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

[johnnyc176]

There is no room for pilitics in here,sorry.
This is just Catholic.
Anything positive to share ,welcomei!

Congratulations on your promotion to moderator.

 

[graciew]

Congratulations on your promotion to moderator.

No! Self- appointed Director of Orchestra!
Playing "The positive " now,for a change!

 

[johnnyc176]

No! Self appointed Director of Orchestra!
Playing "The positive " now,for a change!

Well whatever title you bestow upon yourself what I posted was a positive message. Proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church without fear from liberal tactics.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Can you give us a concrete example of how someone who understands it’s important to treat LGB with respect and love but doesn’t fully understand the “difference between objectively disordered and to what degree homosexuality is objectively disordered”…wouldn’t be able to convert someone?

By treat them with respect and love do you mean respect and love them enough to tell a pagan they don’t know that homosexuality is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance and that they have to repent or they’ll go to Hell?

Yes, I agree with this. I do not see any way that being in a homosexual relationship (assuming sexual acts are taking place) can be a state of grace, except perhaps through invincible ignorance, which I’m not really buying as a possibility, especially if such a couple is in regular communication with a priest about their situation. His point about legal recognition of homosexual unions is particular problematic and in my opinion is directly opposed to Church teaching on this subject. I agree with Seamus L’s post above that it is definitely not clear what Cardinal Marx’s beliefs on homosexuality actually are. As such, and in the absence of any clarification of his remarks, we are left to mere speculation.

He means nonsexual, like a couple living as brother and sister until convalidation

No, you haven’t said that enslavement to passion should be a reason to continue in sin. And I agree that enslavement to passion reduces culpability in that one’s will is weakened. What worries me is the implications of this for the average Catholic. The more I am enslaved to sin, the less culpable I become, so rather than trying to reduce my enslavement I am tempted to ignore it for the very reason that it mitigates my culpability. Ultimately, it becomes a way of reducing my guilt to zero, thereby leaving me enslaved to my passions.

Frequent confession is often recommended to one so enslaved to passion. But if the guilt is mitigated one might see confession as unnecessary. But it would be rather dangerous ground not to recommend frequent confession in such cases.

As to full knowledge, any Catholic involved in an ongoing serious moral fault would have to be nearly deliberately ignoring Catholic teaching in order to not be aware of it. And yet I do not doubt that some are either unaware of it or ignore it in many cases, as is seen in the continued popularity of cohabitatiion. I guess that the remedy might lie with more priests like St. John Vianney.

That’s only a problem if people don’t know that reconciliation gives grace.

 

[graciew]

Where have I said that it should be a reason to continue indefinitely in one’s sin?

It is true that some make valiant efforts to overcome but fall repeatedly and there are the sacraments to help us with that. As my own confessor once said, God rewards the effort even if He has no illusions the result will always be perfect. God never tires of giving His forgiveness and grace to those who ask for it with sincere contrition, even if it is because of repeated failure on the same sin. That is Catholic teaching.

Some of course don’t yet recognize that it is something that needs to be overcome. The question is how to attract those people into the Church so that they may be converted at their own pace, as they gather (hopefully) strength with time. Spiritual training takes time, just like training for a race, and not everyone can train at the same pace.

While not all of us will win the race (I consider the saints to be those who did win), we all want to cross the finish line, or rather in biblical terms reach the gates of the New Jerusalem:

(Ps. 122)

It is a gift to have you around,Ora.
Thank you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Prostitutes can sell their bodies for money and long-time gay couples can commit the sin of sodomy while remaining in the state of grace. Where in AL does it say this and do you believe this is acceptable to God?

Curiously Pope Francis has repeated his AL stance on 11/7/2016:*
I also regret another remark I made in [a recent] homily. … I said that cheating workers is “a mortal sin"! I must now express that in a more nuanced way.

In Amoris Laetitia I made it clear that I was “speaking not only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves” (AL 297). That of course includes employers who find themselves in the situation of slave-driving their workers.

For them too, we must keep in mind the distinction between objective sin and subjective guilt. Since there can be in employers’ lives many “mitigating factors . . . it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation” are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace (AL 301).

He or she “may know full well the rule, yet be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin (AL 301).”
*

Though I fear this will still not convince you of the Catholic truth of what either the Pope or I am trying to demonstrate to you. Go with God on your faith journey.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Prostitutes can sell their bodies for money and long-time gay couples can commit the sin of sodomy while remaining in the state of grace. Where in AL does it say this

AL 301:
The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”,or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Though I fear this will still not convince you of the Catholic truth of what either the Pope or others here are trying to gently demonstrate to you.

