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

[OraLabora]

I didn’t see where Josie mentioned anything about ‘just following the rules’, rather, I see what she is presenting as a call to break with sin. Not the same thing!

No one expects it not to be a journey, but the first steps involve a recognition of the sin in our lives. To even trust in God’s Mercy hinges on a recognition that what we did was wrong in the first place. You are quite correct that God’s Mercy is what lifts us up out of the mess we fell into and sets us back on the right path. It is not our own doing. But that Mercy is meaningless without the recognition that we fell in the first place.

Often though, I’d even say usually, this doesn’t happen through exhortation but a realization that one’s life cannot carry on the way it has. In other words, hitting rock-bottom. An addition counsellor who gave a seminar to us managers some years ago, gave an example of alcoholism and drug addiction. It’s the same with many sins. It comes from the heart, not from lecturing. Which is why I think her approach would fail.

It happened to me on a business trip in a hotel room when I realized I couldn’t go on as I had in the fast lane, and picked up the Bible in the night table and started to read. A couple of months later I came back to the Church, mentally at least, crawling on all fours. It will be 19 years this fall.

An approach that might work is simply “come and see”. No lecturing. No proselytizing. Just come, see, ask questions, speak to a priest, tell us your joys and your pains. Make it plain that all are welcome no matter what their beliefs or how ready they are to break with sin. It may take years. Meet sinners where they are. Do not expect them to be where you are when they walk through the door. No quid pro quo “you’re welcome if you renounce sin”. Just “you’re welcome”. Period. And listen to what they have to say. The world is full of hurt. Many of our own sins are the result of past mistreatment. Mine was. My wife’s father even more so, he spent the ages of 16-20 in a Japanese concentration camp. You can imagine how abandoned by God he felt.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes I am. In all fairness to Josie I used to think like her when I came back to the Church, that simply “following the rules” would cure me of my most serious sins.

It wasn’t until my 50s that I fell flat on my face and realized that “following the rules and simply saying “no” to sin” hadn’t changed me one iota. Instead I was using ego to overcome my sin and puff up my image, and it made me a very cantankerous and miserable person to live with. It almost cost me my marriage. Only through patient counsel of my spiritual director and my confessor was I able to finally realize that following the rules did not save us -it leads to frustration, scrupulosity, and ultimately, despair- it was complet trust in the mercy of Christ. I remember the moment of truth very well. I was sitting in small nearly abandoned 11th century chapel on a clammy, wet and cold fall day in October, at a French monastery in Normandy. I just sat there, prayed, and said to Christ, “Here I am Lord, as-is, where-is, the good, the bad and the poison; please take me as I am”. And for the first time I truly felt accepted and embraced by Christ. That it was OK to be me. That I was not defined by my sin but also by my qualities.

Does it mean I wallow in my sin? No. But it means that in spite of the inevitable failures (and believe me there are many), I can trust in Christ’s mercy with the healing help of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It means too that now my wife and I can laugh at each others’ foibles instead of seeing each one as an affront against the other. It broke the cycle of mutual accusation, recrimination and revenge. By being accepted by Christ, we have better learned to accept each other.

We are all at different points in our spiritual development. I can honestly say that this personal epiphany of sorts was perhaps the most liberating experience in my life. I will pray that all, including Josie, can experience it. But it took much pain and many tears to get there, in essence, a very long and painful Dark Night of the Soul that in my case lasted a good 5 years if not more.

I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way but saying you used to think like somebody is incredibly condescending.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way but saying you used to think like somebody is incredibly condescending.

I didn’t mean it to be condescending (keep in mind my first language is French). When I was in that situation was a very, very painful time for me and as I said it nearly cost me my marriage. I would hate to see anyone go through the same pain. Perhaps I could have phrased it better.

 

[JosieN]

Yes I am. In all fairness to Josie I used to think like her when I came back to the Church, that simply “following the rules” would cure me of my most serious sins.

It wasn’t until my 50s that I fell flat on my face and realized that “following the rules and simply saying “no” to sin” hadn’t changed me one iota.

I do not remember saying that simply following the rules was all that was necessary for salvation, you may have understood me incorrectly.

Here is what the Bible says about sin.

“If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” **1 John !:9-10
**

As you can see from the Bible quote, acknowledging your sins is important, and you cannot do that if you do not know what a sin is. Church teachings, commandments, the Bible and the writings of saints help us to define what a sin is and they give us the knowledge we need to make good choices. They help to guide us and lead us on the right path. Without them we would be lost and most likely to follow our own way and not the way of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for sharing your story. I am happy you found Jesus Christ and peace in your life. May the love of Jesus Christ be with you always, and may He always be with you on your journey through this life.

