No, they don’t have to be necessary. It seems to me the blessing for objects is for their pious use or protection against evil. It wouldn’t make sense to bless a relationship for pious use. Especially if that relationship is a temptation. Likewise it doesn’t make sense to bless a relationship as protection against evil if that relationship in its essence contains a source of temptation. We wouldn’t bless the relationship of a man and woman living together to protect them from yielding to temptation.
As we used to say in the Southern Baptist church I attended, he needs a “Come to Jesus” talk. The Catholic Church doesn’t hate those who are attracted to members of the same sex. But we cannot condone or endorse sin. Blessing ceremonies for SSCs as this Cardinal wants to do goes against God. He needs to be put in his place.
The Jesuit flagship magazine weighs in: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/02/06/top-german-cardinal-signals-cautious-support-blessing-same-sex-couples
My husband and have certain vices and tendencies that tempt us to sin. Not so much sexual, but they are there. The marriage blessing that we received was there to assist us in the overcoming of these vices, as well as the temptation to sin against each other. If you are in a close relationship with someone, that also means you have greater opportunity to hurt that same someone. However, if my husband were a great source of temptation to any sort of sin at the time we got married, I should have not married him in the first place.
Now, you qualify this by saying that the relationship “in essence” contains a source of temptation, right? I agree with you on that front, which is why I pointed to condition 2 as a requirement. I don’t know how familiar you are with certain differences in approaches to dealing with homosexuality among faithful gay Catholics. On one side, you have the Spiritual Friendship crowd, who is generally in favor of chaste partnerships, like Eve Tushnet, and then on the other hand you have people like Joe Sciambra, who is generally against them. The thing is that people like Tushnet have a rather different experience of how they dealt with being gay (some relationships before conversion, generally present parents, stable life in the sexual sphere in comparison to the typical straight person), than people like Sciambra do (did gay porn, absent parents, very unstable life completely controlled by the “gay scene”). People like Sciambra should not get involved in something like this, precisely because it poses a major temptation for them, since they has become addicted to the actions that led them down a dark path. He’s basically the SSA equivalent of an alcoholic, and living with another dude is like smelling alcohol. And he is right to act as he does for his sake.
People like Tushnet, on the other hand, have been able to sublimate their desires in good ways. And they have figured out a way to make their attractions have much less of a sexual component than they used to. That doesn’t make then long less for company, but this time, longing for company is not a bad thing. For her, when it comes to SSA, she needs merely to avoid getting drunk.
I do not propose this as a general solution, but as I said, only for those who can do it. But my guess is that if this is seen in the Church, with proper guidance from pastors, in coming generations many more children finding themselves with these attractions won’t be led down a path like Joe Sciambra went through. Attraction to the same sex will become far more like avoiding getting drunk, and far less like avoiding alcohol if you are an alcoholic.
15 If you love me you will keep my commandments.
Then perhaps you shouldn’t comment on things that are not within your competence. This is about a Catholic Cardinal making statements at the very least construed as conflicting with Catholic teaching.
You may consider it “damaging” to homosexuals because they don’t get to do what they want to do, and therefore you call it “hate”. You see it as “hate” because your worldview is only until your last breath, while we believe way past that; that there is such a thing as sin, death, judgment, heaven, and hell. You don’t, so naturally for you, anything goes.
God has revealed himself to us; we do not make God in our own image. He has revealed that any sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is sinful. There isn’t a “god you believe in”. You have only your own opinion and therefore form an image of God that conforms to your own beliefs. We do not do that.
Because we believe in an eternal destiny, telling everyone, homosexual or not, to stay away from sin. The only problem is that homosexuals have a powerful political lobby, which is where the “hate” word comes in. But the admonitions apply equally to heterosexuals indulging in fornication, adultery, pornography.
There is no love where there is danger of hell.
There’s nothing at all pastoral about blessing that which is objectively disordered and gravely sinful. In fact, that is the exact opposite of pastoral, and is itself gravely immoral.
Bless the individuals, sure. But bless the union itself? - no, because to do so would be truly hateful.
Posted in the thread about this in the Catholic News section on why such a blessing would be wrong:
I believe that is possible, yes. I do not believe it is possible and the person be a Catholic, at least one that knows anything at all about the Christian faith. The highest good one can do for another in this world is help them be good and holy, what we call blessed. The highest good one can do for the next world is make them miss Hell and gain Heaven.
