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

[bilop]

This is a public forum…this is not private conversation. These posts remain forever on the Internet.

Moreover, this is a forum to which competent ecclesiastical authority has graciously conceded that the title “Catholic” may be used in the name – and that gracious grant can always be withdrawn, and indeed should be withdrawn, by competent ecclesiastical authority if due deference is not shown.

I was addressing comments that were judgemental against His Eminence. Of course we may speak about and discuss positively what any Cardinal says. Comments from the hierarchy are often in my homilies as I explain how what they have taught is to be received by us at the parish level and put into practice.

There have been three instances in recent years in which a decision has been taken regarding the behavior of Cardinals…from above NEVER from people below. That is wholly inappropriate.

The canon is quoted because the one to judge or reprove a Cardinal is the Pope and those who exercise directly the delegated authority of the Pope, namely the dicasteries of the Holy See. Thus, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could make a statement about a Cardinal’s particular declaration to clarify it – a bishop, priest, deacon or lay person? No.

Besides the matter is definitively resolved…the Pope has endorsed what His Eminence has said in the issue at hand, the matter is therefore truly closed – beyond our faithful implementation of the directive.

With due respect Father, the Pope is the sole judge of the clergy as individuals and in their clerical roles. All Catholics remain free to judge the actions and words of the clergy.

We can not reject the Magisterial teachings of the Pope and bishops on faith and morals. We can deem other decisions, statements and opinions outside those realms to be inncorrect and harmful.

For example, I am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to say that Pope Paul VI erred grievously in allowing Bugnini to implement the new form of the Mass. Or that a bishop erred in closing a specific parish, or that a priest who committed an illegal or immoral act acted heinously.

God Bless

 

[Blue_Horizon]

First, drinking is not even necessarily sinful. If the priest does intentionally drink to excess he may be an alcoholic, which would significantly mitigate his guilt. Also, if he is a great priest in every other aspect, he probably feels bad about his weakness.

On the contrary, a “faithful” sexual relationship that is not a marriage between a man and a woman, is simply a vehicle for hardening the partners in their sin. There are no graces in immoral sexual relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual. They cement the pair into gravely sinful behavior.

How can one be repentent if you are continuing with the illicit union? We wouldn’t speculate that an adulterer might be repentent if he kept spending the night with his mistress, or a cohbaiting heterosexual couple. We would expect the repentent person to end the illicit relationship.

I have great sympathy for homosexuals who try to be chaste, but occasionally fail. They are sinners like all of us. But, if one persists in an immoral sexual relationship, it’s hard to see any repentence, be you gay or straight.

God Bless

I suggest you may like to take a paper in moral theology at a Cath Uni near you bilop.
It’s clear you don’t really understand some of the things you are saying.

You also explicitly contradict Pope Francis.
Given that he is highly theologically educated, highly pastorally experienced and highly regarded by the leading Church men who elected him … and you are none of these things … if I was doubtful on the matter it’s a no brainer who has the better credentials and authority on this point sorry.

 

[JosieN]

I suggest you may like to take a paper in moral theology at a Cath Uni near you bilop.
It’s clear you don’t really understand some of the things you are saying.

You also explicitly contradict Pope Francis.
Given that he is highly theologically educated, highly pastorally experienced and highly regarded by the leading Church men who elected him … and you are none of these things … if I was doubtful on the matter it’s a no brainer who has the better credentials and authority on this point sorry.

I assume you took moral theology at a Catholic University. Maybe you could explain to me in what way that reply contradicts Pope Francis. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge on this matter.

 

[bilop]

I suggest you may like to take a paper in moral theology at a Cath Uni near you bilop.
It’s clear you don’t really understand some of the things you are saying.

You also explicitly contradict Pope Francis.
Given that he is highly theologically educated, highly pastorally experienced and highly regarded by the leading Church men who elected him … and you are none of these things … if I was doubtful on the matter it’s a no brainer who has the better credentials and authority on this point sorry.

Rather than criticize me personally, why don’t you point out where I disagree with official, magisterial teaching of the church?

Here’s the Catechism on homosexuality.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

God Bless

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Rather than criticize me personally…

I apologise if I put my assessment of your hold on moral theology, as discerned from what you wrote below, in such a poor way that you took it as a gratuitous insult of your person.

Life is short and I simply do not have the time to draw out the questionable systemic assumptions that underpin your moral arguments.

