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

[I_trust]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[SWolf]

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

Yes, I use harsh rhetoric. In cases like this, I believe it accurate, justified, and within forum rules.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

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

It has everything to do with the thread.

Slavery was conventional wisdom for millennia we don’t think so today.

There are varying degrees of slavery that has not been outlawed. Something to think about.

Homosexuality was denied civil rights and persecuted for centuries, today it is not.

There are no special civil rights for sexual orientation. No one was persecuting gays in the West in recent history. On the contrary, pandering to them is creating a lopsided situation where civil and religious freedoms are being bulldozed.

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.

Yet another Kennedy, one of those “Catholics” who make you wince in embarrassment. the OPINION of the Court was only that, a ruling and not a law, an exercise in judicial Bolshevism. Hopefully in the near future, the wings of these tyrants will be clipped. Meanwhile, I did read up on him and he has some strange opinions but, not strange if you accept the tenets of radical liberalism:

"Indeed, in the opening sentence of the decision, Kennedy proclaims all individuals free “to define and express their identity,” thereby echoing his even more grandiloquent pronouncement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that at “the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

On this foundation, the edifice of modern liberalism is built. We are all sovereign individuals, radically free to fashion and refashion ourselves into anything we so please at any point in our lives. Man is the undefined animal. He is auto nomos—self-legislating. Neither God, nor nature, nor tradition, nor the obligations he previously contracted may hem him in. lifesitenews.com/opinion/justice-kennedy-and-the-lonely-promethean-man-of-liberalism

In other words, according to him, one can say a cat is a dog or marriage is a pencil.

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?

What are the “rights” of bisexual and transgendered families? We’re talking about absurdities here. How about the rights of underage marriage, incest, polyamory? The restrictions put upon marriage have been beneficial for our civilization even without the backup of religion.

 

[frobert]

It has everything to do with the thread.

There are varying degrees of slavery that has not been outlawed. Something to think about.

There are no special civil rights for sexual orientation. No one was persecuting gays in the West in recent history. On the contrary, pandering to them is creating a lopsided situation where civil and religious freedoms are being bulldozed.

Yet another Kennedy, one of those “Catholics” who make you wince in embarrassment. the OPINION of the Court was only that, a ruling and not a law, an exercise in judicial Bolshevism. Hopefully in the near future, the wings of these tyrants will be clipped. Meanwhile, I did read up on him and he has some strange opinions but, not strange if you accept the tenets of radical liberalism:

"Indeed, in the opening sentence of the decision, Kennedy proclaims all individuals free “to define and express their identity,” thereby echoing his even more grandiloquent pronouncement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that at “the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

On this foundation, the edifice of modern liberalism is built. We are all sovereign individuals, radically free to fashion and refashion ourselves into anything we so please at any point in our lives. Man is the undefined animal. He is auto nomos—self-legislating. Neither God, nor nature, nor tradition, nor the obligations he previously contracted may hem him in. lifesitenews.com/opinion/justice-kennedy-and-the-lonely-promethean-man-of-liberalism

In other words, according to him, one can say a cat is a dog or marriage is a pencil.

What are the “rights” of bisexual and transgendered families? We’re talking about absurdities here. How about the rights of underage marriage, incest, polyamory? The restrictions put upon marriage have been beneficial for our civilization even without the backup of religion.

Its obvious that you did not understand anything I or Justice Kennedy wrote.

You are entitled to your anger.

 

[I_trust]

Is this harsh rhetoric?

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Source:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[frobert]

Yes, I use harsh rhetoric. In cases like this, I believe it accurate, justified, and within forum rules.

That is the answer I pretty much what I expected. I am glad you are honest about not wanting a discussion so I won’t waste my time trying.

 

[frobert]

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?

I am glad you find value in Cardinal’s statement.

