I think that taking this more pastoral approach is generally good step for the Church, personally. Anyone agree or disagree? Not trying to cause a stir, but I did think this deserved consideration and discussion.
God have mercy on us and on the whole world.
There is nothing “pastoral” in affirming sin.
God has chastised is with bad clergy - he must be really mad at us
Fr James Martin SJ has an LGBT book coming out too
They will face the very same God each one of us faces at our judgement. Just saying.
This is an outrage!!
On what authority and on what bases is this even possible!?
From the Catechesism of the Roman Catholic Church
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.
I am floored by this one, though given the most charitable spin, it is possible he messed up on an interview. It was the interviewer that asked the leading question and it seems his answer was sort of, “yes, but not, maybe.”
The Catechism sure is clearer.
How does this happen? Surely there is a way to overturn this ruling?
I’ll likely be a minority of one but I will agree with you. When the Pope met with a gay friend and the gay friend’s boyfriend, the head of the Holy See press office described it as Francis meeting with one of his former students and the former student’s family. Francis kissed his gay friend’s boyfriend twice on the cheek.
People, people, people. Read the article and especially the part at the bottom which is the actual translation rather than the sensationalized headline or comments in the article.
A) The bishop did not “approve” anything
B) The bishop did not “endorse” anything
C) He did not “authorize” anything
He gave a speculative opinion. That is all. Nothing to see here.
One must be a critical reader.
There is nothing to “overturn” as there is no “ruling”. There is only the bishop giving an opinion, a speculation, regarding possibilities. And an article writer who wanted to create click bait.
This is not good. He is commiting the mortal sin of scandal, and surely his sin is mortal.
It is like blessing a couple who has never been married, yet continues to fornicate without ever planning on getting married.
“the decision of whether a homosexual union should receive the Church’s blessing should be up to “a priest or pastoral worker” and made in each individual case, the German prelate stated”
Well if this happens and GOD PLEASE NO NEVER- but if it would and it would be on a case by case basis, get ready the lawsuits against the Church would be horrendous. Bill & Bob got their union blessed but Jill and Jane didn’t. OH my When you open Pandora’s (the devil’s box) there is NO stopping what comes out.
I say it again God have mercy on us and on the whole world
Meh… I don’t trust the intentions of Marx, mainly because his statements are so vague on the matter, as well as his lax positions in the synod.
I could see blessing two people of the same sex coming to a bond under certain conditions: basically, that 1) the bond is a bond of friendship where each lifts the other up and calls the other to holiness, 2) that this bond itself is not a stumbling block to the holiness of those involved, and possibly 3) that the two have some additional service to the church that they do together. Basically a monastery for two (or more). It would have to be assumed and intended that this couple is not having sexual type relations and that they are faithful to the full teaching of the church. Assuming these things, this shouldn’t be a problem, and can actually be a good thing for those who can do it, since it helps them live in community in a real way that is plugged in to the Church without the usual family structure that most in the Church have.
Having said all that, I have my doubts that Marx has this in mind when he is advocating for the possibility of blessing homosexual couples. He and those like him seem to have trouble recognizing why what he said can easily fit the proper definition of scandal (an increasingly noticeable problem among an increasing number of bishops these days).
It is not a ruling.
Pretty much exactly like that.
What Cajun cited from the source:
I will agree their is no ruling. My mistake. What i should have said is that this is SCANDAL! The very fact that a high church official even hints at the possibility* that the Church should bless a homosexual union when the catechism states clearly that they cannot be approved, is horrific.
Church leaders should also know better than to issue questionable “speculative opinions.”
Contrary to today’s politically correct climate, not all opinions are correct or even worthy of consideration or even respect. There are such things as wrong opinions. The excerpt (translation, and till I receive proof the contrary, I consider authentic):
Karin Wendlinger: So you really could imagine a way to bless homosexual couples in the Catholic Church?
Cardinal Marx: Yes; however, there are no general solutions. That would not be right, I think. It’s about pastoral care for individual cases, and that applies in other areas, as well, which we cannot regulate, where we have no sets of rules. That does not mean that nothing happens.
But I really have to leave that to the pastor on the ground and the individual under pastoral care. There, you can discuss things, as is currently being debated, and consider: How can a pastoral worker deal with it? However, I really would emphatically leave that to the particular, individual case at hand and not demand any sets of rules; again — there are things that cannot be regulated.
The problematic word here?
Doesn’t matter that it’s essentially “yes but”. Everything that follows is the usual “pastoral” fluff. Opinion or no, ruling or no, this is not conforming to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
The morally correct answer to the interviewer’s question is quite simply, “no.”
Oh, and before the sentence-parsers drop by, the context is clear: blessing of homosexual couples. We can licitly bless homosexual individuals insofar as they are blessed as persons. This is not the natural reading of the interview; the context clearly is “blessing” the homosexual union.
This is in the vein of Pope B16 talking about homosexual prostitutes using condoms.
It’s a theologian talking. The press in general, and chicken-little Catholics too, just love to pounce on things they aren’t even taking time to really research and scream “the sky is falling”. Just as with B16’s comments, I think these were misunderstood and blown out of proportion. And, it’s much ado about nothing.