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

[TMC]

This entire thread reads like a modern reenactment of Luke 18:11.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy.

Zz by declining to engage you I am not meaning to be unmerciful.
Your affinity for not understanding the real issues in discussion here is such that you are not in the race and I am not sure how to even guide you into the stadium sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Correct.

The sinfulness isn’t the only issue, of course. I am glad that I know now what I didn’t know then because I (like you all, I imagine) want to know and love the Lord.

A heart warming account thanks H.
To me you were always with the Lord, even in your “sins”.
You just needed time and external help to realise all the things He was calling you to live by.
Which I am sure you always wanted.

The learning never stops though!

 

[JosieN]

Zz by declining to engage you I am not meaning to be unmerciful.
Your affinity for not understanding the real issues in discussion here is such that you are not in the race and I am not sure how to even guide you into the stadium sorry.

I think the reply was a good one. We are to come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual necessities and the bodily necessities. Wouldn’t you say it means we should instruct others when we see their soul is in danger? How would you interpret it?

2447 **The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities.242 Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. **The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead.243 Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God:244

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the "new man."85

 

[Havard]

A heart warming account thanks H.
To me you were always with the Lord, even in your “sins”.
You just needed time and external help to realise all the things He was calling you to live by.
Which I am sure you always wanted.

The learning never stops though!

Yes, the Lord was always with me, even then, and likewise, I am still a sinner, even now! But that is not to say that there is no growth. There is no end to growth in intimacy with Christ.

Philippians 3:12-16

 

[pnewton]

I understand what the Cardinal is saying, in the sense that there is a little good in the worst of us. But I am taking this all with a grain of salt. I have little trust for any of the news sites I have seen this story so far. Yes, just like there is a sense of family in street gangs, and teamwork in the mafia. There can be loving supports in threesomes. Child abusers might provide food and shelter for a child.

Finding the good in the worst of people is possible, so yes, one can see the positive aspects of homosexuality, at least in this world. In this world. There is the rub.

But like I said, I and skeptical of the news stories so far.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I wonder if a reporter has asked the bishop why he feels a Muslim terrorist attack is a call for the Catholic community to combat Catholic anti-gay prejudice that supposedly exists but had no impact whatsoever on this terror attack? And I wonder if someone has asked him why it is not a call for the Muslim community to combat Muslim anti-gay prejudice?

Why does the bishop of Orlando feel the need for the Catholic community to gather around and embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Orlando? Because fifty of our brothers and sisters were killed, some of whom were part of that community and others of whom were in fact not.

But, as the bishop has said – and you don’t need a reporter to ask him, if you are taking the time to follow yourself his statements…and that of the other bishops in the United States and beyond – there is a particular need for the Church to better and more effectively connect with this segment of the population.

Cardinal Marx has said this. The Pope has said this. And other members of both the College of Cardinals and the College of Bishops are saying this with a growing chorus of voices.

And the Bishop of Orlando, as the shepherd of the diocese and the spiritual father of the Particular Church entrusted to him, decided – as is HIS prerogative – that standing with and supporting the suffering of that specific community was the Church of Orlando’s priority, its duty and its obligation. And he is the Father of the Church of Orlando, the father of the Family of God made of Orlando’s Clergy, Religious and laity.

The Church is not helping the victims with any regard to whether they are members of the Church or not. The Church is helping them through its offices – “with financial assistance, with case management, and with other supportive help” – because they our brothers and sisters and they are in need of our love and our assistance and our embrace in this moment.

As Saint Paul said, Caritas Christi urget nos. The love of Christ impels us. Impels us to love these brothers and sisters and to help them. Because Christ is to be found within them and they are in the image and likeness of God.

The image of the Good Shepherd is also a very useful one regarding the diocesan bishop…the lamb does not argue with or second guess its shepherd…it knows the voice of the shepherd and listens to it.

The image of the bishop enthroned upon his Cathedra is also a useful image of one who is placed in the midst of the people of God to govern them and to instruct them.

Saint John of the Cross had a lovely line…at the end of our lives, we will be judged on love. I have no doubt, through the inter-ministerial alliance, the Bishop is working with the Muslim community in Orlando. But the Catholics in Orlando will not be judged by God by what the Muslims did or did not do. The Muslim who dies will be judged by God. The Catholics in Orlando, when they die, will be judged by God for what they did or did not do – and whether or not they faithfully obeyed the shepherd that He was pleased in His Divine Providence to place over them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, just like there is a sense of family in street gangs, and teamwork in the mafia. There can be loving supports in threesomes. Child abusers might provide food and shelter for a child.

Finding the good in the worst of people is possible, so yes, one can see the positive aspects of homosexuality, at least in this world.

You don’t think “kosha” heterosexual relationships can be just as distorted in practice?
The problem is a little more than “the physical unnatural” as Jesus noted.
*“It is not what comes from the anus that makes a man unclean but what comes from the mouth.” *
He wasn’t talking about vomit was he but rather the heart?

