Finding healing and acceptance after same-sex love collides with religion

[PaulinVA]

I thought it was interesting that this is the family of Fr. Jonathon Morris, a commentator on Fox.

How can you turn away your children from the family table? Family is the one place people should be able to come where they find unconditional love.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I thought it was interesting that this is the family of Fr. Jonathon Morris, a commentator on Fox.

How can you turn away your children from the family table? Family is the one place people should be able to come where they find unconditional love.

Is unconditional acceptance the same as unconditional love?

Love, it would seem, is more discerning than merely proclaiming, “Whatever you do is okay with me!”

To love someone unconditionally is to be unconditionally concerned about their well-being, their final good. That does not always equate to what they think is good for them.

Now it may be that the final good does not equate to what we think is good for them, either.

However, there ought to be a kind of “good faith” understanding where those who in good conscience and for good reason believe some behaviours are ultimately NOT conducive to the good for the individual can legitimately and respectfully express that without having their love called into question. As it is, the dialogue on this front has become one-sided with the nod, seemingly, always on the side of the person thinking they know what is the good for themselves with no discussion allowed, as if there is a social taboo against wondering whether the person does actually have a good grip on what is for their own good.

The problem, with regard to homosexuality, is that there has been a very vociferous push to shut down discussion on whether gay behaviour, ultimately, does benefit the agent. Words like “homophobe” are intended to end all exploration of that question as if merely denying the person the opportunity for indulging sexual pleasure of their own choosing is the greatest evil that could possibly be perpetuated against that individual.

 

[SWolf]

I thought it was interesting that this is the family of Fr. Jonathon Morris, a commentator on Fox.

How can you turn away your children from the family table? Family is the one place people should be able to come where they find unconditional love.

Gays are welcome at the family dinner table, without their partner.

People who shack up with their concubines are welcome at the dinner table, without their concubines.

Those who miss mass are welcome at the dinner table, as long as they don’t brag about skipping church.

You still love them, which is why you will not give your approval to sinful behaviors, nor scandalize others present.

 

[PaulinVA]

Gays are welcome at the family dinner table, without their partner.

People who shack up with their concubines are welcome at the dinner table, without their concubines.

Those who miss mass are welcome at the dinner table, as long as they don’t brag about skipping church.

You still love them, which is why you will not give your approval to sinful behaviors, nor scandalize others present.

You are not showing love if you exclude the partner, are you? It’s a false equivalence to compare the mistress to the partner, and using “concubine” is pejorative. Why do that?

Either you mirror Jesus and eat with sinners or you do not. Either you open your home to your family or not.

Why is there a question of “approval of someone’s lifestyle”? Do you approve of everything everyone at your extended-family table at holidays is doing?

 

[SWolf]

You are not showing love if you exclude the partner, are you? It’s a false equivalence to compare the mistress to the partner, and using “concubine” is pejorative. Why do that?

Either you mirror Jesus and eat with sinners or you do not. Either you open your home to your family or not.

Why is there a question of “approval of someone’s lifestyle”? Do you approve of everything everyone at your extended-family table at holidays is doing?

Concubine: a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/concubine

The shoe fits. Just because it offends your sensibilities does not make it inaccurate. Any woman who lives with a man without being married is a concubine. Perhaps if women saw it that way they wouldn’t be so eager to enter a situation that clearly benefits the man.

Concubines are not family. If I had a daughter I would never let a man who took sexual advantage of her into my house. If I had a son I would never lead a lead a woman on into thinking someone my son is grossly degrading is how my family treats people.

Gay partners are not family. They can not ever enter a sacramental marriage together. I won’t pretend they ever can.

Jesus dined with sinners. I didn’t see the part where he dined with sinners while they were sinning right in front of him. From what I remember, they repented and he said to sin no more.

Let’s take this to it’s logical extreme. Would you allow a gay couple in your family do their business in your guest bedroom?

 

[PaulinVA]

Concubine: a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/concubine

The shoe fits. Just because it offends your sensibilities does not make it inaccurate. Any woman who lives with a man without being married is a concubine. Perhaps if women saw it that way they wouldn’t be so eager to enter a situation that clearly benefits the man.

No one uses “concubine” in this modern age. Mistress is fine.

Concubines are not family. If I had a daughter I would never let a man who took sexual advantage of her into my house. If I had a son I would never lead a lead a woman on into thinking someone my son is grossly degrading is how my family treats people.

I agree that I would never let someone in with their mistress. I would, however, welcome someone whom my son or daughter was living with if they were not married. They understand my views on that, but they also know I love them.

Gay partners are not family. They can not ever enter a sacramental marriage together. I won’t pretend they ever can.

You are perfectly welcome to cut members of your family off for whatever reason you want.

Jesus dined with sinners. I didn’t see the part where he dined with sinners while they were sinning right in front of him. From what I remember, they repented and he said to sin no more.

Are you trying to prevent people from having sex at your dinner table in front of you? You have a much bigger problem than just who to invite.

