Cardinal Marx on Francis, the Synod, Women in the Church and Gay Relationships

[Disir]

This is a rather short interview and there were several items that caught my attention but this is one:
At the synod you referred to “the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives,” and you asked, “How can I say that this has no value?” What have you learned from these relationships and does it have any bearing on sexual ethics today?

When speaking about sexual ethics, perhaps we must not begin with sleeping together, but with love, fidelity and the search for a life-long relationship. I am astonished that most of our young people, and also Catholic homosexuals who are practicing, want a relationship that lasts forever. The doctrine of the church is not so strange for people. It is true. We must begin with the main points of the doctrine, to see the dream: the dream is to have a person say, a man and woman say, “You and you, forever. You and you, forever.” And we as church say, “Yes, that’s absolutely OK. Your vision is right!” So we find the way. Then perhaps there is failure. They find the person, and it is not a great success. But life-long fidelity is right and good.

The church says that a gay relationship is not on the same level as a relationship between a man and a woman. That is clear. But when they are faithful, when they are engaged for the poor, when they are working, it is not possible to say, “Everything you do, because you are a homosexual, is negative.” That must be said, and I have heard no critic. It is not possible to see a person from only one point of view, without seeing the whole situation of a person. That is very important for sexual ethics.

The same goes for people who are together but marry later, or when they are faithful together but only in a civil marriage. It is not possible say that the relationship was all negative if the couple is faithful together, and they are waiting, or planning their life, and after 10 years they find the way to come to the sacrament. When it is possible we must help the couple to find fulfilment in the sacrament of marriage. We discussed this question at the synod, and many synod fathers share this opinion. I was not alone in this opinion.
Cardinal Marx on Francis the Synod Women in the Church and Gay Relationships America Magazine

 

[ScienceRocks]

This shit is why I am not a democrat.

 

[Grendelyn]

This is a rather short interview and there were several items that caught my attention but this is one:
At the synod you referred to “the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives,” and you asked, “How can I say that this has no value?” What have you learned from these relationships and does it have any bearing on sexual ethics today?

When speaking about sexual ethics, perhaps we must not begin with sleeping together, but with love, fidelity and the search for a life-long relationship. I am astonished that most of our young people, and also Catholic homosexuals who are practicing, want a relationship that lasts forever. The doctrine of the church is not so strange for people. It is true. We must begin with the main points of the doctrine, to see the dream: the dream is to have a person say, a man and woman say, “You and you, forever. You and you, forever.” And we as church say, “Yes, that’s absolutely OK. Your vision is right!” So we find the way. Then perhaps there is failure. They find the person, and it is not a great success. But life-long fidelity is right and good.

The church says that a gay relationship is not on the same level as a relationship between a man and a woman. That is clear. But when they are faithful, when they are engaged for the poor, when they are working, it is not possible to say, “Everything you do, because you are a homosexual, is negative.” That must be said, and I have heard no critic. It is not possible to see a person from only one point of view, without seeing the whole situation of a person. That is very important for sexual ethics.

The same goes for people who are together but marry later, or when they are faithful together but only in a civil marriage. It is not possible say that the relationship was all negative if the couple is faithful together, and they are waiting, or planning their life, and after 10 years they find the way to come to the sacrament. When it is possible we must help the couple to find fulfilment in the sacrament of marriage. We discussed this question at the synod, and many synod fathers share this opinion. I was not alone in this opinion.
Cardinal Marx on Francis the Synod Women in the Church and Gay Relationships America Magazine

Current science believes there are up to 500 billion Galaxies likened to the Milky Way Galaxy in which we all live . . . what reasonable person believing in a God who so happened to create all of us, truly believes He cares about whether or not any of us is attracted to our same or opposite sex? ~ Susan
PS Love and forgiveness . . .

 

[Disir]

This is a rather short interview and there were several items that caught my attention but this is one:
At the synod you referred to “the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives,” and you asked, “How can I say that this has no value?” What have you learned from these relationships and does it have any bearing on sexual ethics today?

When speaking about sexual ethics, perhaps we must not begin with sleeping together, but with love, fidelity and the search for a life-long relationship. I am astonished that most of our young people, and also Catholic homosexuals who are practicing, want a relationship that lasts forever. The doctrine of the church is not so strange for people. It is true. We must begin with the main points of the doctrine, to see the dream: the dream is to have a person say, a man and woman say, “You and you, forever. You and you, forever.” And we as church say, “Yes, that’s absolutely OK. Your vision is right!” So we find the way. Then perhaps there is failure. They find the person, and it is not a great success. But life-long fidelity is right and good.