I think the Cardinal is attempting to open a door and realizes that offensive rhetoric is the surest way to slam the door, locks it and throws away the key. Conciliation finds the key to unlock the door and open it for discussion that can lead to conversion.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Its obvious that you did not understand anything I or Justice Kennedy wrote. You are entitled to your anger.

Right, pull out the hate, anger, or ignorant cards when there is nothing else to say!

 

[HCTC]

Cardinal Schönborn: 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.”

In my humble opinion, Cardinal Schönborn’s point is that there is good and bad in everyone, but what good does it do to categorically reject the good in any person based on one aspect of his or her life?

We are all sinners, and we are all children of God. Not one of us is perfect, but not one of us is beyond salvation. I think that behavior on the part of professed Christians that makes a judgement to reject and discourage what is good in a person is responsible for pushing that person away from salvation, and I cannot imagine that Christian behavior of that sort pleases God.

When we reject others as unworthy and when we deny mercy to others, it is our own salvation that is in jeopardy.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The Cardinal’s comment don’t seem that far removed from Pope Benedict’s comments that a male prostitute who decides to use a condom to protect his clients, is “better” than one who doesn’t. Certainly, BXVI wasn’t endorsing male prostitution when he made that comment.

Or what about all the compassion directed toward single unwed mothers – often, CAFers state such women should be praised for “choosing life” and not aborting their babies, even though when you think about it, “not killing your own children” is a pretty low bar for morality. And certainly, many on CAF are quick to accuse others of being cold-hearted and cruel if, say, they state they don’t feel comfortable going to baby showers for unwed mothers. Some even are happy to state “it’s people like YOU who drive these poor girls into the abortion clinics!”

It seems to be accepted among most pro-life Catholics, even very conservative ones, that de-stigmatizing unwed motherhood, even if it might actually result in more unwed sex, and more unwed mothers, is an acceptable “lesser evil” compared to having more babies die from abortion.

Now, I don’t know enough about the Cardinal’s views to know if he’s “liberal” enough to actually find homosexual acts to be No Big Deal. But the principle behind his statements seems pretty congruent with Catholic teaching.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Cardinal Schönborn: 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.”

In my humble opinion, Cardinal Schönborn’s point is that there is good and bad in everyone, but what good does it do to categorically reject the good in any person based on one aspect of his or her life?

We are all sinners, and we are all children of God. Not one of us is perfect, but not one of us is beyond salvation. I think that behavior on the part of professed Christians that makes a judgement to reject and discourage what is good in a person is responsible for pushing that person away from salvation, and I cannot imagine that Christian behavior of that sort pleases God.

When we reject others as unworthy and when we deny mercy to others, it is our own salvation that is in jeopardy.

The problem is unloading these values onto society. This is not a behavior that is content with tolerance and remaining private. On the contrary, we are bombarded 24/7 with gay issues. They are marching in risque costumes or even naked down the streets in so-called pride events forced on everyone else. A bus driver in Calgary who refused to drive a bus that was spray painted “Ride with Pride” was fired from his job. The schools have been invaded to the youngest ages with inappropriate sex propaganda. Obviously, normal heterosexual unions do not need to be forced down everyone’s throat. The aggressiveness of this movement is frightening and despicable at the same time.

 

[Beautiful]

Seamus stated on page one of this thread…gradual watering down of Catholicism.
We should all be on high alert for this and not put down our guard because of a government ruling that allows homosexual marriage.

The point of this thread should be to stress keeping our wits about us rather than point at any particular religious man or woman. The new government ruling was/is bound to tease out more of those who might have been undecided about the way to go. This might be felt for another 10-20 years as the situation evolves. The situation will evolve and there will continue to be some within the Church that will try to lead others astray. This has been going on for over 2000 years.

 

[JimG]

Well, when out of wedlock pregnancy is no longer stigmatized, we get a lot more unwed pregnancies. When fornication is not stigmatized, we get more fornication. We get more fatherless children. When pornography is not stigmatized, we get more porn. When adultery is not stigmatized, we get more adultery. When abortion is not stigmatized, we get more abortion.

