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

[Strydersroom]

Yes I’ve always wondered why the people who say these things don’t publicly endorse other deviances. I’m sure incestuous relationships have love and benifits. Polyamourous ones, even abusive ones.

Bradski’s law in full effect. incenstuous, polyamorouous and abusive relationships have nothing to do with homosexual relationships.

 

[Rau]

Bradski’s law in full effect. incenstuous, polyamorouous and abusive relationships have nothing to do with homosexual relationships.

You speak too soon. See the point in context. What is the Cardinal saying? He is saying there can be some positive elements in a relationship *that is otherwise seriously flawed. *

Sometimes we test such statements by seeing if they apply more widely.

The same sex sexual element is (in the Catholic worldview) a serious flaw. So, if we replace that flaw with other flaws, such as an adulterous element, an abusive element, an incestuous element…does the Cardinal’s observation hold water? Well…I suppose it does.

But: Adultery <> abusive <>incest <> same sex sexual relationship.

The flaws are substituted in an analogous function, not with any sense of equivalence. In a moral debate, these things come from a “set” of flaws. They are not the same though.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Bradski’s law in full effect. incenstuous, polyamorouous and abusive relationships have nothing to do with homosexual relationships.

The point is that it’s a disordered relationship. There are lots of disordered relationships.
Kidnap victims can have positive relationships with captors. Why is it this deviancy is different?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes.
There is always physical evil in the unnatural death of a person. It’s just that kill/killing is silent on whether the act in question entailed moral evil.

Yes, this I think this is exactly my point.
Grave matter is all about serious “physical evil” and we must make inferences re the agent’s intention, freedom, understanding before concluding the presence of moral evil based on more “evidence” than the physical evil itself.

Sin strictly speaking can only be said of a morally evil act, not of a seriously physically evil deed I believe.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Maybe Cardinal Marx should make a video showing the Church all the positive aspects of homosexual relationships. Then we see exactly what he means.

"a faithful and loving relationship between homosexuals has some of the same positive benefits as a marital relationship. "

You do not see these as positive virtues … which many heterosexual unions fail in.

I am all for fostering those sorts of virtues wheverever they may be found, so rare are they.

Virtue covers a multitude of sins.

What he means is exactly clear to me.

 

[Rau]

Yes, this I think this is exactly my point.
Grave matter is all about serious “physical evil” and we must make inferences re the agent’s intention, freedom, understanding before concluding the presence of moral evil based on more “evidence” than the physical evil itself.

Sin strictly speaking can only be said of a morally evil act, not of a seriously physically evil deed I believe.

So, how do you translate your point over to “fornication”. Why is that (as you said earlier) like “killing” (no moral content), rather than “murder” (moral content inherent)?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes I’ve always wondered why the people who say these things don’t publicly endorse other deviances. .

Endorse: “to approve or recommend.”

On what grounds would you believe Cardinal Marx has a strategy of positive encouragement of homosexual acts as opposed to a strategy of tolerating an ineradicable reality that has always existed for significant numbers in society whether hidden or overt.

Yes, I am fairly sure he would say the same for the large numbers of “deviant” prostitute mothers in poor countries too. They don’t tend to cause the same amount of accusations of “deviance” by highly virtuous Christians though … so they likely need less defending perhaps.

Same with alcoholics - that’s not considered a a “deviance” in US, Irish and Aussi Christian countries for some strange reason.

Perhaps the outrage re homosexuality is more about traditional secular homophobic cultural conditioning than God? Maybe this fixation is a “deviation”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So, how do you translate your point over to “fornication”. Why is that (as you said earlier) like “killing” (no moral content), rather than “murder” (moral content inherent)?

If you re-read I did suggest adultery may be clearer to discuss as this is in the Commandments along with “thou shall not kill.”

Anyways, where is the “moral content” in a deed of adultery?
Adultery merely describes a temporal evil, just like killing.
Grave matter.
A seriously disordered act.
A transgression of law.

Yes I accept that one cannot see “adultery”.
But a judgement of adultery is hardly “inferred”, it can be seen by reason very clearly when circumstances are investigated. Its just a more subtle form of what is essentially physically demonstrable.

“Moral evil” can never be judged definitively by the eyes of sense nor by the eye of reason.

This is because we surely cannot finally judge a person’s degree of consent or understanding or direct intention even by the eye of reason. Its internal. Sure we can often enough make prudential judgments based on experience but in the end not even a confessor can be 100% sure.
Aquinas says the same. Sometimes a killing can be such that an act of murder and an act of self-defence can only be distinguished by the hidden intention of the agent which is only available to the person himself…and even then that person himself may sometimes not know due to passions.

 

[Rau]

Yes I’ve always wondered why the people who say these things don’t publicly endorse other deviances. I’m sure incestuous relationships have love and benifits. Polyamourous ones, even abusive ones.