If my counsel is not welcome to you then please treat my totally unsubstantiated (but well intentioned advice) as the ravings of an idiot, ignore me and be at peace. Not everybody can accept unexplained counsel from old fogies and that is fair enough.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I assume you took moral theology at a Catholic University. Maybe you could explain to me in what way that reply contradicts Pope Francis. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge on this matter.

JN if I felt that you were sincerely open and neutral on this topic/request I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. Unfortunately I do not discern that to be the case sorry.

 

[JosieN]

JN if I felt that you were sincerely open and neutral on this topic/request I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. Unfortunately I do not discern that to be the case sorry.

That’s OK

 

[Don_Ruggero]

With due respect Father, the Pope is the sole judge of the clergy as individuals and in their clerical roles. All Catholics remain free to judge the actions and words of the clergy.

We can not reject the Magisterial teachings of the Pope and bishops on faith and morals. We can deem other decisions, statements and opinions outside those realms to be inncorrect and harmful.

For example, I am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to say that Pope Paul VI erred grievously in allowing Bugnini to implement the new form of the Mass. Or that a bishop erred in closing a specific parish, or that a priest who committed an illegal or immoral act acted heinously.

God Bless

No. The pope is not the sole judge of the clergy…that process is established in the Code of Canon Law.

As for the rest, given what you say against the Blessed Paul VI, I herewith terminate communication with you.

 

[bilop]

No. The pope is not the sole judge of the clergy…that process is established in the Code of Canon Law.

As for the rest, given what you say against the Blessed Paul VI, I herewith terminate communication with you.

Father, you would make the most ultra, ultramontane of the 18th and 19th century blush.

The idea that the Pope is beyond criticism for his actions is just absurd. Would you argue that the Catholics of the 10th century had no right to criticize the personal behavior od John X!!?

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Father, you would make the most ultra, ultramontane of the 18th and 19th century blush.

The idea that the Pope is beyond criticism for his actions is just absurd. Would you argue that the Catholics of the 10th century had no right to criticize the personal behavior od John X!!?

God Bless

I apologize for the insulting tone of my last post. I got carried away in my dismay at the ideas being expressed, but should not have engaged in a personal attack.

God Bless.

 

[zz912]

This is a public forum…this is not private conversation. These posts remain forever on the Internet.

Moreover, this is a forum to which competent ecclesiastical authority has graciously conceded that the title “Catholic” may be used in the name – and that gracious grant can always be withdrawn, and indeed should be withdrawn, by competent ecclesiastical authority if due deference is not shown.

I was addressing comments that were judgemental against His Eminence. Of course we may speak about and discuss positively what any Cardinal says. Comments from the hierarchy are often in my homilies as I explain how what they have taught is to be received by us at the parish level and put into practice.

There have been three instances in recent years in which a decision has been taken regarding the behavior of Cardinals…from above NEVER from people below. That is wholly inappropriate.

The canon is quoted because the one to judge or reprove a Cardinal is the Pope and those who exercise directly the delegated authority of the Pope, namely the dicasteries of the Holy See. Thus, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could make a statement about a Cardinal’s particular declaration to clarify it – a bishop, priest, deacon or lay person? No.

Besides the matter is definitively resolved…the Pope has endorsed what His Eminence has said in the issue at hand, the matter is therefore truly closed – beyond our faithful implementation of the directive.

Could you lay out what your understanding of clericalism is? And how does it mesh with the many pronouncements of Pope Francis denouncing clericalism? And what of the Pope’s comments to “make a mess”?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, you would make the most ultra, ultramontane of the 18th and 19th century blush.

The idea that the Pope is beyond criticism for his actions is just absurd. Would you argue that the Catholics of the 10th century had no right to criticize the personal behavior od John X!!?

God Bless

I think your two comments, first attacking the Blessed Paul VI and then what you write above, make you and your positions transparently clear.

 

[JosieN]

How can one be repentent if you are continuing with the illicit union? We wouldn’t speculate that an adulterer might be repentent if he kept spending the night with his mistress, or a cohbaiting heterosexual couple. We would expect the repentent person to end the illicit relationship.

I think you make a good point here. The adulterer may love the mistress, but that does not make the relationship less sinful. The cohabitating heterosexual couple may love each other, but it still remains a sin until they are married in the Church. Love cannot remove the sin of a homosexual couple living together as a man and wife anymore than it could for these other sinful relationships.