The church says that a gay relationship is not on the same level as a relationship between a man and a woman. That is clear. But when they are faithful, when they are engaged for the poor, when they are working, it is not possible to say, “Everything you do, because you are a homosexual, is negative.” That must be said, and I have heard no critic. It is not possible to see a person from only one point of view, without seeing the whole situation of a person. That is very important for sexual ethics.

The same goes for people who are together but marry later, or when they are faithful together but only in a civil marriage. It is not possible say that the relationship was all negative if the couple is faithful together, and they are waiting, or planning their life, and after 10 years they find the way to come to the sacrament. When it is possible we must help the couple to find fulfilment in the sacrament of marriage. We discussed this question at the synod, and many synod fathers share this opinion. I was not alone in this opinion.
Cardinal Marx on Francis the Synod Women in the Church and Gay Relationships America Magazine

Current science believes there are up to 500 billion Galaxies likened to the Milky Way Galaxy in which we all live . . . what reasonable person believing in a God who so happened to create all of us, truly believes He cares about whether or not any of us is attracted to our same or opposite sex? ~ Susan
PS Love and forgiveness . . .

Hon,
I'm an atheist.

PS Love and forgiveness....

 

[Grendelyn]

This is a rather short interview and there were several items that caught my attention but this is one:
At the synod you referred to “the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives,” and you asked, “How can I say that this has no value?” What have you learned from these relationships and does it have any bearing on sexual ethics today?

When speaking about sexual ethics, perhaps we must not begin with sleeping together, but with love, fidelity and the search for a life-long relationship. I am astonished that most of our young people, and also Catholic homosexuals who are practicing, want a relationship that lasts forever. The doctrine of the church is not so strange for people. It is true. We must begin with the main points of the doctrine, to see the dream: the dream is to have a person say, a man and woman say, “You and you, forever. You and you, forever.” And we as church say, “Yes, that’s absolutely OK. Your vision is right!” So we find the way. Then perhaps there is failure. They find the person, and it is not a great success. But life-long fidelity is right and good.

The church says that a gay relationship is not on the same level as a relationship between a man and a woman. That is clear. But when they are faithful, when they are engaged for the poor, when they are working, it is not possible to say, “Everything you do, because you are a homosexual, is negative.” That must be said, and I have heard no critic. It is not possible to see a person from only one point of view, without seeing the whole situation of a person. That is very important for sexual ethics.

The same goes for people who are together but marry later, or when they are faithful together but only in a civil marriage. It is not possible say that the relationship was all negative if the couple is faithful together, and they are waiting, or planning their life, and after 10 years they find the way to come to the sacrament. When it is possible we must help the couple to find fulfilment in the sacrament of marriage. We discussed this question at the synod, and many synod fathers share this opinion. I was not alone in this opinion.
Cardinal Marx on Francis the Synod Women in the Church and Gay Relationships America Magazine

Current science believes there are up to 500 billion Galaxies likened to the Milky Way Galaxy in which we all live . . . what reasonable person believing in a God who so happened to create all of us, truly believes He cares about whether or not any of us is attracted to our same or opposite sex? ~ Susan
PS Love and forgiveness . . .

Hon,
I'm an atheist.

PS Love and forgiveness....

Ahhh, yes, many of your posts that I have read deeply hint at this . . . there's no choice in the matter, I should think, if one really thinks about it. I'd give anything to see my deceased father once more but it's just not to be. Atheism, and adulthood too, such a bittersweet pill to swallow. It's a sad, sad world . . . is it not? ~ Susan

 

[Disir]

No. It rocks. I've always been open about it.

 

[Steinlight]

Satantic drivel.

 

[Disir]

Satantic drivel.

Are you anti-Catholic?

 

[Steinlight]

Satantic drivel.

Are you anti-Catholic?

Who needs to be when the Church leadership is clearly so antagonistic to it's own traditions? The threat to the Church comes clearly from within, not from outsiders.

 

[Steinlight]

I am Catholic

 

[Disir]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before? Or all of the above?

 

[Steinlight]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before?

All of it, there was also a heretical motion risen on whether the allow those who were divorced or "remarried" to receive Holy Communion. Thankfully there were courageous bishops and cardinals who stood up to this abomination of a synod, and they prevented a coup here. I pray for the Church everyday, for I fear this heretical liberal element, which occupies the highest positions of power in the Church, will tear it apart.

 

[Meriweather]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before? Or all of the above?

If the government wants to marry gay couples to give them tax breaks and the common sense say on medical and legal care all couples enjoy, good for the government. I'm not sure why we need the government to manage couples this way, but government does manage to wiggle its way into every aspect of our lives.