Endorse is the wrong word. But you could perhaps ask whether there is good in some other flawed activities / relationships - say:

• The divorced and remarried - well…this one is being discussed;
• The profession of prostitution…
• The role of the planned sexual surrogate…be it therapy, or to carry an IVF child for another…I guess there is some good here…
• Polyamory…probably some good in here

I suppose it is not the “good” in these situations that *‘recommends’ *them, or is any basis for acclaiming or endorsing them - rather the good is just (perhaps) the place from which those involved can be reached, from which they can grow…if they want to.

Of course, there are churches that do endorse some of these arrangements (eg. homosexual relationships) - and with that backdrop, the merest mention of it without condemnation, let alone remarking that there may at least be some positive (as per Marx), may be seen as a first step toward endorsement. I don’t think Marx is on that road, but he certainly should extend his thinking to say what follows from his observation, and not leave us wondering.

 

[JosieN]

Endorse: “to approve or recommend.”

On what grounds would you believe Cardinal Marx has a strategy of positive encouragement of homosexual acts as opposed to a strategy of tolerating an ineradicable reality that has always existed for significant numbers in society whether hidden or overt.

Yes, I am fairly sure he would say the same for the large numbers of “deviant” prostitute mothers in poor countries too. They don’t tend to cause the same amount of accusations of “deviance” by highly virtuous Christians though … so they likely need less defending perhaps.

Same with alcoholics - that’s not considered a a “deviance” in US, Irish and Aussi Christian countries for some strange reason.

Perhaps the outrage re homosexuality is more about traditional secular homophobic cultural conditioning than God? Maybe this fixation is a “deviation”?

The deviation is not because homosexuals sin, (like prostitutes and alcoholics), nor is it because it is thought to be some type of sexual addition, it is because they are going against God’s purpose and plan in creating people as male and female. Being of the same sex and being attracted to each other is the deviation. Here is a quote I am sure you are familiar with:

**"God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning (he) made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” **

The openness to fertility

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."160

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. **God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning (he) made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” **Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.161

Do you really think it is traditional secular homophobic cultural conditioning that is causing the outrage? Maybe the outrage is caused because these Christian Catholics actually believe in the teachings of the Catechism of the Church and in God’s word?

 

[Rau]

If you re-read I said I did suggest adultery may be clearer to discuss as this is in the Commandments along with “thou shall not kill.”

Anyways, where is the “moral content” in a deed of adultery?
Adultery merely describes a temporal evil, just like killing.
Grave matter.
A seriously disordered act.
A transgression of law.

Yes I accept that one cannot see “adultery”.
But a judgement of adultery is hardly “inferred”, it can be seen by reason very clearly when circumstances are investigated. Its just a more subtle form of what is essentially physically demonstrable.

“Moral evil” can never be judged definitively by the eyes of sense nor by the eye of reason.

This is because we surely cannot finally judge a person’s degree of consent or understanding or direct intention even by the eye of reason. Its internal. Sure we can often enough make prudential judgments based on experience but in the end not even a confessor can be 100% sure.

Just to clarify - the discussion is not worth having if your intent is just to point out that externally observable info (perhaps as one might see in a film clip) can often be insufficient to expose the moral content adequately. With this - I agree. We need know what’s going on really. So that if we are to call an act “murder”, then we need to know the things that qualify it as murder are present.

Now what is adultery if not act an with moral content exposed (rather like murder I would have thought)? Does it mean no more than sexual activity (akin to killing)? Does it mean rape (a word also exposing moral content, but different from adultery)? I think we know that’s not what the word means.

A fictional story: My married sister (as mentally sound as they come) and her husband dine with me and some friends at my mansion. A little later in the evening, I spot her sneaking from her room to my friend’s room, wearing alluring bed attire, and I hear, or spy through an open curtain, them enjoying a sexual interlude. I confront her in the morning about this - and she turns bright red, flustered and confesses to unhappiness in her marriage, and a desire for some love and comfort. Let this be the truth.

Now, I believe there is no universe in which this is not adultery. An adulterous act. Non-marital sexual relations. A moral evil. A choice of the will. I have described a particular scenario of adultery - but any act properly called adultery winds up in the same place (despite varying stories).

Can there be circumstances which diminish culpability? Yes of course.

Can there be an instance of adultery with no moral evil? For me, that is a contradiction in terms. To remove the moral evil would necessitate removing the elements that make it adultery. If my little sister had sex with my friend under duress (“come to my room or I’ll kills your child”) - it’s sounding more like rape than adultery.

Why do you want to see words like fornication, adultery and so on as absent moral evil? Is this not intrinsic to what we mean by the words?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Can there be an instance of adultery with no moral evil? For me, that is a contradiction in terms.

This is where we understand Catholic moral theology, or strict vocabulary, very differently.

By definition a “moral act” involves consent and understanding.

Therefore “adultery”, which does not imply these things necessarily, cannot properly be called a “moral act”. It is certainly grave matter.

To “commit adultery” is usually understood to be a moral act (morally evil that is).
This is because the verb is usually used by moral theologians to imply knowing consent.

To “engage in adultery” is just as ambiguous as “adultery”.

But of course the average Catholic is usually unaware of these strict use of words in moral theology - which is fine.

But you asked, and it clarifies my own use of the words here.