When chastity is stigmatized, we get a hook-up culture. When faithfulness is denigrated, we get more divorce.

Is it merciful to not stigmatize that which causes harm to individuals and society?

 

[HCTC]

The problem is unloading these values onto society. This is not a behavior that is content with tolerance and remaining private. On the contrary, we are bombarded 24/7 with gay issues. They are marching in risque costumes or even naked down the streets in so-called pride events forced on everyone else. A bus driver in Calgary who refused to drive a bus that was spray painted “Ride with Pride” was fired from his job. The schools have been invaded to the youngest ages with inappropriate sex propaganda. Obviously, normal heterosexual unions do not need to be forced down everyone’s throat. The aggressiveness of this movement is frightening and despicable at the same time.

I am not gay. To my knowledge, no one in my immediate or extended family is gay. However, I have a number of acquaintances who are gay - former colleagues before I retired and neighbors. They all are “married” - some of them are in same-sex “marriages”; one is in a “regular” marriage with a woman; one is on a second same-sex marriage with children from the first marriage; all of the couples except two have children.

While they are not “marching in risque costumes or even naked down the streets,” they are not hiding their homosexuality. I have seen the emotional problems that their sexual orientation causes their children - especially for boys who have either two fathers or two mothers. I’m not acquainted with any situations in which two men are raising a girl, but in families that I know where two women are raising a girl-child, the girls seem to be well adjusted.

However, each situation has details aside from the parents’ sexual orientation. Two of the boys with same-sex fathers are bi-racial and were adopted out of foster care. These two children might have spent their entire lives in foster care, but instead are being raised in very loving homes (one Jewish) that are able to provide them every economic advantage. Two of the children that I know, one boy and one girl, are being raised in different families having two mothers and are biologically related to both of their mothers - biologically the child of one mother and the biological nephew or niece of the other mother.

My point is that, like most families, families involving gay people have unique complexities, and like most families they include people who are desirous of being in a committed relationship with rights and responsibilities designated by the state - some of them have gone to extraordinary lengths to be able to parent children.

Btw, I think that it is especially unfair and uncharitable to lump gay people all together as being aggressively in your face. Most of them are just trying to earn a living, have a committed relationship and raise children. They are my neighbors - in California and in North Carolina where we have a second home - and I don’t judge them.

 

[SWolf]

Well, when out of wedlock pregnancy is no longer stigmatized, we get a lot more unwed pregnancies. When fornication is not stigmatized, we get more fornication. We get more fatherless children. When pornography is not stigmatized, we get more porn. When adultery is not stigmatized, we get more adultery. When abortion is not stigmatized, we get more abortion.

When chastity is stigmatized, we get a hook-up culture. When faithfulness is denigrated, we get more divorce.

Is it merciful to not stigmatize that which causes harm to individuals and society?

Now, now, one has to look at the good in porn addiction.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I am not gay. To my knowledge, no one in my immediate or extended family is gay. However, I have a number of acquaintances who are gay - former colleagues before I retired and neighbors. They all are “married” - some of them are in same-sex “marriages”; one is in a “regular” marriage with a woman; one is on a second same-sex marriage with children from the first marriage; all of the couples except two have children.

While they are not “marching in risque costumes or even naked down the streets,” they are not hiding their homosexuality. I have seen the emotional problems that their sexual orientation causes their children - especially for boys who have either two fathers or two mothers. I’m not acquainted with any situations in which two men are raising a girl, but in families that I know where two women are raising a girl-child, the girls seem to be well adjusted.

However, each situation has details aside from the parents’ sexual orientation. Two of the boys with same-sex fathers are bi-racial and were adopted out of foster care. These two children might have spent their entire lives in foster care, but instead are being raised in very loving homes (one Jewish) that are able to provide them every economic advantage. Two of the children that I know, one boy and one girl, are being raised in different families having two mothers and are biologically related to both of their mothers - biologically the child of one mother and the biological nephew or niece of the other mother.