To speak openly about the truth is often offensive to the ones living in these situations. We are told we are sinners too so we have no right to judge. Should we let them live in a sinful relationship and not offend them, or would it be more merciful to consider the consequences of their actions which will lead them to lose their soul to sin unless they repent? What is more merciful, asking them to repent or apologizing for any harm we may have caused them for judging their lifestyle? I always believed that guidance would come from the Church in these matters. We hear very little about sin and sinful relationships. It is not preached about very often at Mass anymore.

Love does not make a relationship whole. You need the Blessing of God through the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. With the guidance of Christ through the Holy Spirit love is poured into the relationship and families are created. I believe our hearts and souls are much happier when we follow the true teachings of the Gospel and follow Christ in our lives. Life should be led according to God’s design and not mans. If we fail we must repent and one is not repentant if they are continuing with the illicit union. I do not mean to preach or judge, I am offering my opinion. If it offends anyone, I apologize.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I think you make a good point here. The adulterer may love the mistress, but that does not make the relationship less sinful. The cohabitating heterosexual couple may love each other, but it still remains a sin until they are married in the Church. Love cannot remove the sin of a homosexual couple living together as a man and wife anymore than it could for these other sinful relationships.

To speak openly about the truth is often offensive to the ones living in these situations. We are told we are sinners too so we have no right to judge. Should we let them live in a sinful relationship and not offend them, or would it be more merciful to consider the consequences of their actions which will lead them to lose their soul to sin unless they repent? What is more merciful, asking them to repent or apologizing for any harm we may have caused them for judging their lifestyle? I always believed that guidance would come from the Church in these matters. We hear very little about sin and sinful relationships. It is not preached about very often at Mass anymore.

Love does not make a relationship whole. You need the Blessing of God through the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. With the guidance of Christ through the Holy Spirit love is poured into the relationship and families are created. I believe our hearts and souls are much happier when we follow the true teachings of the Gospel and follow Christ in our lives. Life should be led according to God’s design and not mans. If we fail we must repent and one is not repentant if they are continuing with the illicit union. I do not mean to preach or judge, I am offering my opinion. If it offends anyone, I apologize.

If a gay couple stops being sexual and does not present themselves as married is that still a sinful relationship?

 

[on_the_hill]

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?

Seems pretty clear to me: To preserve the Church we need to stop the pope from flying on airplanes and stop ordaining Germans. Or at least build a wall.

 

[JosieN]

If a gay couple stops being sexual and does not present themselves as married is that still a sinful relationship?

I am not a priest so I do not think my answer should be regarded as though I were one. I do not think that if you were a gay person (meaning someone not attracted to those of the opposite sex) and you were not having sex with someone of the same sex, but at the same time you were dating someone you were attracted to with no plans to marry that person that there is anything sinful in a relationship like that. But it is difficult to imagine someone in a relationship like that who would not be having sexual thoughts or desires towards each other. I think that would be sinful. But like I said I am not a priest.

The best thing one could do in that situation is find a good priest and go to confession as often as possible. God loves everyone, the reason He made laws for us to follow was not to make life difficult for us, but to show us the way to live our lives in a way that would help us to obtain real happiness, this is done by keeping away from sin and sinful thoughts so we may obtain His graces. Sins are never good for us. They do not make us happy inside as they rob the soul of graces which give us strength and also peace. If we follow God’s laws in the end we will have eternal happiness with our Creator. I hope this makes sense to you and I hope I have answered your question.

 

[Seamus_L]

According to Lifesite News, South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier has recently Tweeted God help us! Next we’ll have to apologise for teaching that adultery is a sin! Political Correctness (PC) is today’s major heresy!”

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

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…” .

Even Paul rebuked Peter.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I too preoccupied to really get involved in the discussion at the moment, but **here **are a number of very good reasons the Catholic Church absolutely needs to apologise to homosexuals. Sorry! sorry! sorry! (and I mean it)

 

[JosieN]

I too preoccupied to really get involved in the discussion at the moment, but **here **are a number of very good reasons the Catholic Church absolutely needs to apologise to homosexuals. Sorry! sorry! sorry! (and I mean it)

Thank you for sharing that web link and this person’s sad story. I too am sorry that the people in the Church he went to for help in the beginning let him down in his time of need. I am thankful he finally found the type of help he was seeking and a few good priests to help mend his heart and soul. We talk so often about compassion, but how often is it given to a person’s desperate soul when it cries for healing? God Bless the good priests and all the truly faithful clergy for defending the truth.