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

[mikekle]

I do not feel that I am a member of the same Church the cardinal is.

The bible specifically warns us these kinds of times would come to the world.

Plus, Jesus even said, "they will HATE you as they hated me.

 

[CarolNoel]

How much more insane will it get before Our Lord finally says, "Enough!!?

I would think He would already be stretched to his limits!!!

 

[PTL]

I suppose the Church should apologize to adulterers & cohabiters also?

I won’t be surprised as many people have lost the sense of right from wrong.
The Church probably should apologize to people who murder or rape, also apologize to people who have sex with their horse or dog. No kidding. Under the word of “compassion” that is the way…for everything goes as you like it. If you condemn it, you are lack of compassion.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Can an openly gay man become a priest? By that I mean acknowledging his orientation but still celibate. Or is it considered an impediment, like a psychic illness?

What about all the openly gay priests already in ministry? Was there a specific time when the Church said, ‘From now on we won’t take anymore gay priests?’ I’m curious.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

I’m sorry, but these statements by the Cardinal make absolutely no sense. What specifically has the Catholic Church done that is so terrible towards gay people? Try to teach the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman?

Assuming that the quotes in this story are accurate, he seems to be contradicting the teachings of the church that we should oppose same-sex marriage. And this guy is a Cardinal? If the story wouldn’t have told me this, I would have assumed he was a supporter of gay marriage and not a Catholic at all.

Well, I suppose that he might be referring to the supposedly religiously founded punitive measures taken against gay people in the relatively recent past (one case that springs to mind is Alan Turing’s castration - though this was obviously carried out in an Anglican country), but I find this a weak argument. Homosexuality has been stigmatised in every society that has preceded Christian informed ones, even in Rome, a society often erroneously portrayed as hyper-sexual. It’s disingenuous to assume, as “cultural Marxists” (I used to find that term conspiratorial, but now I see the intellectual case for its use) are wont to do, that “homophobia” and violence against gays sprung up with the evil Christians.

The Church has probably done a lot of good for gays over the centuries - gay artists found their patronage in the church, and many homosexuals that would have otherwise been ostracised by society were invested in the Priesthood and given purposeful lives in a world that would have denied it to them.

I would be careful in saying that taking a different stance over some doctrinal issues makes someone not a Catholic, though. Catholicism is not a cult - part of its claim to being the true church derives from its ability to debate theology without disintegrating as Protestants do. This priest didn’t claim gays were eligible for the sacrament of marriage, he said there were some virtuous motivations to a dedicated same-sex relationships - he didn’t claim homosexual relationships themselves were moral.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

I think the most recent ruling of the Church was that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” cannot be considered for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. However, I’m not sure exactly how that is defined.

That’s insane - Priests are celibate - sexuality ought not to have a bearing. You don’t bar any other sinner from the Priesthood. Their ideological stance, however, would be.

 

[phil19034]

What about all the openly gay priests already in ministry? Was there a specific time when the Church said, ‘From now on we won’t take anymore gay priests?’ I’m curious.

They didn’t say “no more ‘gay’ priests,” they said no men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

Let me try to explain this in terms of heterosexual priests: a straight priest would obvious be naturally attracted to women, however should not lust after, fantasize over, stare at, or truly desire women.

A straight priest must not objectify women and must have the discipline to avoid temptation, maintain custody of eyes & mind.

However a man with “deep-seated sexual tendencies” would have trouble with this.

So the same would be of a chaste, devout man who experiences same-sex attraction.

The problem today with gays in seminary isnt really that they are gay, but that many young gay men (even devout Catholic ones) have trouble not letting their sexual attractions define them as a person. The culture teaches something that is against Catholic teaching, and some of these young men are having difficulty with the teachings of the Church on this subject (as are some older priests who experience same sex attraction)

 

[truetofaith]

That’s insane - Priests are celibate - sexuality ought not to have a bearing. You don’t bar any other sinner from the Priesthood. Their ideological stance, however, would be.

Correct! If a priest is straight or gay, what difference does it make if he is celibate & isn’t committing any sinful acts.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Can an openly gay man become a priest? By that I mean acknowledging his orientation but still celibate. Or is it considered an impediment, like a psychic illness?

A homosexual man cannot be ordained to the priesthood, even if he is chaste. A letter approved by Pope Benedict XVI says of this:

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. … In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were** only the expression of a transitory problem** - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, **such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate. **

From this, we can see that the Holy See wishes that homosexual tendencies be overcome prior to receiving Holy Orders. This means that deep-seated homosexual tendencies are permanent tendencies rather than transitory ones that will be able to be eradicated. Notice, too, that they distinguish a *practicing * homosexual and a man with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, showing that even if they are chaste, their homosexuality is still an impediment to receiving Holy Orders.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I’m sorry, but these statements by the Cardinal make absolutely no sense. What specifically has the Catholic Church done that is so terrible towards gay people? Try to teach the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman?

