall sentiments expressed on this issue, as of late. Humility is a tough lesson. Pope Benedict predicted the future Church would be humbler, as we are stripped of temporal and political regress. Tough lesson to learn.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I certainly hope he is speaking extemporaneously. If not, we have far graver problems.

In any case, the fact that the Vatican often amends and corrects his statements would indicate they are extemporaneous.

God Bless[/rQUOTE]

There is a very good chance he knows the questions beforehand. Most heads of state do. The fact that Cardinal Marx said the exact same thing two days prior means that it was it off the cuff. I’ll say again. Perhaps the pope just says what he means.

 

[TMC]

There is a very good chance he knows the questions beforehand. Most heads of state do. The fact that Cardinal Marx said the exact same thing two days prior means that it was it off the cuff. I’ll say again. Perhaps the pope just says what he means.

He says what he means and he means what he says. The press quotes him accurately. The issue, IMHO, is simply that some Catholics don’t want to accept what he is teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’n what way is a priest who drinks too much equivalent to those engaged in homosexual acts? You’re comparing a minor weakness to grave sin.

Am I?
Doesn’t St Paul (1Cor 6:10) lump drunkards together with homosexuals?

This epitimises the “holier than thou” attitude of many Communion receiving Catholics who think they have access because they are morally pure.

We are all sinners and in need of the same forgiveness as civil society’s moral lepers even if current Church discipline “arbitrarily” banns Communion if we are caught up in some objective sins but not others.

In short surely even the ritually/morally “pure” receiver Communion as a merciful gift of Jesus not as an earnt reward.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…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???)

Yes Pope Francis and many other celibate clerics with extensive pastoral experience would 2nd this observation for significant numbers of people in irregular marriages where the first has irretrievably broken down.

Many faithful Catholic males over the age of 45 with a sexual history and a wide experience of male personality types would agree also I suggest. Perhaps you have yet to enter into this mature age demographic?

 

[MaryT777]

Am I?
Doesn’t St Paul (1Cor 6:10) lump drunkards together with homosexuals?

This epitimises the “holier than thou” attitude of many Communion receiving Catholics who think they have access because they are morally pure.

We are all sinners and in need of the same forgiveness as civil society’s moral lepers even if current Church discipline “arbitrarily” banns Communion if we are caught up in some objective sins but not others.

In short surely even the ritually/morally “pure” receiver Communion as a merciful gift of Jesus not as an earnt reward.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Mary,

You are very correct that the press twists the Pope’s words to push their own agenda.

For that reason, it is imprudent for Pope Francis to speak extemporaneously on such weighty issue. He should know by now what they are going to do, and should take pains to avoid easily twistable statements.

This conclusion is unsupportable.
The Pope is a human being with the same right to express his personal views like you or me.

In fact, like Peter, he has an obligation to speak to his flock as a Father in all his caring fallibility.

I am tired of the Imperial State Vatican Apparatchik presenting us with a safe, sterilised, dry, insulated robotic institutionalised mouthpiece for the last whatever centuries.

Pope Francis (and Jn 23rd) are giving them a run for their money and presenting a real “family man”.

We know our parents are fallible - but we still know what they mean. We know the media and politicians twist truth every day.

We don’t need to be protected by corrective official Vatican spokesmen after the event or before with vetted scripts that should not be departed from.

I suggest the problem is not with Pope Francis but with the insecurities of some of our more trad Catholic brothers and sisters overly concerned with how the world perceives him.

If Jesus was rejected then so will we and so will Pope Francis regardless.
To deny this reality is the real imprudence.
We are destined to be rejected, so lets get used it.
Those whom God has destined to himself will hear the truth regardless.

 

[Mark121359]

Yes Pope Francis and many other celibate clerics with extensive pastoral experience would 2nd this observation for significant numbers of people in irregular marriages where the first has irretrievably broken down.

Yes, and many other celibate clerics with extensive pastoral experience would second Cardinal Arinzi’s observation!

Perhaps you have yet to enter into this mature age demographic?

Perhaps maybe you haven’t?

Peace, Mark

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Charitably discuss the issues, not other members

Do not make derogatory remarks against Catholic clergy

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The attitude of not questioning any cleric in authority seems a throwback to a time so many progressives rail against. The word “sheeple” comes to mind. I recall a family member reminiscing that in their day, priests and such were not to be questioned, period. I also recall how many people currently claim this created a toxic atmosphere which helped foster cover-ups. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. When all the dust settles, truth will out, so I’m not too worried about it. I for one don’t feel too caught up in this specific shin-dig.

While people often attack Cardinal Marx for being to liberal no on has proven him guilty of heresy because he is not guilty of heresy though they are the “conservative” viewpoint. It isn’t all clergy, it is only the Pope and cardinals who ware not supposed to be criticized.

I am sorry Father, but this is too far. No one in the Church has the authority to make us apologize for wrongs we did not commit. If you have never harmed a gay person individually, you have no obligation to apologize.

There is certainly no obligation to apologize for merely stating that homosexuality is disordered, and homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

Likewise, I remain free to believe that the soft-soap approach to the sinfullness of things like homosexuality and divorce and remarriage that the Pope is employing is inadvisable, and will lead more souls to sin than to repentence.

God Bless

The Pope apologized on behalf of all Catholics which as the head of the Church he very much can do.

 

[TCEL]

While people often attack Cardinal Marx for being to liberal no on has proven him guilty of heresy because he is not guilty of heresy though they are the “conservative” viewpoint. It isn’t all clergy, it is only the Pope and cardinals who ware not supposed to be criticized.

The Pope apologized on behalf of all Catholics which as the head of the Church he very much can do.

I stand by what I said. I’m no Saint Catherine, but she spoke truth to power. How one does it matters though. It’s about prudence and humility.

I come from a military family. I get the whole idea of rank and chain of command. I simply don’t agree that Popes and Cardinals are above being wondered about or questioned, because we are the Church Militant, but our nature is slightly different. We are their sheep, but I’ve never gotten the vibe from any clergy that I should fall feebly in line, mute and deaf. Quite the opposite. They’re supposed to smell like the sheep, no? It feels like this idea of their being beyond criticism makes them completely inaccessible to their sheep. Unrelatable. It’s akin to people who put the saints out of the realm of relatability.

Pot-stirring is another matter though.