 

[philipl]

Sex outside marriage is grave matter. Whether it is mortal sin or not depends on two other conditions being met. To say it is mortal is to pass judgement on a situation that should be between penitent and confessor.

It never ceases to amaze me that this most basic concept of moral theology, so clearly explained in the catechism, is so often missed on CAF.

So me calling it a mortal sin is judgement(no it isnt) but you calling it a grave matter is not judgemental?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So me calling it a mortal sin is judgement(no it isnt) but you calling it a grave matter is not judgemental?

You don’t actually have enough information to say whether it was a mortal sin or not, but it is always a grave matter

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So me calling it a mortal sin is judgement(no it isnt) but you calling it a grave matter is not judgemental?

Yes: you saying that that the person has acquired subjective moral guilt is passing judgement. OraLabora speaking of grave matter is not passing judgement.

OraLabora is exactly correct in the terminology he uses. You are not.

 

[anon67074017]

Homosexual relationships distort the notion of the family. They are not positive.

 

[Seamus_L]

Has there ever been an instance in the entire history of the Church, where a Bishop has made such a statement as this ?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Has there ever been an instance in the entire history of the Church, where a Bishop has made such a statement as this ?

You will have to be clearer as to what you mean.

 

[tseleehw]

Has there ever been an instance in the entire history of the Church, where a Bishop has made such a statement as this ?

I believe that nearly identical language appeared in the document that was released midway through the week of the first synod in 2014. If you remember, there was an uproar from the bishops over the language (and the fact that the document did not reflect the views of the majority of the bishops at the synod). I can’t look up the exact quote right now, but it said something about finding the positive aspects of homosexual relationships. This language disappeared from the final version of the document. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of bishops reject the claim that the church should consider the positive aspects of homosexual relationships. That’s a dangerous path to go down IMHO as it will probably lead more people to justifying their sin rather than repenting of it.

As for other statements by bishops in the church, there was a bishop a couple of years ago that advocated for blessing same-sex relationships (can’t remember the exact wording of his quote) which was probably far worse than this. I believe there was also a retired bishop in the US that went on the record as suporting same-sex marriage (there was an article in Detroit Free Press about it maybe a year ago). So there have been some rather high ranking dissenters on this teaching in the Catholic Church over the years.

 

[philipl]

Yes: you saying that that the person has acquired subjective moral guilt is passing judgement. OraLabora speaking of grave matter is not passing judgement.

OraLabora is exactly correct in the terminology he uses. You are not.

I cant pass judgement on anyone if its a mortal sin, in fact there is no one on this earth that can do so. Not even the Pope. Only God can pass judgement. I on the other hand can have an opinion. And my opinion it that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. If you want to tell me my opinion is wrong, cool.

 

[PRmerger]

And my opinion it that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. If you want to tell me my opinion is wrong, cool.

You are not wrong.

You are certainly within the bounds of Catholic moral thought to declare a certain action a mortal sin.

That’s NOT judging the eternal destiny of someone, which is something outside our paygrade.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I cant pass judgement on anyone if its a mortal sin, in fact there is no one on this earth that can do so. Not even the Pope. Only God can pass judgement. I on the other hand can have an opinion. And my opinion it that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. If you want to tell me my opinion is wrong, cool.

I don’t know what you mean by “wrong”… however it is demonstrable with a very high degree of certainty that your opinion is not in accord with Catholic Teaching on the matter.

That is, it is erroneous to say that sex engaged in outside of marriage is always and everywhere mortally sinful. However that is true if you really mean its always grave matter … just as OL and DR have explained. It is a common mistake.

I suspect your error is purely one of terminology.
These days “mortal sin” means actual grave personal sin. But in former times it was often used to describe just the outer deed (grave matter if you will) only, leaving out any considerations of personal culpability.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I cant pass judgement on anyone if its a mortal sin, in fact there is no one on this earth that can do so. Not even the Pope. Only God can pass judgement. I on the other hand can have an opinion. And my opinion it that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. If you want to tell me my opinion is wrong, cool.

I am not sure what you mean when you say “no one on this earth can do so. Not even the Pope.” We do it when we hear confession, from Pope to newest ordained priest – the difference is that the penitent has made an exposition of conscience which allows me, as a confessor, to arrive at a moral judgement in order, then, to absolve or not absolve, according to the situation as well as the prescriptions concerning the sacrament’s administration and concerning canon law.

