Stable gay relationship is better than a 'temporary' one, says Cardinal Schönborn [CH-UK]

[Confiteor_Deo]

I find no reason for the Church to point out the “good” in unions that are fundamentally sinful and destructive to society. The Church should tell these people that are living in sin that they are on the road to perdition, not that there is good in their sinful life. Also, I highly doubt that none of the members of the synod want to change Church teaching.

 

[JimG]

I find no reason for the Church to point out the “good” in unions that are fundamentally sinful and destructive to society. The Church should tell these people that are living in sin that they are on the road to perdition, not that there is good in their sinful life. Also, I highly doubt that none of the members of the synod want to change Church teaching.

I agree with this. It seems to me that pointing out the “good” in a fundamentally disordered living arrangement risks stopping right at that point, and never asking people to fully accept the gospel in their lives. Does it help to point out the good that one might obtain from an adulterous affair, or to urge faithfulness? Is it better to look for the good in homosexual affairs or urge chastity? Better to say that porn is better than rape, or to urge avoidance of both?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I agree with this. It seems to me that pointing out the “good” in a fundamentally disordered living arrangement risks stopping right at that point, and never asking people to fully accept the gospel in their lives. Does it help to point out the good that one might obtain from an adulterous affair, or to urge faithfulness? Is it better to look for the good in homosexual affairs or urge chastity? Better to say that porn is better than rape, or to urge avoidance of both?

Ditto. By the way, this is what happens down the slippery slope that starts with “tolerance”:
lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-christian-bus-driver-fired-after-refusing-to-drive-calgary-gay-pri
The courageous father of two, not a clergyman, now jobless said:
“As a Christian I believe in the Bible as being the Word of God, and it teaches that sexual immorality is sin. I don’t want to have any part in promoting behaviors and lifestyles that put people in more trouble with God than they already are, and that create more brokenness and despair in their lives”.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

And cutting off your leg is better than slitting your throat.

Can’t we just avoid both?

No, they don’t have the same potential to be good parents because there is a HUGE gap- that kid is missing either a mother or father. Growing up in a divorced home should show the cardinal what missing a parent (full time) is like. Kids in same sex household are the same- either missing mom or dad. Having an extra mom or dad does not make up for not having the other.

He did not say that a gay couple was as good as a heterosexual couple.

It’s amazing how a clergyman has the nerve to write this but please pay attention to the end:
*"It must be recognised that this person took an important step for his own good and the good of others, even though it certainly is not a situation the Church can consider ‘regular’.”
*
Why not ‘regular’? Because these unions particularly of men are notorious for being ‘open’. The safety valve for two non-complimentary sexes is the possibility of letting off steam outside. The extra promiscuity plus probable, not just possible, attraction to young boys are other red flags why same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children or contrive to produce them by artificial insemination.

Heterosexual men also seem to frequently have a taste for young women, young enough to be below the age of consent, and yet I do not malign heterosexual men as you do homosexual men.

From the article:

The Church’s ministers, the cardinal said, **should recognise what is good **where it is found. For example, he said, a civil marriage is better than simply living together, because it signifies a couple has made a formal, public commitment to one another. “Instead of talking about everything that is missing, we can draw close to this reality, noting what is positive in this love that is establishing itself.”

Cardinal Schönborn spoke in the interview about a gay friend of his who, after many temporary relationships, is now in a stable relationship. **“It’s an improvement,” he said. They share “a life, they share their joys and sufferings, they help one another. It must be recognised that this person took an important step for his own good **and the good of others, even though it certainly is not a situation the Church can consider ‘regular’.”

The Church’s negative “judgment about homosexual acts is necessary”, he said, “but the Church should not look in the bedroom first, but in the dining room! It must accompany people.”

The cardinal is saying that a homosexual union is good.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This is an attempt to ok homosexual acts and unions. Notice the language he uses, “irregular” and “regular” instead of sinful and holy.

Thou shall not slander a man of the cloth. :tsktsk:

He is saying a long term gay relationship can have good in it which is a theologically accurate statement. Really, his statement bears a strong resemblance to things said by Pope Benedict XVI although phrased in more pastoral language. One can regularise a gay relationship by making it chaste.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

He did not say that a gay couple was as good as a heterosexual couple.
Heterosexual men also seem to frequently have a taste for young women, young enough to be below the age of consent, and yet I do not malign heterosexual men as you do homosexual men.
Thou shall not slander a man of the cloth. :tsktsk:
He is saying a long term gay relationship can have good in it which is a theologically accurate statement. Really, his statement bears a strong resemblance to things said by Pope Benedict XVI although phrased in more pastoral language. One can regularise a gay relationship by making it chaste.

When in doubt, accuse the other side of slander and specifically directed at me, “maligning homosexual men” which I don’t and did not.
First of all, I have never seen a monogamous gay relationship among men. There are reasons for that I won’t go into here but they make sense in view of the fact that men as you admitted have a taste for roaming around. When there are one’s own children and commitment to bringing them up in a stable environment, that usually tames the urge to stray. No one is slandering a man of the cloth either but a person in that position has a duty to be unequivocal about church teaching. Tolerance has shown itself to be very wrong and in fact, let in the Trojan Horse that can actually destroy this civilization.