My point is that, like most families, families involving gay people have unique complexities, and like most families they include people who are desirous of being in a committed relationship with rights and responsibilities designated by the state - some of them have gone to extraordinary lengths to be able to parent children.

Btw, I think that it is especially unfair and uncharitable to lump gay people all together as being aggressively in your face. Most of them are just trying to earn a living, have a committed relationship and raise children. They are my neighbors - in California and in North Carolina where we have a second home - and I don’t judge them.

Thank you for this. It really IS about families and how we love and care for each other, especially if they are our families in Christ.

I would add that in my opinion, knowing a whole lot of families who are similar to the ones HCTC very wonderfully portrayed above, there is probably not one who sees him or herself or their children as ‘sinful’ in their homosexuality. Catholics included. I know this is hard to hear for some, but the reality is that our new norm is here.

 

[JimG]

If there are great numbers of persons living in sinful relationships who simply do not see them as sinful, that itself is a problem and one which will continue to grow more serious. Simply recognizing the good aspects of an inherently disordered relationship will probably not lead to further conversion but rather affirm them in a disordered lifestyle.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

….I have seen the emotional problems that their sexual orientation causes their children - especially for boys who have either two fathers or two mothers. I’m not acquainted with any situations in which two men are raising a girl, but in families that I know where two women are raising a girl-child, the girls seem to be well adjusted…

However, each situation has details aside from the parents’ sexual orientation. Two of the boys with same-sex fathers are bi-racial and were adopted out of foster care. These two children might have spent their entire lives in foster care, but instead are being raised in very loving homes (one Jewish) that are able to provide them every economic advantage. Two of the children that I know, one boy and one girl, are being raised in different families having two mothers and are biologically related to both of their mothers - biologically the child of one mother and the biological nephew or niece of the other mother.

… I think that it is especially unfair and uncharitable to lump gay people all together as being aggressively in your face. Most of them are just trying to earn a living, have a committed relationship and raise children. .

Going backwards, the gay “rights” movement is in everyone’s face. It is also whittling down freedom and religious expression of the larger part of the population. There may be couples just trying to make homes but this is at the expense of everyone else, in particular the children.

I can tell you right now that a girl needs a stable, protective male figure. This will be an important modelling for the kind of spouse she will marry. As for what seems to be "well-adjusted’, I can tell you that coming from a very dysfunctional home myself, it is easy to put on a front and fool outsiders. I would suspect a setting where there is an agenda, to show the outside world that we are “just like everyone else”. Well, they will never be.

I have NEVER met a monogamous same sex couple, or trying to be totally committed, in particular men, always keeping that open door as a safety valve. Women are notorious for going back and forth from men to women and famous for generating emotional turmoil between themselves. Violence and STD’s are much higher in these circles. As for showing affection for one another that would freak me out if I were their child, the digestive system was never designed to accommodate the sexual organs. So this is an insult to nature even if one is not religious, and the cause of more physical dysfunction.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Thank you for this. It really IS about families and how we love and care for each other, especially if they are our families in Christ.

I would add that in my opinion, knowing a whole lot of families who are similar to the ones HCTC very wonderfully portrayed above, there is probably not one who sees him or herself or their children as ‘sinful’ in their homosexuality. Catholics included. I know this is hard to hear for some, but the reality is that our new norm is here.

No, not at all, a new norm. Morality does not evolve. Are we supposed to rewrite the Bible or take out the parts that don’t conform to political correctness? I am afraid not.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

If there are great numbers of persons living in sinful relationships who simply do not see them as sinful, that itself is a problem and one which will continue to grow more serious. Simply recognizing the good aspects of an inherently disordered relationship will probably not lead to further conversion but rather affirm them in a disordered lifestyle.

My personal experience and that of LGBT Catholics says otherwise.