A Sacramental marriage addresses the union between a man and a woman, signifying God made the two for each other, and the intent is that they remain married for life. If a man doesn't wish to join with a woman; or a woman join with a man, they would have zilch interest in the Sacrament. I had zilch interest in the Sacrament for much of my adult life because I did not wish to marry anyone.

From the beginning, men and women have been involved in Church "tasks" if you will. Christ assigned a few tasks to men--perhaps because men are apt to allow women to do everything and then the women are complaining men never do anything? (I'm kidding here, of course, but then I have heard a couple of men who attend a church with a woman pastor remark that it is the women who have the run of their church. It might be interesting to see if this is really true, especially in the light that both men said they like their women pastors--and they, of course, continue to attend church functions.)

In a world where it seems quite acceptable to take the easiest way possible, shouldn't we be glad of a Church that points to the ideal? The Catholic Church does not insist everyone follow the ideal--it is simply there to help people who wish to strive for the ideal.

 

[Roadrunner]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before? Or all of the above?

If the government wants to marry gay couples to give them tax breaks and the common sense say on medical and legal care all couples enjoy, good for the government. I'm not sure why we need the government to manage couples this way, but government does manage to wiggle its way into every aspect of our lives.

A Sacramental marriage addresses the union between a man and a woman, signifying God made the two for each other, and the intent is that they remain married for life. If a man doesn't wish to join with a woman; or a woman join with a man, they would have zilch interest in the Sacrament. I had zilch interest in the Sacrament for much of my adult life because I did not wish to marry anyone.

From the beginning, men and women have been involved in Church "tasks" if you will. Christ assigned a few tasks to men--perhaps because men are apt to allow women to do everything and then the women are complaining men never do anything? (I'm kidding here, of course, but then I have heard a couple of men who attend a church with a woman pastor remark that it is the women who have the run of their church. It might be interesting to see if this is really true, especially in the light that both men said they like their women pastors--and they, of course, continue to attend church functions.)

In a world where it seems quite acceptable to take the easiest way possible, shouldn't we be glad of a Church that points to the ideal? The Catholic Church does not insist everyone follow the ideal--it is simply there to help people who wish to strive for the ideal.

It is long past time to leave marriage to the churches, as they see fit, and have civil contracts between consenting adults and the government to define legal rights in a relationship.

 

[Meriweather]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before? Or all of the above?

If the government wants to marry gay couples to give them tax breaks and the common sense say on medical and legal care all couples enjoy, good for the government. I'm not sure why we need the government to manage couples this way, but government does manage to wiggle its way into every aspect of our lives.

A Sacramental marriage addresses the union between a man and a woman, signifying God made the two for each other, and the intent is that they remain married for life. If a man doesn't wish to join with a woman; or a woman join with a man, they would have zilch interest in the Sacrament. I had zilch interest in the Sacrament for much of my adult life because I did not wish to marry anyone.

From the beginning, men and women have been involved in Church "tasks" if you will. Christ assigned a few tasks to men--perhaps because men are apt to allow women to do everything and then the women are complaining men never do anything? (I'm kidding here, of course, but then I have heard a couple of men who attend a church with a woman pastor remark that it is the women who have the run of their church. It might be interesting to see if this is really true, especially in the light that both men said they like their women pastors--and they, of course, continue to attend church functions.)

In a world where it seems quite acceptable to take the easiest way possible, shouldn't we be glad of a Church that points to the ideal? The Catholic Church does not insist everyone follow the ideal--it is simply there to help people who wish to strive for the ideal.

It is long past time to leave marriage to the churches, as they see fit, and have civil contracts between consenting adults and the government to define legal rights in a relationship.

I agree. Church and State view marriage differently.

 

[turzovka]

This is a rather short interview and there were several items that caught my attention but this is one:
At the synod you referred to “the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives,” and you asked, “How can I say that this has no value?” What have you learned from these relationships and does it have any bearing on sexual ethics today?

When speaking about sexual ethics, perhaps we must not begin with sleeping together, but with love, fidelity and the search for a life-long relationship. I am astonished that most of our young people, and also Catholic homosexuals who are practicing, want a relationship that lasts forever. The doctrine of the church is not so strange for people. It is true. We must begin with the main points of the doctrine, to see the dream: the dream is to have a person say, a man and woman say, “You and you, forever. You and you, forever.” And we as church say, “Yes, that’s absolutely OK. Your vision is right!” So we find the way. Then perhaps there is failure. They find the person, and it is not a great success. But life-long fidelity is right and good.