 

[CuriousMike]

The Cardinal makes a point about a stable gay relationship being better than divorced biological parents. No, I am not saying it is ideal or something that will lead to holiness.

But at least you don’t have that disruptive hostility that can come with split-up persons - which can ultimately have negative effects on the child. In a stable environment, they (probably) have better opportunities to live well and make a valued contribution to society.

While a lot of people deny the fact that gay relationships often contain an element of promiscuity, I am a member of a forum with a disproportionately large number of gay men participating. And yes, many are involved in “stable relationships.” This, however, does not seem to stop any from inviting others to join in with them - if you catch my drift.
(Note: This is only an observation).

There is also this discussion of promoting the cohabitation/non-sexual relationships between gay men. I must apologise for this, but I feel that this is wrong, and could give rise to scandal both within, and outside of the Church.

Other people, outside the Church (or those within without full understanding of the Church), may wrongly see these Catholic Men living together as more than just celibate, much as they might see the same in a young Catholic man and woman living in cohabitation or sharing a flat…
The other issue is it is putting oneself in the “Near Occasion of Sin.” Speaking from experience, if you put yourself in a position where this happens, you are BOUND to find yourself engaging in sinful activity by some point. As one person told me before, “He who goes looking for trouble often finds it.”

In the end, there is a reason why Children have a mother and father. Just because people seem to think (or popular “science” seems to think) they are just as good, if not better than regular households does not make it so.
As they say, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.”
There are children (who are now adults) from all sides of this argument that have both good and bad things to say. I don’t know about Science, because people can fudge their “statistics” into whatever they want - as we have seen in health and climate debacles.

What we need to remember here is what is best for the child.
Yes, a stable home is good. Thats a great starting point. However, if the home allows and even promotes immorality (in any way, shape or form - not just in regards to a same-sex couple), then how can we expect the child to grow up with the right attitude towards life?

 

[cjforJesus]

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, is a very accomplished individual who studied under Fr. Joseph Rarzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) and with him co-edited the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He has been a Bishop for 24 years and a Cardinal for 17 years, In addition to his native German, Cardinal Schönborn is fluent in French and Italian, and proficient in English, Spanish and Latin. He also speaks Czech. He lived for several years in France and French-speaking Switzerland, and speaks French at a near-native level.

In my humble opinion, the views that Cardinal Schönborn expresses in the interview that we are discussing are both intelligently nuanced and come from a very relevant historical perspective.

I respect the cardinal and his opinion,but it is simply that: an opinion based on emotion because he knows a homosexual man who converted from his promiscuity. He simply traded one grave sin for another. Just because the homosexual man is no longer promiscuous does not make sodomy moral or the lesser of two evils.

I believe the SCOTUS decision was not based on the interpretation of any existing law but on the emotions of the judges. “i know someone who is gay,so it is OK” argument.

 

[frobert]

And cutting off your leg is better than slitting your throat.

Can’t we just avoid both?

The good Cardinal is building a bridge of conciliation but you prefer the status quo. You fail to understand that he focuses on the good where you focus on the evil.

 

[Brendan]

The good Cardinal is building a bridge of conciliation but you prefer the status quo. You fail to understand that he focuses on the good where you focus on the evil.

But SWolf is correct in this matter. The Cardinal was correct in his comparison, as was SWolf.

Where is exactly is the ‘bridge of conciliation’ that you see in the Cardinal’s statement. Is the stable gay relationship something that the Church will no longer seek to change into a celibate relationship as well?

 

[frobert]

No, they don’t have the same potential to be good parents because there is a HUGE gap- that kid is missing either a mother or father. Growing up in a divorced home should show the cardinal what missing a parent (full time) is like. Kids in same sex household are the same- either missing mom or dad. Having an extra mom or dad does not make up for not having the other.

And many children in divorced and single parent families miss out on having a mom and a dad. There are a host of non-biased scientific studies showing that gays raised in same sex families do as well or better than kids from opposite sex families. The Cardinal speaks to his own experience in a patchwork of family in a positive way.

 

[frobert]

Why not ‘regular’? Because these unions particularly of men are notorious for being ‘open’. The safety valve for two non-complimentary sexes is the possibility of letting off steam outside. The extra promiscuity plus probable, not just possible, attraction to young boys are other red flags why same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children or contrive to produce them by artificial insemination.

You read too many right wing blogs that push their undisciplined bias. If you are going to make such unsubstantiated and outrageous statements have the decency to them back up with legitimate non-biased scientific sources.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

You read too many right wing blogs that push their undisciplined bias. If you are going to make such unsubstantiated and outrageous statements have the decency to them back up with legitimate non-biased scientific sources.

