- Status in a group
- Cardinal Raymond Burke: Gays, remarried Catholics, murderers are all the same
by David Gibson,Religion News Service | Mar. 27, 2015
- I think he could have expressed himself somewhat better...
- Arbitrary examples he has used. He could have included gluttons, gossips and those who criticise others.
- Why should he? Isnt it the Truth? These are equally grave mortal sins!
- RD (D, not T!)
- t think his concern goes a lot in favor of the great danger faced by the Family. Gays-lobby are trying to "murder" the family, so does a big part of remarried Catholics that want to impose their home-made view about marriage.
- Nobody knows the state of another person's soul. Burke's is the preaching of tyranny and fear mongering. I do not believe that he is doing God's will with it.
- RD (D, not T!)
- The Catholic Chuch urgently needs that "tyranny". We have been too kind, too good, too weak! And we have the results today. babies with 3 parents, surrogate mothers, "marriage" between two men who claim the "right" to have children, legal 3-term abortion by poison injected into the fetus's heart....Burke for tyran! Hurrah!!!
- We do not need any kind of tyranny. One evil cannot stop another. Burke is not preaching Jesus' truth. That's why Pope Francis sidelined him.
- Cardinal Raymond Burke -- Santo Subito!
- Vile, repulsive and pathetic little man. He knows nothing about the concerns and struggle of the working man or woman
- KB : It is Jesus' truth that even one mortal sin blocks from Heaven, and that despite any good deeds done while in mortal sin. The utmost such deeds can do for you if you're in mortal sin is that God might consider them a reason for giving you the grace of repentance.
I'm assuming that by "murderer" he means "unrepentant murderer". A condemned man who has said he was sorry for killing an innocent man may be presumed to have regained grace.
@RMacK, if the concerns and struggle of a working man or woman have in your place become such that it seems impossible for them to repent of being gay, or impossible for them to repent of a remarriage, they need to stop having such concerns, even at the price of becoming bums.
@RT "He could have included gluttons, gossips and those who criticise others." - No since there are cases when these are only venial.
And criticising someone else is sometimes even not a venial sin but a virtuous act.
@KB "Nobody knows the state of another person's soul. Burke's is the preaching of tyranny and fear mongering."
The state of a soul, no. But certain mortal sins are public facts.
Staying in a "gay couple" or staying in a "remarried one" would at any time it involves a voluntary choice imply mortal sin.
- As I say, nobody knows the state of another's soul. We can never say that anybody else in a state of sin. That being do, it is illogical to claim that anybody has sinned publicly.
All we can ever justifiably say is "If I did that, I would be on a state of sin".
Jesus gave us Christianity as a guide for our own lives individually, not as an excuse for judging other people.
- Sure, the guy who seems to me to be in a gay couple could theoretically just have decided to leave it and thereby regained God's grace. I just don't know it yet. That would remain true even if by tomorrow he has changed his mind. And that change of mind would usually be another mortal sin.
There IS such a thing as public sin.
Being a tax collector is not a public sin, it is just a public occasion for sins of extorsion, if it is done as it was back then. So a tax collector could cease to be in mortal sin, simply by deciding to take only what the provincials owe Rome and take for himself only what he needed.
But Herod was living in public sin and St John the Baptist denounced it.
"Jesus gave us Christianity as a guide for our own lives individually"
ALSO as a guide for the public life of nations.
- Using homophobic language doesn't get you anywhere mate
- "Repent for being gay"? What I find disturbing is the lack of education here. Sexual orientation and proclivity to same sex attraction is no more a choice than skin colour.
Why did you start a non-quote with quotation marks? [I was wrong about that, see further on - or you recall?] Or was it a quote from article?
I did not speak of repenting for "being gay", but of repenting for "being in a gay couple".
"Sexual orientation and proclivity to same sex attraction is no more a choice than skin colour."
I would say you might be wrong, except for extreme cases. And skin colours are sometimes genetic, but sometimes also due to skin diseases (like all white being a colour due to psoriasis or leprosy), which is a fair parallel to those extreme cases.
But supposing even that with a certain man the proclivity for same sex attraction is ineradicable, this need not imply the choice between abstinence or sodomy, since Josh Weed seems still today to have such a proclivity and still he is faithfully married to a woman for now more than eleven years and there are at least three daughters.
If what you are saying is that there are men who are condemned both to the proclivity and to inability of making Josh Weed's choice and on top of that also to inability for celibacy and abstinence, even with adjusted diet (lent is a reminder of the role of diet in chastity), you are basically saying some men cannot help sinning mortally.
It sounds more like demonic posession than like what happens to sane and free men, if you put it that way. Now, demonically possessed are indeed not responsible for all they do while under the influence of the demon, but even there, sodomy is so repulsive even to demons (as St Bridget heard from Christ), that when the act is committed, demons withdraw, which leaves the men free to also withdraw, at least for some moments, unhampered by demons, and to ask God for help.
God does NOT predestine any to evil, and sodomy is an inherently evil act, whatever excuses there may be in certain instances of it.
@RMacK "Using homophobic language doesn't get you anywhere mate"
I seriously do not know what you are talking about. I have not used any word choice reflecting homophobia, nor in each word choice chosen any word reflecting most disgust possible for men. As to sodomy for act, well, for the act we should have uttermost disgust.
So, no, I have not used homophobic language to express otherwise PC ideas, I have used the language expressing most properly and even dispassionately certain ideas which you might consider homophobic.
Because I believe reality is at every level of the cosmos, except the minds of certain sinners and except the expressed ideas in certain "gayfriendly" nooks and crannies of society, utterly against sodomy.