Let’s take this to it’s logical extreme. Would you allow a gay couple in your family do their business in your guest bedroom?

“Do their business” usually is a euphemism for using the restroom. No, I don’t allow guests to “use the restroom” in the guest bedroom. But, to answer your question, I expect all unmarried people to sleep in separate bedrooms.

 

[SWolf]

“Are you trying to prevent people from having sex at your dinner table in front of you? You have a much bigger problem than just who to invite.”

Two men pretending to be married is sinful, even if they are not fornicating in front of you.

“I agree that I would never let someone in with their mistress. I would, however, welcome someone whom my son or daughter was living with if they were not married. They understand my views on that, but they also know I love them.”

If she’s living with your son and not married, she’s a mistress.

"You are perfectly welcome to cut members of your family off for whatever reason you want. "

If would be the gay family member who would cut me off in this situation. My terms are firm but fair. He’s more than welcome, but I can’t give implicit approval.

“But, to answer your question, I expect all unmarried people to sleep in separate bedrooms.”

Just because two people are sleeping together doesn’t mean conjugal relations are happening. Why are you being so unloving if they want to sleep in the same bed?

 

[estesbob]

I thought it was interesting that this is the family of Fr. Jonathon Morris, a commentator on Fox.

How can you turn away your children from the family table? Family is the one place people should be able to come where they find unconditional love.

We don’t turn them away. But then we don’t have any young children at our functions. I haven’t thought far enough ahead as to what we will do then but I seriously doubt we would exclude our Daughter and her partner from family functions for any reason.

 

[Corki]

Maybe we’re not talking on the same thing. Can we agree that he most definitely said homosexual acts are “always and everywhere wrong, evil” in the following statement: “And neither should we do it in the context of a family member who not only suffers from same-sex attraction, but who has chosen to live out that attraction, to act upon it, committing acts which are always and everywhere wrong, evil” because that’s what I’m referring to?

This is what was asked in the OP, whether Cardinal Burke said

calling for Catholics to focus on preventing gay family members from acting on a sexual orientation

I said he did not say that. You said he was quoted as saying exactly that in the linked story. He was not.

Nothing in what you posted here above says anything about preventing family members from acting out their attractions or that that should in any way be the focus of family interactions with homosexual family members.

Yes, homosexual acts are always and everywhere wrong. I would not expect a Cardinal of the Church to say anything else. But he also said that

families have to find a way to stay close to a child in this situation

And that’s an actual quote.

 

[PaulinVA]

"
"You are perfectly welcome to cut members of your family off for whatever reason you want. "

If would be the gay family member who would cut me off in this situation. My terms are firm but fair. He’s more than welcome, but I can’t give implicit approval.

No, not fair at all. It’s an interesting dichotomy - implicit approval versus unconditional love. Which side should you err on?

“But, to answer your question, I expect all unmarried people to sleep in separate bedrooms.”

Just because two people are sleeping together doesn’t mean conjugal relations are happening. Why are you being so unloving if they want to sleep in the same bed?

Oh, you’re being sarcastic. That always helps make your point.

 

[SWolf]

No, not fair at all. It’s an interesting dichotomy - implicit approval versus unconditional love. Which side should you err on?

Oh, you’re being sarcastic. That always helps make your point.

Unconditional Love: Help lead my loved one away from the road to perdition, even if it means he disowns me.

 

[PaulinVA]

Unconditional Love: Help lead my loved one away from the road to perdition, even if it means he disowns me.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Say that you rebuke your child and bar him/her from the house if he/she brings in his/her unmarried partner (gay or straight).

Say that there is a conversion experience fostered by the partner’s parents and family who showed unconditional love to them. Do you think you will have a relationship with them after their conversion? Do you think your lack of compassion for your own offspring will go unnoticed by siblings, children, and grandchildren?

 

[SWolf]

Say that there is a conversion experience fostered by the partner’s parents and family who showed unconditional love to them.

How could a conversion be fostered if they essentially say it’s okay?

Do you think your lack of compassion for your own offspring will go unnoticed by siblings, children, and grandchildren?

You keep saying this shows a lack of compassion. I would explain the situation in no uncertain terms, that I must follow my faith and conscience, regardless of consequences. Did it ever occur to you they might see things differently? I’m not disowning anybody, just specifying what my faith will allow me to accept in my own home.

Maybe one day he’ll come to me and say “Dad, you were right. Thank you for standing up for what you believe in.”"

In any case. It seems we’re in a deadlock.

God Bless.

 

[estesbob]

Unconditional Love: Help lead my loved one away from the road to perdition, even if it means he disowns me.

I disagree. If you push you child to the point they disown you everyone loses. And if they adopt a child you are out of their life and missing an opportunity to be a positive influence on the child’s life.To me the key is to accept but not to affirm.

 

[frobert]

Why? I don’t get this reasoning, why fear calling a disorder a sin. The gay agenda is so powerful that people on this forum go to crazy lengths like insisting that most same sex relationships are not sexual to justify them with catholic teachings. If someone is sinning like that the cardinal is right they should be shunned by their family. If they repent than they should be accepted.