Why don’t you have the decency not to call my statements outrageous and unsubstantiated? As for the latter, there is first hand experience going back many years and also the admitted promiscuity by this group, so much that certain diseases are near epidemics among them. Accusing the other side however is a typical tactic by those who don’t have much to back up their own emotionally charged opinions.
Unbiased studies of children living in same sex arrangements show a distinct disadvantage in almost every area. But it is only commonsense to continue the modelling of male and female the way it has been handed down from millennia. We don’t have any right to change this most probable DNA encrypted necessity without peer reviewed studies before the damage is done. I would say that history, that is a stable, monogamous home with a biological mother and father, has much more weight than this very recent social experiment.
So much of sexuality is socially informed, that bringing up children where there is already confusion, is very unfair to them.
PS At the end of the road of vice, is hell.

 

[frobert]

Why don’t you have the decency not to call my statements outrageous and unsubstantiated? As for the latter, there is first hand experience going back many years and also the admitted promiscuity by this group, so much that certain diseases are near epidemics among them. Accusing the other side however is a typical tactic by those who don’t have much to back up their own emotionally charged opinions.
Unbiased studies of children living in same sex arrangements show a distinct disadvantage in almost every area. But it is only commonsense to continue the modelling of male and female the way it has been handed down from millennia. We don’t have any right to change this most probable DNA encrypted necessity without peer reviewed studies before the damage is done. I would say that history, that is a stable, monogamous home with a biological mother and father, has much more weight than this very recent social experiment.
So much of sexuality is socially informed, that bringing up children where there is already confusion, is very unfair to them.
PS At the end of the road of vice, is hell.

Sources?

My experiences have been different than yours. You are expressing what many consider outrageous statements because they are false. Restating them do not make them true. Why should anyone take you seriously if you you refuse to supply unbiased sources?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Sources?
You are expressing what many consider outrageous statements because they are false. Restating them do not make them true. Why should anyone believe you if you refuse to supply unbiased sources?

What outrageous statements buttressed by conventional wisdom for millennia that marriage is between a man and a woman? That the protection of this institution is beneficial for society? Does one need a PhD in Psychology or Gender Studies to discover that history is based on the transmission of patrimony through the generations? When this chain is broken, so is society as in the twilight of the Roman Empire. Most violent crime is committed by feral individuals without any real families. Do we need to provide peer reviewed articles to understand that? Is the Bible wrong? Is history mistaken? Is the cumulative heritage passed down through the ages skewed?
Clue: The attack on the nuclear family was already tried in the socialist, anti-religious experiments of the 20th century. They knew if they could explode this unit, individuals would be more amenable to control. History tells us of its miserable failure. We should learn from it, pronto!

 

[frobert]

What outrageous statements buttressed by conventional wisdom for millennia that marriage is between a man and a woman? That the protection of this institution is beneficial for society? Does one need a PhD in Psychology or Gender Studies to discover that history is based on the transmission of patrimony through the generations? When this chain is broken, so is society as in the twilight of the Roman Empire. Most violent crime is committed by feral individuals without any real families. Do we need to provide peer reviewed articles to understand that? Is the Bible wrong? Is history mistaken? Is the cumulative heritage passed down through the ages skewed?
Clue: The attack on the nuclear family was already tried in the socialist, anti-religious experiments of the 20th century. They knew if they could explode this unit, individuals would be more amenable to control. History tells us of its miserable failure. We should learn from it, pronto!

What does SSM have to do with anything you just wrote?

Slavery was conventional wisdom for millennia we don’t think so today. Homosexuality was denied civil rights and persecuted for centuries, today it is not.

On the protection of marriage I suggest you read Justice Kennedy’s decision on SSM. You may not agree with it as his legal reasoning is much different than your opinions but you may gain an understanding of what it means to LGBT families.

I agree that our civilization is on the twilight of failing but not because of SSM. I suggest you read “How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond.”

I agree that there radicals who are pushing anti-family philosophies but what do they have to do with the LGBT families who have fought for their civil right to have their families and children recognized by the state?

 

[Seamus_L]

Where is the call for those in homosexual relationships to repent and end them ? Making statements about homosexuals that come off sounding 80-90 pct positive, with just a little negative bit at the end that comes off sounding more like a gray area is what’s causing growing confusion on the matter.

 

[SWolf]

The good Cardinal is building a bridge of conciliation but you prefer the status quo. You fail to understand that he focuses on the good where you focus on the evil.

Nonsense.

It’s akin to saying, the man locks his wife in a cellar, but at least he gives her food.

 

[SWolf]

They knew if they could explode this unit, individuals would be more amenable to control. History tells us of its miserable failure. We should learn from it, pronto!

On of the first things the Commies did in Russia was try and destroy the institution of Marriage. Destroy God and the Family, and the State becomes their deity.

 

[SWolf]

There are more than two options.

1. Gay sex with multiple partners
2. Gay sex with 1 partner
3. No gay sex.

I pick three to focus on.

 

[frobert]

Nonsense.

It’s akin to saying, the man locks his wife in a cellar, but at least he gives her food.

Interesting analogy! Have you done anything to lower the tone of the rhetoric lately?