Oh, sorry, @RG , I did in fact use the word "repent of being gay" followed by an "or" and by "repent of a remarriage". I meant by the first obviously "repent of being in a gay couple", not of the proclivity (except one should repent of occasions when one encouraged it).
I thought it was the other answer you meant.
"But comparing those situations in any context is unusual and certainly out of step with the pastoral tone that Francis has set in his papacy."
"Moreover, reformers argue that a murderer -- or almost any other sinner -- can go to confession, receive absolution, and take Communion in a state of grace. But there is no such option for a gay person or those who are divorced and remarried, except permanent celibacy."
For the guys in a gay couple, there is the option of Josh Weed, sometimes. For the remarrieds, there is sometimes a possibility of getting back to spouse. In case only one person has a divorce from a valid matrimony behind himself or herself, the other person can get out and get a real marriage.
And murderers too sometimes can only stop murdering, hence only get absolution, if for instance getting to police and giving up and thereby exposing themselves to death penalty or life time prison. Mafiosi would be a case in point, if Mafia only protects them as long as they stay in torpedo business, or forces them to return to it as long as they are alive and free.
"Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, for example, repeatedly stressed that the church should "look at the person and not the sexual orientation." He cited the case of a gay couple he knew in which one partner cared for the other through a long-term illness in a way that was 'exemplary. Full stop.' "
Schoenborn is hardly a good authority.
He is evolutionist, for one.
- Let me quote the whole thing then as you seem to have so readily forgotten what you wrote. "RMacK, if the concerns and struggle of a working man or woman have in your place become such that it seems impossible for them to repent of being gay, or impossible for them to repent of a remarriage, they need to stop having such concerns, even at the price of becoming bums." You need not read more into what I wrote other than the writing itself. Same-sex attraction isn't voluntary and doesn't dictate a person's actions anymore than opposite sex attraction does. I'm sorry but you are just wrong on that. I might add that it is a fact that some people find both sexes attractive so your example is a bit weak.
- I thought it was the other answer you meant. [I did not know RG had answered, see above, where my answer series comes as I posted it, I was following up to my discovery of fault.]
- No problem.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I just don't agree with you on the element of choice when it comes to same-sex attraction.
- [THEN ONLY
- come on the board my previous posts on e g Schoenborn]
- Sorry, I don't understand. What's an evolutionist?
- Pope Francis holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus gave to Peter. Burke does not. It's that simple.
- RG "I just don't agree with you on the element of choice when it comes to same-sex attraction."
Where exactly do we disagree?
I never said the spontaneous attraction in general was directly a choice as such. The choice I suggested as that of Josh Weed still has not cured him of ssa, but he's not living a life of sodomy. Would you say that is not a matter of choice either?
An evolutionist is a man who believes we evolved from apes, mammals from reptiles, amphibians from fish and so on.
- I take it you don't believe in evolution?
- KB, Bergoglio and Burke neither of them have the keys of Heaven for all earth. Burke may have greater chances of, despite accepting Bergoglio as "Pope Francis" having a kind of accreditation for a time by whoever is real Pope if we have one.
I suppose Pope Michael is the real one, but if he condones AA (hope that is not his final decision on matter), he cannot be.
@RG you are correct I don't believe in microbes to man evolution or macro evolution or in a common ancestor of cats and dogs. I do believe Chihuahuas and Great Danes have a common ancestor, some have called that believing in microevolution.
- Do you believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor?
- No, I do not believe that either.
- Who the heck is Pope Michael?
- KB, check out David Bawden
- Ok, so how did humans come about then in actuality? Also, explain to me why Pope Francis is not Pope.
- See Genesis on point one.
On point two, see Bergoglio also being an evolutionist, plus this:
New blog on the kid : Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?
- Ah, the Pope of Kansas and Oklahoma, where most of the other cowboys live too!
So far as I'm concerned, anybody who denies the legitimacy of the Pope elected by the Cardinal-electors is in Schism from the Church.
- Thanks but, I'll take my leave here chaps. Enjoy.
- He's a farmer, not a cowboy.
Was the conclave a conclave? Or should Benedict XVI/Ratzinger on resigning have investigated the claims of say Bawden to being Pope Michael?
- Left out:
- To simplify overview, I left out a discussion on battling ISIS. I agree it would be a just war and some others have not been.
- [chuckle] Hans-Georg, in British English, "cowboy" is slang for a rogue or swindler.
No. Benedict did exactly the right thing. He realised that he did not have the strength to do what is currently necessary to weed out evil from the Church's structure, so he stepped aside to let the Holy Spirit influence the choice of somebody who did. In making that choice, the electors picked somebody from as far away from the Vatican as possible.
- [First I post link to article]
"Benedict did exactly the right thing. He realised that he did not have the strength to do what is currently necessary to weed out evil from the Church's structure"
If it did, the structure was perhaps that of some kind of counterchurch?
"so he stepped aside to let the Holy Spirit influence the choice of somebody who did."
He could have stepped aside by asking "may the real pope please stand up" too. Like asking a council to decide between claimants (his own line, Palmar, Pope Michael, etc).
"In making that choice, the electors picked somebody from as far away from the Vatican as possible."
But who had showed himself very close indeed to certain evils of Ecumenism and Modernism.
Even sacrilege, considering how he handled the Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires.
"in British English, 'cowboy' is slang for a rogue or swindler."
Was hardly so in the days of Enid Blyton, GKC, CSL, JRRT. That's where I learnt English (I had to update it on the item "gay").
If that is so now with "cowboy", it reminds of the days when "shepherd" and "fisherman" were similarily Hebrew/Aramaic slang for sinner.