In the absence of the exposition of conscience, however, one can only speak to the objective act, which may constitute grave matter, but one is not in a position to assess either the knowledge and its extent or the consent of will and its extent and inhibiting factors in the acting person…and those are integral to assessing the acquisition of subjective moral guilt.

 

[JosieN]

I suspect your error is purely one of terminology.
These days “mortal sin” means actual grave personal sin. But in former times it was often used to describe just the outer deed (grave matter if you will) only, leaving out any considerations of personal culpability.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that these days “mortal sin” means actual grave personal sin with consideration of personal culpability, when in former times it was often used to describe just the outer deed (grave matter). If this is true it would be easy to error in terminology as it appears the terminology has changed. Maybe I am not understanding what you mean, but if I am, how, when and why did this change occur?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If I understand you correctly you are saying that these days “mortal sin” means actual grave personal sin with consideration of personal culpability, when in former times it was often used to describe just the outer deed (grave matter). If this is true it would be easy to error in terminology as it appears the terminology has changed. Maybe I am not understanding what you mean, but if I am, how, when and why did this change occur?

Yes that is what I mean. It happens in all disciplines of knowledge when a vocabulary used precisely by the experts is understandably adopted by lay persons and usage becomes ambiguous and meanings invariably change and confusion can arise.

For example in a plane crash one would struggle to find the Blackbox if one thought it was actually black. It has in fact always been painted bright orange. The black in Blackbox refers to something other than color. A trap for young players. The same for mortal sin.

We usually know what is meant even if expressed poorly. However it is dangerous to try and “reverse engineer” a coherent personal moral theology from such colloquial usage which I fear the bright but theologically less educated amongst us are attempting.

 

[JosieN]

Yes that is what I mean. It happens in all disciplines of knowledge when a vocabulary used precisely by the experts is understandably adopted by lay persons and usage becomes ambiguous and meanings invariably change and confusion can arise.

For example in a plane crash one would struggle to find the Blackbox if one thought it was actually black. It has in fact always been painted bright orange. The black in Blackbox refers to something other than color. A trap for young players. The same for mortal sin.

We usually know what is meant even if expressed poorly. However it is dangerous to try and “reverse engineer” a coherent personal moral theology from such colloquial usage which I fear the bright but theologically less educated amongst us are attempting.

Are you saying a “mortal sin” is not really mortal (meaning one goes to hell when one commits one) because it all depends on other factors, whereas in the past it was known to cause a loss of the soul unless confessed?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you saying a “mortal sin” is not really mortal (meaning one goes to hell when one commits one)

No. Of course a mortal sin condemns to hell if you want to put it that way.
But we never see a mortal sin, we only see someone engaging in grave matter.
Someone may regularly engage in grave matter and for various reasons still be well within God’s loving arms.

Our relationship with God is not a military one based on bodily purity but purity of heart.
Sometimes our heart/attention is not driving our body fully enough to be made impure by our outward deeds.
Sin in its deepest sense has to be a “human act” not an “action of a human”.
The two sound the same but in they are very very different before God.

 

[JosieN]

No. Of course a mortal sin condemns to hell if you want to put it that way.
But we never see a mortal sin, we only see someone engaging in grave matter.
Someone may regularly engage in grave matter and for various reasons still be well within God’s loving arms.

Our relationship with God is not a military one based on bodily purity but purity of heart.
Sometimes our heart/attention is not driving our body fully enough to be made impure by our outward deeds.
Sin in its deepest sense has to be a “human act” not an “action of a human”.
The two sound the same but in they are very very different before God.

Thank you for your explanation but I see things differently. I find it hard to believe that the "action of a human "does not cause sin. A mentally ill person may not be able to know right from wrong, but all other thinking human beings can know and should know how to make the right choices. The commandments are there for all to follow. If you are an atheist and you murder a person, you will be responsible for your actions even if you do not think it is a sin.

I believe it is too easy to make excuses for sins if we can just say that the intention was good and the heart was pure but then continue to sin with the body. When the body is pure the heart is pure, the two are not separate in my opinion. I feel the greatest sin would be on a person who led someone on the path to a sinful life, or knew someone who had lost his way and is involved in grave sin and did not try to correct that person. I believe we are all responsible for the souls of others and we should pray for their soul even if we cannot change their ways. We cannot be sure that person is within God’s loving arms, only God can know that.