Go with God on your faith journey.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…No matter how charitable one is in proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church they will be called hater, homophobic, intolerant and any other name calling that seeks to bury the Truth in relativism. It is designed to shut you up and apparently it is working very well as we are reduced to apologizing for the teachings of Jesus and helping to ‘form consciences’ that will vote for an anti Catholic liberal political ideology that is laying waste to life issues A - Z.

:clapping:

Yep. That’s my lived experience also.
(Not here at CAF though, where we listen to other people’s contrary views charitably.)

 

[irenaeus1]

AL 301:
The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”,or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

While there can be mitigating circumstances regarding whether a particular act is morally licit, such as violence against another person being justifiable if the other person is an aggressor and the violence against the aggressor is in self-defense, in other instances an act can never be moral. St. Thomas writes that certain acts “have a deformity which is inseparably annexed to them, such as fornication, adultery and other things of this sort, which can in no way be done morally” (Quaestiones Quodlibetales, 9, q.7, a.2). Recall that Canon Law, John Paul II’s FC, the CDF’s document from 1994 does not focus on mortal sin, but rather the objective sin of the “irregular” situation.

 

[PRmerger]

By treat them with respect and love do you mean respect and love them enough to tell a pagan they don’t know that homosexuality is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance and that they have to repent or they’ll go to Hell?

Nope. I don’t mean that at all.

And there is no Catholic teaching that proclaims that the above is correct orthopraxy.

Not even remotely.

 

[zz912]

I agree with you. There was nothing to back off from and BH is more than capable of mounting thier own defense. However, there are mods. I do think the tone of some posters can be off putting. I’m sure many think that of me. I rarely agree with BH and I have found some of the posts to be quite condescending. However, BH has never gotten into it with me. You can report troublesome posts to the mods. Sometimes I’ve had the mods not see it my way and that is what the “ignore” button is for. My ignore list is not too long but it seems any who I segregate there seem to eventually not be part of CAF any longer. Some do though.

I prefer not to get the mods involved as much as possible. Unless someone is openly hostile, threatening or over-the-top rude, usually it is sufficient to simply call out their behavior and that suffices. I don’t even know if I’ve put anyone on the Ignore list myself. I don’t take anything said here personally.

 

[zz912]

If there is no sin there is no attachment and no purification required for the particular offence in question. Your assumption is that all offences are actual sins.
This is the ongoing error in this thread some of us are attempting to clarify.

Let me repeat that.
Not all wrongs are sins.

Let’s use an example to show the error in your thinking. A man committing serial adultery but is missing one of the other two required components to make it mortal sin. He doesn’t stop committing this adultery. He is obviously attached to the grave matter. He enjoys it. Adultery is wrong. Then he dies. He has no mortal sin nor venial sin from this adultery. But he has an attachment to it. Does he need to be purified before entering Heaven? Does he need to realize what he has done wrong and be purged of his love for this grave matter? Yes or no answers please.

Restraint of wrong doers is the responsibility of the temporal authority not the Church - unless you believe in Sharia or the secular imposition of Canon Law.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, for the latter that went out at the close of medieval times.

Do you feel an equal obligation to do so with every heavy drinker you meet - a good number of which are Catholic priests? Of course we don’t.
Which suggests such exaggerated concerns are culturally conditioned more than commands of Christ.

I’ll not be continuing to discuss these matters with you ZZ as the requisite equanimity and openess needed to have a profitable dialogue I prudently judge to be missing at present.

I never mentioned anything about restraining someone. I stated the Church and those in the Church, per your standard, must at some point inform the person they must stop their grave matter. Do you agree with this statement, yes or no?

If I have an opportunity to speak with a heavy drinker, and I’m in a position of trust and openness where I can, I most certainly mention to them that they must moderate or end their drinking. It’s a spiritual work of mercy to do so. What good and faithful Catholic would not?

Jesus has already provided the answer:

In other words when we cut the root of sin in our hearts right actions shall eventually follow.
The Pharisees wrongly believed the reverse.

Why are you unable to answer my question with a yes or no? I disagree with your interpretation of the words of Jesus as somehow encouraging people in ignoring His moral law. Please just answer my question with a yes or no. Does God want people to remain in a situation of continuing to commit grave matter? yes or no?