Do you believe this same type of sexual and truly loving relationship can exist between a grown man and a little girl? I don’t, as a little girl is not capable of being properly formed when being molested like than. So regardless of the intentions and emotions involved, I would never call it true love for the harm done the girl in the long run. I do not expect you to agree as an agnostic, but that is the Christian perspective. Even as adults, we are still being fully formed for our birth into the next world.
It is never a good step to participate in other’s sins. The title of this thread is misleading. Endorsing and idea is not the same as “approving” a blessing or practice. This title makes it sound like an official ecclesiastical “approval” rather than espousing an idea for discussion. Granted, a Cardinal should do neither of these things on such a matter, but let’s not fall into the error of the mainstream media by making it into something it is not.
Are the bonds that unite friends ever defined with words that imply exclusivity re ‘couples’.? The bonds of marriage are the only bonds I can think of defined with that word for two people. I think if exclusivity is the meaning of the bond between two people it’s meaning is beyond the common bond between friends and should be treated as such.
We all have feelings but how we act on those feelings is what is important. IF (hypothetical) I have real true honest feelings of love for another woman’s husband and he has the same for me those are our feelings. But what we chose to do with those feelings is what is important. I KNOW that SSA people love other people. I KNOW that they want unions with others who are SSA but we can’t all get what we want. ALL single, and married people (One man to one woman) no matter what, MUST live chaste lives. That’s what God calls us to do. And ALL those consecrated religious must be celibate. It is what it is and we must ask God each one of us for the grace, strength and help to do just that. It is NOT impossible----not easy, not fun at times, not our first choice maybe -----but NOT impossible WITH God’s help.
Any Christian that is married KNOWS that there are 3 in that marriage: the husband, the wife and GOD! So any single person should KNOW that there are 2 in their life: the single man or woman and GOD! What’s wrong with this world today is we are trying to take God out of everything and when we do that it becomes chaos. It becomes wrong. It becomes backward and it becomes all about “me, me, me”.
Too many threads to read thru. My aderall works but not that much.
What I never understand (accept) is the concept that true love between gay people is an impossibility.
I think it is clear commitment here means the same as that in any relationship of trust…care for the good of the other person. Familial piety is indeed a good, virtuous and noble thing to be supported and encouraged. It is a commandment, and such piety is institutionalised in such diverse vehicles as adoption, god-parentage, marriage, polygamy, apprenticeship (in the old days), concubinage, patronial relations, civil unions, monasticism, vows of fealty and so on.
Some forms are less servicable than others towards those pious end in modern times. Not all of them are about romance or sexual rights. But they are all about mutual loyalty and duties of care.
To say they are either purely sinful or purely noble in some abstract objective manner is not helpful or realistic.
They can be made better or worse by the quality of the individuals who use the vehicles.
An old dump of a car may well be driven more safely and faster by a skilled driver than a Mercedes by a 16 year old street urchin.
I suggest that is the way Christians should approach such things. We are not a one size fits all religion that tolerates nothing other than “standard issue” surely.
Homosexuals in civil unions may well be getting to heaven before good Catholic sacramental marriages where partners do not actually love each other but are only together because of their vows.
There is sin and grace in every relationship of care…simply because its a “big tick” institution (eg sacramental marriage) does not make it “all good”. Nor do “big cross” institutions (eg SS civil unions, polygamy etc) thereby become “all bad”. Thats the simplistic “goodies and baddies” thinking of school children.
What this person has done in a violation GODS Moral law and this is part of the Ordinary Magisteium
1983 Code of Canon Law
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Thank you and God Bless
You believe the Cardinal is obstinately denying a major teaching of the Catholic Church?
By any chance do you also believe the same of Pope Francis in AL re adultery?
There has been no hate expressed. Love is not being judged. The sexual relationship is being judged.
The blessing would constitute for all who witnessed it a degree of endorsement, not for the good that is surely present, but for a relationship founded on the sexual attraction of 2 persons of the same sex.
It is the wrong approach.
I guess it depends on your definition of “true love”. The Christian definition of that is “wanting and working for the good of the other”, not just a sappy Hollywood-type romantic fantasy. So if two people are in a relationship that may be leading them to hell, how is the RCC doing them a favor to pretend their relationship is healthy and beneficial?
Is that the Christian definition? Is the alternate a sappy romantic fantasy?