I believe there is confusion within the CC that SSA is a disorder. The CC pretty much coined the term intrinsic disorder soon after the APA dropped SSA as a disorder. Outside of the CC the term has no meaning. Now if all sex outside of marriage is labeled sinful but not a disorder then the question arises as to why does the CC need to target a particular sin and call it disordered? What need does it serve and for whom?

 

[Corki]

I believe there is confusion within the CC that SSA is a disorder. The CC pretty much coined the term intrinsic disorder soon after the APA dropped SSA as a disorder. Outside of the CC the term has no meaning. Now if all sex outside of marriage is labeled sinful but not a disorder then the question arises as to why does the CC need to target a particular sin and call it disordered? What need does it serve and for whom?

You contradicted yourself here. To “coin the term” means to invent it. As you point out, the APA used the term previously. It was also called a sexual perversion. What do you call someone who feels sexually attracted to people of the same sex but does not act on that attraction? Especially those who do not want to be associated with the “gay” community? SSA serves as a succinct way of acknowledging the orientation without making assumptions as to behavior.

Other types of sex outside of marriage are simply sin. They are driven by attraction that is not objectively disordered but is disordered to ones state in life. An unmarried man having sex with an unmarried woman is disordered only because they are unmarried. A married man having sex with a woman not his wife is disordered because of the adultery, not because of the nature of the sexual acts or attractions.

The Church doesn’t label just the sin of homosexual activity “disordered”. It acknowledges that the **attraction **is disordered - literally ordered to the wrong object.

 

[Wampa]

I have not met one celebate homosexual.

They are here, on this site, so perhaps you have and you just don’t know it. There are plenty of faithful Catholics with same-sex attraction following Church teaching. We just don’t hear about them in a culture run by the secular media.

Here’s 5 of them from my diocese:
Living with same-sex attraction

 

[SWolf]

To me the key is to accept but not to affirm.

There’s the rub. I consider allowing a gay couple, especially if it was my son, to act like they are married at my home tantamount to affirming.

If my son brought a prostitute home to my table and I let it slide, what message does that bring?

Or for an example that actually happened, one of my wife’s uncle’s cheated on his wife with his secretary, divorced his wife, and starting bringing his secretary to family events. The family accepted her. He married her and he basically abandoned the kids from his previous marriage. The family didn’t say a word. A couple years later, at his mother’s funeral, he went to the podium and had the gall to say in front of the family that she was the reason he was the Catholic he was today, as if his terrible behavior was totally acceptable. The family didn’t say anything(again).

Do you think the family’s actions helped, or hindered, him potentially coming back to Christ?

Lines have to be drawn somewhere or your faith is meaningless, as you will roll over and allow any vice to happen for the sake of getting along.

There’s no black and white instruction to follow, but, in itself, not allowing a gay couple at your table does not mean you are in any way uncharitable.

At the core we probably agree with core teaching, but disagree with how to accomplish our goal of spreading the gospel. I respect that.

 

[estesbob]

There’s the rub. I consider allowing a gay couple, especially if it was my son, to act like they are married at my home tantamount to affirming.

If my son brought a prostitute home to my table and I let it slide, what message does that bring?

Or for an example that actually happened, one of my wife’s uncle’s cheated on his wife with his secretary, divorced his wife, and starting bringing his secretary to family events. The family accepted her. He married her and he basically abandoned the kids from his previous marriage. The family didn’t say a word. A couple years later, at his mother’s funeral, he went to the podium and had the gall to say in front of the family that she was the reason he was the Catholic he was today, as if his terrible behavior was totally acceptable. The family didn’t say anything(again).

Do you think the family’s actions helped, or hindered, him potentially coming back to Christ?

Lines have to be drawn somewhere or your faith is meaningless, as you will roll over and allow any vice to happen for the sake of getting along.

There’s no black and white instruction to follow, but, in itself, not allowing a gay couple at your table does not mean you are in any way uncharitable.

At the core we probably agree with core teaching, but disagree with how to accomplish our goal of spreading the gospel. I respect that.

All I can tell you is its never been a problem in any of our family gatherings. Its not like my daughter and her partner sit on then couch necking the whole time. I have zero chance of having influence on their lives and the lives of their children if I ostracize them. In addition if I start ostracizing my children because they sin there will be no one at my family gatherings-myself included. Should I, for instance, ostracize the daughter who desperately trying to get pregnant via intro vitro fertilization? Or how about the daughter who hasn’t been to Church in years?

We do agree with the core teaching-homosexual behavior is a grievous sin. But it is not an unforgivable sin and it is not a sin over which I am willing to lose my relationship with my daughter over.

 

[PaulinVA]

We do agree with the core teaching-homosexual behavior is a grievous sin. But it is not an unforgivable sin and it is not a sin over which I am willing to lose my relationship with my daughter over.

Awesome!