 

[Rau]

This is where we understand Catholic moral theology, or strict vocabulary, very differently.

By definition a “moral act” involves consent and understanding.

Therefore “adultery”, which does not imply these things necessarily, cannot properly be called a “moral act”. It is certainly grave matter.

To “commit adultery” is usually understood to be a moral act (morally evil that is).
This is because the verb is usually used by moral theologians to imply knowing consent.

To “engage in adultery” is just as ambiguous as “adultery”.

But of course the average Catholic is usually unaware of these strict use of words in moral theology - which is fine.

But you asked, and it clarifies my own use of the words here.

Were there no consent, there would be no adultery. Perhaps then we’d speak of rape, not adultery. Or sleep-walking, or something…

 

[Lion_IRC]

Bradski’s law in full effect. incenstuous, polyamorouous and abusive relationships have nothing to do with homosexual relationships.

Hoosier Daddy said it could be argued that incestuous and polyamourous relationships (hypothetically) might also have love and benefits for those involved.

Are you (and Bradski) saying no, they cannot?

OR…or are you saying that loving, beneficial incestuous and polygamous relationships are nothing like homosexual relationships?

It seems a bit of a double standard to deny other people an entitlement to the same “marriage” equality demanded by homosexuals.

#tolerance. #love_wins

 

[Lion_IRC]

Could there be any positive aspects of the relationship between the gay pornography industry and its customers? (Victimless crime)

Might not gay prostitutes reasonably argue that they provide comfort and affection to sad and lonely people?

Who am I to judge?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

While various aspects and subtle nuances in understanding doctrine has developed, nothing doctrinally has changed in 400 years, much less in 150 years. So, no, studying the Catechism of the Council of Trent or early Church fathers or the Councils prior to Vatican II or the Baltimore Catechism will not greatly impoverish oneself.

Primary sources won’t, but closing your mind to all except a much older Catechism thus dicarding all the theological learning since then.

I don’t think its right to presume that people are stating truths “in order to satisfy their ego”.
You don’t know what is in their hearts.

We should be careful about accusing our catholic brothers and sisters of immorality just because they say things with which we might disagree - especially where church teaching is concerned.

Too many Catholics concerned with truth?

I didn’t accuse any particular people of it, merely stating a problem.

“Truth telling” is a way of doing it that is so caustic that whether the person doing it knows it or not is far more likely to push people away from God than pull people towards Him.

Accusing your fellow Catholics of immorality and accusing them of solely wanting to satisfy their ego is not “correction”.

I wasn’t speaking to a particular Catholic

Maybe Cardinal Marx should make a video showing the Church all the positive aspects of homosexual relationships. Then we see exactly what he means.

He clearly should do a series of videos on a Tumblr

 

[Paganus]

"a faithful and loving relationship between homosexuals has some of the same positive benefits as a marital relationship. "

You do not see these as positive virtues … which many heterosexual unions fail in.

I am all for fostering those sorts of virtues wheverever they may be found, so rare are they.

Virtue covers a multitude of sins.

What he means is exactly clear to me.

Not everyone is as bright as you are. A video would really help people like me to see the wonder and beauty of homosexual relationships as Cardinal Marx sees them.

 

[JimG]

Human beings are created with the spiritual faculties of intellect and will. As human beings we can know right from wrong, and we can choose the good or the bad. Only human actions can have a moral quality. To the extent that we claim mitigation of moral guilt due to lack of knowledge or consent, we are claiming to act in a manner that is less than fully human.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Were there no consent, there would be no adultery. Perhaps then we’d speak of rape, not adultery. Or sleep-walking, or something…

Rau you are not taking a logical inference from my statements.
Moral consent is not the same as choosing to do something.
And yes, when people do bad things without full consent or understanding they are in fact sleepwalking in a sense with their eyes open. That is precisely why they often do not sin mortally when engaging in adultery or killing.
This is the classic distinction between the actions of a human and human acts which is learnt in Catholic Moral Theology 101.
I see from your previous post you seem to reserve impairment of understanding and consent just to the insane or handicapped or other readily identifiable gross examples.
The Church in its pastoral and Confessional practice clearly sees such things as a continuum operating in everybody to some degree in some areas of their “adult” lives.

Your sister certainly engaged in adultery. She may not have committed a fully moral (ie human) act. But it’s still called adultery, because she met the technical definition of being married and sleeping with another. Even the Baltimore Catechism draws this distinction between “material sin” and “formal sin.” She is guilty of material adultery, but maybe not formal adultery regardless of how embarrassed she may be of her actions in the middle of the night.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hoosier Daddy said it could be argued that incestuous and polyamourous relationships (hypothetically) might also have love and benefits for those involved.

Are you (and Bradski) saying no, they cannot?

OR…or are you saying that loving, beneficial incestuous and polygamous relationships are nothing like homosexual relationships?

It seems a bit of a double standard to deny other people an entitlement to the same “marriage” equality demanded by homosexuals.

#tolerance. #love_wins

Can you quote where the Cardinal demonstrates he proposes marriage equality for gay relationships? I do not believe he does.
Some legal rights yes, but not equal rights.