Assuming that the quotes in this story are accurate, he seems to be contradicting the teachings of the church that we should oppose same-sex marriage. And this guy is a Cardinal? If the story wouldn’t have told me this, I would have assumed he was a supporter of gay marriage and not a Catholic at all.

He isn’t supporting same sex marriage.

“We have to respect the decisions of people. We have to respect also, as I said in the first synod on the family, 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] that is nothing, that has no worth,” he said.
Yes, it has a special worth - the quality of intrinsic evil that means it can never be considered as good in any optic.
“in all the history of mankind that [marriage] was the relationship between one man and woman, two who are open to give life for the next generation and that is a special relationship I think.”
He thinks?

That’s a common misunderstanding, in actuality theologically the sex is an intrinsic evil and insofar as the relationship is oriented towards sex it is objectively disordered. The relationship itself can have positive fruits and this is what Cardinal Marx was getting at.

 

[TCEL]

I thought that one of the spiritual reasons for the ban on homosexual priests actually had to do with the sacramental understanding of the Incarnation relating to the Priesthood and marriage. In other words, for a man to truly be a priest, he need understand the purpose of marriage. Jesus the bridegroom, the Church the bride. Jesus’ bodily self-donation on the cross for his bride results in the sacramental life of the church, which is life-giving. The blood and water from his side is akin to the rib from Adam’s side. The union brings forth children. Etc. Am I wrong?

 

[tseleehw]

He isn’t supporting same sex marriage.

Well, he doesn’t seem to want to speak out against it either. I’m not sure if he really does oppose same-sex marriage. At best I think he is neutral about it. He would not be the first member of the clergy to oppose the Church’s stance on this issue.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Well, he doesn’t seem to want to speak out against it either. I’m not sure if he really does oppose same-sex marriage. At best I think he is neutral about it. He would not be the first member of the clergy to oppose the Church’s stance on this issue.

He doesn’t need to speak out against it, other cardinals and the Church Herself readily make known that the Church cannot support gay marriage

 

[Justin_Swanton]

He isn’t supporting same sex marriage.

That’s a common misunderstanding, in actuality theologically the sex is an intrinsic evil and insofar as the relationship is oriented towards sex it is objectively disordered. The relationship itself can have positive fruits and this is what Cardinal Marx was getting at.

Everything ‘positive’ about a same-sex relationship - such as fidelity - simply strengthens that relationship, legitimizing it in the couple’s eyes. But all this does is make even stronger the bonds of sin. As you state, homosexual/lesbian sex is intrinsically disordered. The relationship, which is fundamentally built on that kind of sex, is also intrinsically disordered. Anything ‘good’ about it merely serves to make it harder for the couple to break free from it and put their lives in order, ultimately making their final damnation even more likely.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Assuming that the quotes in this story are accurate, he seems to be contradicting the teachings of the church that we should oppose same-sex marriage.

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

And what Church teaching do you believe he contradicts?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This priest didn’t claim gays were eligible for the sacrament of marriage, he said there were some virtuous motivations to a dedicated same-sex relationships - he didn’t claim homosexual relationships themselves were moral.

Bump
And even perhaps sanctifying grace remains and grows in some cases.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, he doesn’t seem to want to speak out against it either. I’m not sure if he really does oppose same-sex marriage. At best I think he is neutral about it. He would not be the first member of the clergy to oppose the Church’s stance on this issue.

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…” .

 

[shockerfan]

Bump
And even perhaps sanctifying grace remains and grows in some cases.

Catholic teaching says “NO!”.

Sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a grave sin (CCC 2357), thus unless the couple is committed to not engaging in sexual acts, and have gone to confession, there is no chance at sanctifying grace remaining, much less growing.

Even with that explanation, the forgiveness of sins in the confessional is based on avoiding future occasion of sin, so if the same sex couple is continuing to live together, that might not meet that condition.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Everything ‘positive’ about a same-sex relationship - such as fidelity - simply strengthens that relationship, legitimizing it in the couple’s eyes. But all this does is make even stronger the bonds of sin. As you state, homosexual/lesbian sex is intrinsically disordered. The relationship, which is fundamentally built on that kind of sex, is also intrinsically disordered. Anything ‘good’ about it merely serves to make it harder for the couple to break free from it and put their lives in order, ultimately making their final damnation even more likely.

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.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

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.