As Aquinas also stated, all sin is “unnatural.”

Do you actually have any gay friends from which to ground your your uncritical acceptance of OT “science/sociology”" re the homosexual condition, tabloid reports from the strident gay lobby and school-yard stereotypes from childhood?

In fact significant numbers do live long-term quiet, caring and committed lives just like heterosexuals. Unlike the silly examples you compare ALL gays to above.

 

[Rosebud77]

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…

Jim; thank you for this sense and sensitivity. For bringing the discussion back on track.skimming it slowly here.

There seems to be confusion in folk. When the vote was on here in Ireland re gay marriage. i heard often the sheer emotional pain of eg mothers who had gay sons, sought their happiness and did not know how to vote. The buzz phrase was ,“God loves everyone.” and at that time i had not thought enough to reply, " Yes but does everyone love God?"

Surely that is at the base here? That we love God enough to obey His commandments.

What is of concern in some of what is being written and said in high places is that they seem not to realise that it gets interpreted as all is OK When it is not. The kind of anything goes approach

One place I lived here in Ireland had a woman Church of Ireland ( anglican) vicar, called late to the ministry in a diocese where the bishop is very pro gay (Paul Colton) I met here at a market where I was trading and she used to invite me to their communion services! Small rural parish who had a great ceremony where the congregation vowed publically to welcome the LBGT folk who came in. I look at their website sometimes and was horrified to find their Lent course was teaching pro gay by reworking the relevant Bible passages. ie gay sex is OK

Seems the thin end of the wedge in the new approach and one that will be misunderstood? Glad of the purity here; thank you.

 

[pnewton]

I often hear this quote repeated

without the rest of it. It is good to read it all, and have a clear understanding of the teaching.

I would also note though that the Catechism does not bold the selections above for specific emphasis.

 

[pnewton]

You don’t think “kosha” heterosexual relationships can be just as distorted in practice?

I have no idea what “kosha” means, but of course there can be distorted

The problem is a little more than “the physical unnatural” as Jesus noted.
*“It is not what comes from the anus that makes a man unclean but what comes from the mouth.” *

That is not what Jesus said. You misquote him. Matthew 15:17,18 says, ““Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man.” * Any translation that uses “anus” is inaccurate. Perhaps you read this somewhere other than the Bible, like someone one else who deliberately misquoted this to make it sound like Jesus endorsed homosexuality. The Scripture is pointing out the shortcoming of Jewish dietary restrictions as a path to sanctity. In fact, the very next verse says, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”*

Do you actually have any gay friends from which to ground your your uncritical acceptance of OT “science/sociology”" re the homosexual condition, tabloid reports from the strident gay lobby and school-yard stereotypes from childhood?

I do not know if you have confuse me with someone else, but I do not accept the Old Testament as scientifically accurate.

In fact significant numbers do live long-term quiet, caring and committed lives just like heterosexuals. Unlike the silly examples you compare ALL gays to above.

I did not compare any homosexual relationships to anything. I only said that one can point out positives in almost any human endeavor.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have no idea what “kosha” means, but of course there can be distorted
That is not what Jesus said. You misquote him. Matthew 15:17,18 says, ““Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man.” * Any translation that uses “anus” is inaccurate. Perhaps you read this somewhere other than the Bible, like someone one else who deliberately misquoted this to make it sound like Jesus endorsed homosexuality. The Scripture is pointing out the shortcoming of Jewish dietary restrictions as a path to sanctity. In fact, the very next verse says, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”*

I do not know if you have confuse me with someone else, but I do not accept the Old Testament as scientifically accurate.

I did not compare any homosexual relationships to anything. I only said that one can point out positives in almost any human endeavor.

D’oh boy .
It’s called paraphrase PN.
But I can see that trying to discuss things with one whose imagination is so shackled to the literal that even the clear double entendres of Jesus fly overhead means it’s better not to try. You must hate poetry.

Clearly you have no gay friends to give you a better perspective on the variety of gay relationships that exist in the real world…just like heteros.

 

[MaryT777]

D’oh boy .
It’s called paraphrase PN.
But I can see that trying to discuss things with one whose imagination is so shackled to the literal that even the clear double entendres of Jesus fly overhead means it’s better not to try. You must hate poetry.

Clearly you have no gay friends to give you a better perspective on the variety of gay relationships that exist in the real world…just like heteros.

 

[pnewton]

D’oh boy .
It’s called paraphrase PN.
But I can see that trying to discuss things with one whose imagination is so shackled to the literal that even the clear double entendres of Jesus fly overhead means it’s better not to try.

When paraphrases lead to inaccurate interpretation then this error can lead to heterodox theology. If I believe people in the media should be accurately quoted, how much more should we be diligent to represent the words of Christ.

