It is like gay activists don't even try to hide the lies anymore.
Here is the first paragraph of a column where Cardinal Burke shares the Catechism:
//The former Archbishop of St. Louis and current Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Raymond Burke said in an interview published Thursday that families have a responsibility to protect their children from exposure to LGBT people. Family members or not, he said, people who “suffer from same-sex attraction” are “inherently disordered” and their relationships are “always and everywhere wrong, evil.”//
That's pretty bad. The cardinal said that "gay people are disordered" and that their "relationships" are "evil."
What a nasty man!
Never mind that he didn't say that.
Here is what the Cardinal actually said:
//“If homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered, which indeed they are — reason teaches us that and also our faith — then, what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living [in] a disordered relationship with another person?” he asked.//
So, homosexual relations - not people - are "disordered," which is technical philosophical term from Aristotle meaning not properly ordered to the proper end of an activity, e.g., eating is properly ordered to nutrition, not gluttony, and sexual relations are properly ordered to conjugal love and the production of children.
Likewise, it is the "acts" not the "relationships" that are evil. Same-sex relationships - being a species of friendship - are not only good but quite normal. What is evil is suborning the virtue of friendship into a misuse of the sexual faculty.
The author can agree or disagree, but this blatant misrepresentation is either dishonest or bespeaks a person who literally cannot read.
Posts
3 comments:
It does seem like the esteemed cardinal did say gay family members shouldn't be allowed to attend family gatherings. I think what many people see on this issue is that homosexuality seems to be a special sin for christians. Casual drug use, cohabitation of opposite sex couples, out of wedlock sexual relations (the list goes on) do not seem to warrant banishment from family gatherings. Its odd, because seeing a gay person is unlikely to cause someone to "become gay." Many other activities (sins?) are likely to influence children. Uncle Bob and and his friend Ken at Thanksgiving, not so much.
Cardinal Burke is doing the exact opposite of "picking out homosexual activity as a special sin." He is in fact saying that it ought not be treated as a special sin or excused as a special sin. Here is what the Cardinal said:
//“If homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered, which indeed they are — reason teaches us that and also our faith — then, what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living [in] a disordered relationship with another person?” he asked.
“We don’t want our children,” Burke said, to get the “impression” that such relationships are normal and acceptable rather than as “gravely sinful acts on the part of a family member.”
“We wouldn’t, if it were another kind of relationship — something that was profoundly disordered and harmful — we wouldn’t expose our children to that relationship, to the direct experience of it,” he went on. “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.”//
I don't see where that implies that polygamists or drug users or necrophiles or paraphiliacs or adulterers or fornicaters would be allowed to model their behavior for children as normal.
Some interesting comments from an article in the Atlantic this morning:
“While most Catholics do not turn to the Catholic Church for sexual guidance, this might change if the Church had more credibility by being less absolutist about difficult situations, and/or practices that are widely accepted by Catholics,” suggested Lisa Sowle Cahill, a professor of theology at Boston College, in an email.
“We need to address pervasive issues like rape, sexual abuse, overly casual sex (the hook-up culture), commercial sexualization of young girls, and trafficking. The Church has no voice on these issues because it expends its moral capital on divorce and contraception—and in the U.S. on campaigns against gay marriage and contraception,” she wrote. “If the Church's teaching voice were less strident on these issues by means of a ‘law of graduality,’ some of the larger, more important moral values and concerns might get a hearing.”
"Language such as 'living in sin,' 'intrinsically disordered' or 'contraceptive mentality' are not necessarily words that invite people to draw closer to Christ and the Church, one bishop reportedly argued before the synod. These terms are sometimes used to refer to cohabitation, homosexuality, and birth control.
Post a Comment