The church says that a gay relationship is not on the same level as a relationship between a man and a woman. That is clear. But when they are faithful, when they are engaged for the poor, when they are working, it is not possible to say, “Everything you do, because you are a homosexual, is negative.” That must be said, and I have heard no critic. It is not possible to see a person from only one point of view, without seeing the whole situation of a person. That is very important for sexual ethics.

The same goes for people who are together but marry later, or when they are faithful together but only in a civil marriage. It is not possible say that the relationship was all negative if the couple is faithful together, and they are waiting, or planning their life, and after 10 years they find the way to come to the sacrament. When it is possible we must help the couple to find fulfilment in the sacrament of marriage. We discussed this question at the synod, and many synod fathers share this opinion. I was not alone in this opinion.
Cardinal Marx on Francis the Synod Women in the Church and Gay Relationships America Magazine

Current science believes there are up to 500 billion Galaxies likened to the Milky Way Galaxy in which we all live . . . what reasonable person believing in a God who so happened to create all of us, truly believes He cares about whether or not any of us is attracted to our same or opposite sex? ~ Susan
PS Love and forgiveness . . .

That isn't much of an argument, imo. A total disconnect even.

The argument still appears to be Does God exist? for you. Once you can come to that realization, what He does with his spare time or magic powers will hardly confound you. After all, Jesus said the Lord is very much aware if a baby sparrow should fall out its nest to the ground.

So to sum: yes, the Lord very much cares about everything we do or do not do, every minute of the day.

 

[Disir]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before?

All of it, there was also a heretical motion risen on whether the allow those who were divorced or "remarried" to receive Holy Communion. Thankfully there were courageous bishops and cardinals who stood up to this abomination of a synod, and they prevented a coup here. I pray for the Church everyday, for I fear this heretical liberal element, which occupies the highest positions of power in the Church, will tear it apart.

Ok.

 

[Disir]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before? Or all of the above?

If the government wants to marry gay couples to give them tax breaks and the common sense say on medical and legal care all couples enjoy, good for the government. I'm not sure why we need the government to manage couples this way, but government does manage to wiggle its way into every aspect of our lives.

A Sacramental marriage addresses the union between a man and a woman, signifying God made the two for each other, and the intent is that they remain married for life. If a man doesn't wish to join with a woman; or a woman join with a man, they would have zilch interest in the Sacrament. I had zilch interest in the Sacrament for much of my adult life because I did not wish to marry anyone.

From the beginning, men and women have been involved in Church "tasks" if you will. Christ assigned a few tasks to men--perhaps because men are apt to allow women to do everything and then the women are complaining men never do anything? (I'm kidding here, of course, but then I have heard a couple of men who attend a church with a woman pastor remark that it is the women who have the run of their church. It might be interesting to see if this is really true, especially in the light that both men said they like their women pastors--and they, of course, continue to attend church functions.)

In a world where it seems quite acceptable to take the easiest way possible, shouldn't we be glad of a Church that points to the ideal? The Catholic Church does not insist everyone follow the ideal--it is simply there to help people who wish to strive for the ideal.

Women's roles within the Church is looking at what they cannot do and all of the things that they can do but are currently not involved in due to no reason at all except to hold on to power: the lay person involved in the Council for Economy. I think that in many instances it is the refusal to relinquish power that is the heart of it.

The government would never have had to get involved in making sure that same sex partners were able to make sane decisions had the partners been able to make those decisions.

I've always found it odd that sexual ethics is decided by men that don't have it. There was a point in the history of the church where the sexual positions that heterosexual couples could engage in were questionable, confusing and altered at whim. You might find this being dictated here and that dictated there-distance was a problem.

I find the synods interesting today because there are different views expressed. Very different from the historical ecumenical councils of yore which were mad power grabs.

 

[Steinlight]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before? Or all of the above?

If the government wants to marry gay couples to give them tax breaks and the common sense say on medical and legal care all couples enjoy, good for the government. I'm not sure why we need the government to manage couples this way, but government does manage to wiggle its way into every aspect of our lives.

A Sacramental marriage addresses the union between a man and a woman, signifying God made the two for each other, and the intent is that they remain married for life. If a man doesn't wish to join with a woman; or a woman join with a man, they would have zilch interest in the Sacrament. I had zilch interest in the Sacrament for much of my adult life because I did not wish to marry anyone.

From the beginning, men and women have been involved in Church "tasks" if you will. Christ assigned a few tasks to men--perhaps because men are apt to allow women to do everything and then the women are complaining men never do anything? (I'm kidding here, of course, but then I have heard a couple of men who attend a church with a woman pastor remark that it is the women who have the run of their church. It might be interesting to see if this is really true, especially in the light that both men said they like their women pastors--and they, of course, continue to attend church functions.)