 

[Richca]

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

I responded to the post which said:
I’m not declaring him

 

[Blue_Horizon]

As far as I can see, these canons are about trials and ecclesiastical tribunals. Nobody is on trial here or in an ecclesiastical tribunal.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As far as I can see, these canons are about trials and ecclesiastical tribunals. Nobody is on trial here or in an ecclesiastical tribunal.

I cited the canon because of the underlying principle. We have seen it play out quite recently in two circumstances with two different members of the College of Cardinals…in neither circumstance were we talking about a trial or an ecclesiastical tribunal. Rather the very same principle nevertheless applied: the person of a member of the College, who is a Prince of the Church, being answerable only to the Pope and being exempt from determinations by even other Cardinals…to say nothing of those beneath the dignity of a Cardinal

For the record, I’m neither defending or criticizing the statements made in the post to which father is responding to here. Nor do I wish to make a comment presently concerning the subject of this thread or to the statements made by Cardinal Marx in the link the OP gave us. I will simply say that among informed catholics, there are questionable teachings and opinions and possible pastoral practices and not just concerning homosexuality coming from the German Episcopate, and probably other particular churches and episcopates, that is causing a stir among the universal church.

The issue I have from the above quote from father is that he seems to give the impression I think that a cardinal in general or his statements whether they concern opinion or more important doctrinal matters, (or for that matter any simple priest, a bishop, or even the pope himself) is ‘‘utterly above and beyond the judgement of anyone on this thread.’’ This is simply not true.

The words of mine that you cite, which I specifically put into quotation marks, namely negative, rude and disrespectful were thus cited and put in quotation marks because of the following statements by the Catholic Answers Forum Moderators:

• Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned
• Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game
• If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban
• You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  /…/
  Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  Lawful actions and disciplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful
  /…/
  Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
  Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences
  /…/
  As Fr. Grondin said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church”

It may so happen and does happen and has happened throughout the history of the Church, that some parish priest, bishop, cardinal, or the pope himself may be in error or teach errors contrary to the faith of the Church. In such cases, the catholic faithful including the laity are not required obviously to follow such clergy or prelates and they have the right and the duty I believe to speak out publicly against such errors for the good of the Church , the Church’s faith, and the salvation of souls /…/

One may think what one wishes. The ability of anyone…bishops, priests, deacons, Religious – or the laity – to “speak out publicly” by using a forum, however, is governed by the rules of that forum. I have nothing to do with either what the authorities of this forum have legislated or the enforcement of their policies to silence expressions which do not meet their established standards

I am aware that as a priest, the right that I have to speak from my pulpit…which is properly mine, always under competent ecclesiastical authority to which complete submission is to be shown…is not the right that I have to speak on this forum because communications on this forum are circumscribed by the rules of this forum, to which everyone on the forum has no choice but to submit or face punitive measures

Just as I have control of my pulpit and determine access to it, the right of the moderators to determine what they deem to be rude, disrespectful, derogatory, disparaging, and negative against clergy are decisions in their control to enforce as they please

All of us who use the forum have to abide by the decisions of its authorities with total deference

So again…to this issue at hand I repeat my question: how can one assert an absolute right to say something against any Cardinal on a forum if that is construed by legitimate authority of said forum to be a negative statement, a disrespectful statement, a rude statement, a disparaging statement and as such is proscribed by the authority?

Personally, as an ecclesiastic of many years, I can only assume that when we are speaking of not only a cleric…but an archbishop…who is head of the conference of bishops of his nation…and who is a Cardinal…and who is a member of the Holy Father’s Council of Nine, that an extraordinary deference would be demanded for such a personage

I have answered the charges you have directed me – but your issue seems mostly to be actually with the authorities of the forum and so I retire from further comment

 

[pnewton]

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.

Rather than give the benefit of the doubt, too often the clergy, at all levels are deprived of even basic Catholic charity when they speak in public. We should all practice, toward all, the basic principle:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

When we are interacting with one that has more training and knowledge than we do, common sense would dictate that we consider first that we might be missing some point of understanding. When we are dealing with media outlets, we must add in the possibility that we are not getting a good picture of what was said. Not everything on the internet is true. Precious little of what is in blogs and news site is unfiltered.

 

[djames99]

One way to show that respect and restore his dignity is to bring him to new life by pointing out that he is wrong.

Besides, the jig is up, the ruse exposed through devotion to the Rosary. There have been cures where complete reversals have happened to the point that suggestions to relive these yearnings bring on revulsion. They have gone on to raise normal families.
Charity of Catholics can be expressed by not responding to effeminate/masculine mannerisms, and to questionable lifestyles. We should not turn away those who have gone through a sex change after first had a board of advisors, or more than one medical opinion of his case. Children should always be accepted regardless.

 

[philipl]

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.

It may very well be a small part to them, but to God it’s the only thing that matters. Sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. There is no exceptions. Since marriage can only be between a man and a woman, gay couples can not be married.

Couples living together are also guilty of a mortal sin, that is if they are sexual active.

Same thing with remarried catholics that havent been through the annulment process if required.