 

[zz912]

Mt. 23:26

I will add that the word Pharisee has become the worst name anyone can be called. Funny, Jesus corrected many and had harsh words for many, and called many to change. But apparently the only ones who have to change are those who like rules… Who seek to follow God’s direction. For these we reserve the most vile of terms. Not sodomite, not adulterer, not murderer but rather “Pharisee”. The ultimate insult! And indeed the inhabitors of hades.

This actually is just what Jesus did HD.
He indeed called many to change but his harshest words were not aimed at Sodomites, prostitutes, murderers, tax collectors, lepers, heretics, remarried. They were indeed aimed at the outward rule keepers, Pharisees. And not just Pharisees but law teachers and their Scribes as well.

So I belive you are quite correct and it isn’t really “funny” at all.
That’s what Jesus did.

Actually you’ve got it 180 degrees out of phase. Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for their rules about ritual washing. He condemned them because they IGNORED His moral law. A Pharisee who upholds God’s moral law and holds to the rules on cleanliness was not a problem for Jesus, i.e. like Nicodemus. It was those who rejected, ignored or glossed over the moral law that Jesus condemned.

A similar analogy could be drawn towards those in the Church who wish to focus on making sure to add sugar (niceness and accompaniment) to the Church’s medicine (God’s moral law) to make it easier to for people to accept. This is fine, as long as the medicine is actually given. If the medicine is not given, then such a person would be similar to the Pharisees because they would be focusing on the outward (niceness) and not the interior (God’s moral law).

 

[zz912]

So far, the most critical comment from Cardinal Marx on the subject of homosexuality, that I’ve been able to find, is that he could not officially bless a union between two people of the same sex, but that he would pray for their relationship if asked.

What would such a prayer consist of? Would he pray for the relationship of two adulterers?

 

[zz912]

Mathew Chapter 23 verse 25

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.”

I referred to my Bibles footnotes for a better understanding. Here is what it said. “The scribes and Pharisees are compared to cups carefully washed on the outside but filthy within. Self-indulgence: the Greek word here translated means lack of self control, whether in drinking or sexual conduct.”

I think it means the Pharisees are living lives that lack self-control, while pretending on the outside that they are holy and good. To clean the inside of the cup, they must get rid of the filth, by living good clean lives (lives free from sin), and not lives of self-indulgence. I am open for discussion if anyone disagrees.

I used a Saint Joseph Edition of The New American Bible,( an after Vatican II Bible), it has a letter from Pope Paul VI in it dated September 18th, 1970.

Bingo. It was the rejection of God’s moral law that Jesus was angry with the Pharisees about.

 

[zz912]

Where have I said that it should be a reason to continue indefinitely in one’s sin?

I asked earlier in this thread is God wishes for people to remain committing their grave matter. My yes/no question was completely dodged and remains unanswered.

It is true that some make valiant efforts to overcome but fall repeatedly and there are the sacraments to help us with that. As my own confessor once said, God rewards the effort even if He has no illusions the result will always be perfect. God never tires of giving His forgiveness and grace to those who ask for it with sincere contrition, even if it is because of repeated failure on the same sin. That is Catholic teaching.

Some of course don’t yet recognize that it is something that needs to be overcome. The question is how to attract those people into the Church so that they may be converted at their own pace, as they gather (hopefully) strength with time. Spiritual training takes time, just like training for a race, and not everyone can train at the same pace.

I agree with everything in this.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Nope. I don’t mean that at all.

And there is no Catholic teaching that proclaims that the above is correct orthopraxy.

Not even remotely.

I know it definitely isn’t teaching that why I’m quite frustrated with it. Too many conservatives are more concerned with “truth telling” and appearing to be a good “traditionalist Catholic” than in actually doing things that result in the saving souls. When someone’s “truth telling” is so bad in order to satisfy their ego it isn’t just wrong, it is immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

I know it definitely isn’t teaching that why I’m quite frustrated with it. Too many conservatives are more concerned with “truth telling” and appearing to be a good “traditionalist Catholic” than in actually doing things that result in the saving souls. When someone’s “truth telling” is so bad in order to satisfy their ego it isn’t just wrong, it is immoral.

Yeah. That’s why you should be correcting these “traditionalist Catholics”.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yeah. That’s why you should be correcting these “traditionalist Catholics”.

I have been doing so.

 

[PRmerger]

I have been doing so.