In a world where it seems quite acceptable to take the easiest way possible, shouldn't we be glad of a Church that points to the ideal? The Catholic Church does not insist everyone follow the ideal--it is simply there to help people who wish to strive for the ideal.

Women's roles within the Church is looking at what they cannot do and all of the things that they can do but are currently not involved in due to no reason at all except to hold on to power: the lay person involved in the Council for Economy. I think that in many instances it is the refusal to relinquish power that is the heart of it.

The government would never have had to get involved in making sure that same sex partners were able to make sane decisions had the partners been able to make those decisions.

I've always found it odd that sexual ethics is decided by men that don't have it. There was a point in the history of the church where the sexual positions that heterosexual couples could engage in were questionable, confusing and altered at whim. You might find this being dictated here and that dictated there-distance was a problem.

I find the synods interesting today because there are different views expressed. Very different from the historical ecumenical councils of yore which were mad power grabs.

I don't see what's so puzzling about men formulating the secular ethics of the Church. The Church was founded by men and led by men and has been for 2000 years. But it isn't as though they came up with them out of nowhere. They were the product of not only their observations, their culture, and their elders who observed relations before them. I think you are totally off base suggesting the laws of the church on sexual matters only bind women. That is a rather narrow sighted feminist view. It ignores also that women more often than not the regulator of social norms, particularly among their fellow women on sexual matters. Women more often than not are more repulsed by female promiscuity than men are.

 

[Disir]

Oh, I see. Well, is it the gay part, the hetrosexual couples that are considered common law before marriage or allowing women to handle tasks that they had not been able to before? Or all of the above?

If the government wants to marry gay couples to give them tax breaks and the common sense say on medical and legal care all couples enjoy, good for the government. I'm not sure why we need the government to manage couples this way, but government does manage to wiggle its way into every aspect of our lives.

A Sacramental marriage addresses the union between a man and a woman, signifying God made the two for each other, and the intent is that they remain married for life. If a man doesn't wish to join with a woman; or a woman join with a man, they would have zilch interest in the Sacrament. I had zilch interest in the Sacrament for much of my adult life because I did not wish to marry anyone.

From the beginning, men and women have been involved in Church "tasks" if you will. Christ assigned a few tasks to men--perhaps because men are apt to allow women to do everything and then the women are complaining men never do anything? (I'm kidding here, of course, but then I have heard a couple of men who attend a church with a woman pastor remark that it is the women who have the run of their church. It might be interesting to see if this is really true, especially in the light that both men said they like their women pastors--and they, of course, continue to attend church functions.)

In a world where it seems quite acceptable to take the easiest way possible, shouldn't we be glad of a Church that points to the ideal? The Catholic Church does not insist everyone follow the ideal--it is simply there to help people who wish to strive for the ideal.

Women's roles within the Church is looking at what they cannot do and all of the things that they can do but are currently not involved in due to no reason at all except to hold on to power: the lay person involved in the Council for Economy. I think that in many instances it is the refusal to relinquish power that is the heart of it.

The government would never have had to get involved in making sure that same sex partners were able to make sane decisions had the partners been able to make those decisions.

I've always found it odd that sexual ethics is decided by men that don't have it. There was a point in the history of the church where the sexual positions that heterosexual couples could engage in were questionable, confusing and altered at whim. You might find this being dictated here and that dictated there-distance was a problem.

I find the synods interesting today because there are different views expressed. Very different from the historical ecumenical councils of yore which were mad power grabs.

I don't see what's so puzzling about men formulating the secular ethics of the Church. The Church was founded by men and led by men and has been for 2000 years. But it isn't as though they came up with them out of nowhere. They were the product of not only their observations, their culture, and their elders who observed relations before them. I think you are totally off base suggesting the laws of the church on sexual matters only bind women. That is a rather narrow sighted feminist view. It ignores also that women more often than not the regulator of social norms, particularly among their fellow women on sexual matters. Women more often than not are more repulsed by female promiscuity than men are.

They are men that have not had sex that are deciding sexual ethics. I think you might be reading more into what I am saying then I am actually saying.

Before Christianity what is called "sexual pessimism" was already in existence but it was for medical reasons. Given what knowledge that was available at the time, sexual intercourse was never harmful for a woman but it was down right dangerous for men. After sex, men lost "energy" and it could lead to death. This came from Galen and Hippocrates but also from much earlier folks. At the time, they had zip knowledge of women and thought that a vagina was really an inside out penis. So women were essentially defective men. Marriage, among the Stoics, was for those people that could not manage to control themselves. Asceticism.