Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

In Response to Same-Sex Marriage Bishop Lynch Invokes the Spirit of the Synod

image

Earlier this week Florida became the most recent state to legally recognize same sex “marriage”. Although the voters had overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment recognizing the traditional definition of marriage back in 2008, United States District Judge Robert L. Hinkle ruled the amendment to be unconstitutional.

The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops immediately responded with a statement which clearly presented the Church’s defense of marriage and the family:

“The conjugal nature of a marriage between a man and a woman has provided for millennia the basis for norms of marital exclusivity and permanence that made possible stable families necessary for human flourishing…

“How society understands marriage has great public significance. Because of this, redefining civil “marriage” to include two persons of the same sex will have far-reaching consequences in society. Such a change advances the notion that marriage is only about the affective gratification of consenting adults. Such a redefinition of marriage does nothing to safeguard a child’s right to a mother and father and to be raised in a stable family where his or her development and well-being is served to the greatest extent possible.
Redefinition of marriage will have implications not yet fully understood

“Marriage based on the complementarity of the sexes is the lifeblood of family, and family is the foundation of our society. The crisis that sadly the family is experiencing today will only be aggravated by imposing this redefinition of marriage…”

Additionally, Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami followed with a strongly worded directive to all diocesan employees advising them to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the moral truths of the Church:

“Because of the Church’s particular function in society, certain conduct, inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, could lead to disciplinary action, including termination, even if it occurs outside the normal working day and outside the strict confines of work performed by the employee for the Archdiocese.”

Unfortunately, this same clarity and commitment to combat radical secularism and moral relativism was not demonstrated by Bishop Robert Lynch of the Diocese of St. Petersburg. In his Op-Ed piece written for the Tampa Bay Times on January 6, Bishop Lynch began well enough:

“In light of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Florida as of Tuesday, I wish to lend an additional voice to the discussion regarding the challenges we in the Catholic Church face as we strive to preserve the traditional sacramental understanding of marriage even as the law now accommodates couples of the same sex.

The Catholic Church upholds marriage, one of our seven sacraments, as an indissoluble relationship between a man and a woman committed to mutual consolation and open to procreation. Such a view is rooted not only in the church’s long-standing theological understanding of married life, but in the church’s understanding of Christian anthropology as well, which views the conjugal and complementary relationship between a man and a woman as part of God’s providential design whereby human beings are able to be co-creators of life with God.

Therefore, any dialogue which reaffirms such a view of marriage and which seeks to ensure that such a view continues to be respected and enabled to serve and edify both the church and the wider society is to be commended and supported.”

If this were the entirety of Bishop Lynch’s statement all would be well. However, invoking the “spirit” of the mid-term Relatio from last years Extraordinary Synod on the Family, he continues:

“However, together with Pope Francis and in light of the discussions at the recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family held in Rome, I also recognize that the reality of the family today, in all its complexities, presents the church with pastoral challenges as the church strives to accept people in the specific circumstances of their lives and support and encourage them in their search for God and their desire to be members of the church.

Therefore, I do not wish to lend our voice to notions which might suggest that same-sex couples are a threat incapable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness and, thus, incapable of contributing to the edification of both the church and the wider society.

“In the midst of changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage, there may no doubt be some confusion. However, with patience and humility, our church must continuously strive to discover what the spirit is saying and respond to the Synod Fathers’ suggestion to discern what pastoral response faithful to church teaching and marked by respect and sensitivity might be appropriate for same-sex couples, even as God’s creative designs for and the church’s sacramental understanding of marriage are affirmed.”

For those who are familiar with Bishop Lynch and the various controversies in the St. Petersburg diocese during his twenty years, this response cannot be surprising. None-the-less, all should take note of the verbiage employed. Under the banner of pastoral sensitivity, while also claiming an obedient response to the promptings of the spirit, we will see more bishops embracing relativism over orthodoxy. They will say it is merciful. In response I would offer them the words of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Doctrine and pastoral care are the same thing. Jesus Christ as pastor and Jesus Christ as teacher with his word are not two different people…”

(Photo Credit: CNS/Ed Foster Jr.)

66 thoughts on “In Response to Same-Sex Marriage Bishop Lynch Invokes the Spirit of the Synod”

  1. “Therefore, I do not wish to lend our voice to notions which might suggest that same-sex couples are a threat incapable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness and, thus, incapable of contributing to the edification of both the church and the wider society.”

    A homosexual couple is, in fact, incapable of contributing to the edification of the Church. Period. I did not say a homosexual person who is trying to live a chaste life in accord with the Church’s doctrine and teaching. I said a homosexual couple, as such. A “homosexual couple” represents something. It represents open an unrepentant sin in contravention of God’s will and the moral law. It represents sodomy, which it has been said is “a sin that cries out for vengeance.” The bishop is is saying such sin can edify the Church. Sometimes, I think we are doomed.

    Reply
    • Now, if the bishop were saying that those same-sex couples who overcome their lusts to become chaste friends, in that potential sense, the bishop’s words would make sense. He make (spinelessly) makes his overall statement ambiguous enough that that is what he COULD mean, but it can also be interpreted the liberal way as well. Wishy washy pandering to both sides. Bugnini would be proud.

      Reply
      • “Now, if the bishop were saying that those same-sex couples who overcome their lusts to become chaste friends, in that potential sense, the bishop’s words would make sense. ”

        That is exactly what I thought, too. I went to the “source” material on the chance this had been left out. Regretably, it was not.
        Candidly, I would love to ask the Bishop that question directly and 1-1.

        Reply
        • He’d probably squirm.

          Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.
          —– Reply message —–

          Reply
        • Bugninites must be purged.

          Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.
          —– Reply message —–

          Reply
  2. Same sex marriage? If two men or two women love each other and wish to commit themselves to each other, then they should be able to recognize that commitment via civil marriage. This is the best way to effect the recognition of the legal benefits of marriage such as social security/disability benefits, pension benefits, federal and state income & inheritance taxes, hospital visitation rights,etc.

    I view same-sex marriage primarily from the vantage point of financial and legal benefits resulting from civil recognition of a commitment by two men or two women. I worked for many years in the field of personal wealth management, and after the Windsor decision in June 2013 our firm took steps to make sure the employees had the proper knowledge to advise clients or potential clients re ssm.

    As to Bishop Lynch? I am in agreement with him.

    Reply
        • Neither of which have anything to do with marriage benefits and the reason they were given to begin with. If Justice and Equality, why not give civil marriage benefits to incestous couples? To polygamous couples? To arranged marriage couples? To bigamists?

          Don’t all these deserve benefits to? If not, explain why in detail.

          Reply
          • Marriage as a mere contract for mutual benefits is a Calvinist concept that the British empire spread and “normalized” even as the Church opposed it to this day.

          • True enough. But once again that begs the question, why heterosexual monogamous couples and nobody else, under Calvinism? If you want to go for equality and justice and material mutual benefit, why not extend it to any group of people regardless of sexual orientation or sexual status? Why not extend it to groups of vowed celibates?

          • Perhaps it comes down to semantics. Rome has always preferred that non sacramental contracts not be called “marriages”, hetro or otherwise. So this is a protestant problem at root.
            Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.
            —– Reply message —–

        • Sure, within the context of the Calvinist model, such fairness is only proper. Just be aware that the Church has always rejected the Calvinist paradigm and all that stems from it, apart from rendering unto Cesare what is Cesare’s (marriage certificates in the American context), although the church would continue to practice the sacrament of marriage even if a tyrannical society banned marriage, forcing it underground.

          Reply
          • Jean Calvin didn’t think such fairness was proper, or else gay marriage would be 500 years old by now. Anybody ask the question why the Calvinist form rejected other forms of marriage?

          • Of course, but my point is that the concept of gay marriage would never have arisen if marriage had remained only sacramental in nature. Normalization of contractualization set the stage.
            Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.
            —– Reply message —–

      • Assuming you are married to a woman, will it be greed if you get to have her Social Security payments if they are the higher of your two payments? Will it be greed if you simply inherit a portfolio she might have with a broker automatically? No. It will simply be part of life. None of these are givens for gay couples without legal protections

        Reply
        • Yes, but there is a reason for that ( and by that same reason, I am against DINKS getting those benefits). What is the reason to grant such benefits to selfish people having sex with no intent to procreate?

          Reply
    • That is exactly why Marriage should only be recognized in the Church herself. This Lie and falsehood about all these benefits, IS CRAP> All privileges for tax purposes or social purpose should be individual. PERIOD. You can not serve both Mammon and GOD All the legalities are a smoke screen for the Lustful way of any disordered union.

      Reply
      • The Church’s position as always, especially from the days the Calvinists first proposed the mere contractualization of marriage.

        Reply
    • It two men or women choose to commit themselves to each other, then they can do that without pretending to be in exactly the same relationship as traditional marriage, which is something quite different. There is no need to create a total fiction that the two relationships are exactly the same thing. To do so is to avoid reality

      Reply
    • In short, the Calvinist model of marriage, which the Catholic Church has obviously always opposed, has been taken to it’s logical conclusion once secularised, the secularization of which was inevitable in the contract obsessed environment of the English empire. Contract obsession continued in the colonies after independence, and Catholics put up with it at all only to disprove Nativist propaganda of anti Americanism of Catholic citizens. At the end of the day, however, the Church is now, as always, opposed to the mere “contractualization” of marriage, which She anticipated, correctly, would denigrate the sacred institution once the Calvinists stopped treating it as a sacrament.

      Reply
    • Surprised you didn’t throw in racism along with “justice and equality”
      You yourself will get justice; but not the kind you are thinking of. But you won’t get your equality, which is just a myth anyway.

      Reply
  3. “In the midst of changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage, there may no doubt be some confusion. However, with patience and humility, our church must continuously strive to discover what the spirit is saying and respond to the Synod Fathers’ suggestion to discern what pastoral response faithful to church teaching and marked by respect and sensitivity might be appropriate for same-sex couples, even as God’s creative designs for and the church’s sacramental understanding of marriage are affirmed.”

    Behold the feminized bureaucratese of the modern Roman Catholic bishop! You couldn’t have a better illustration of Cardinal Burke’s argument from earlier this week about the decline of masculinity in the Church. What kind of man speaks this way?

    Reply
    • anyone who relies on the old “The spirit is speaking to me” thing is usually just offering a lame excuse for disobeying the clear words of the Gospels. Of course, the Spirit may legitimately be moving and influencing our times. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe he is whispering “Let’s all become Episcopalians”

      Reply
      • I read this week a very insightful comment by “Radical Catholic” on the Deus Ex Machina blog:

        [w]hile the Church has overcome the great heresies regarding God the Father (Animomorphism, Anthropomorphism, Polytheism, etc.) as well as the great heresies regarding God the Son (Sabellianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.), it seems the age of the great heresies regarding God the Holy Spirit is now upon us.

        Radical Catholic was writing specifically about the tendency of Modernists (in this case, the censured Liberation Theologian and ex-priest Leonardo Boff) to invoke the “unpredictability” of the Holy Spirit in opposition to the Magisterium or even to the words of Christ himself. The ordinary Catholic–poor benighted thing!–may believe he is bound to uphold and obey the traditional teachings of the Church, but that’s because he has foolishly become closed to the surprising actions of the Holy Spirit:

        In the past God spoke to our ancestors by his Son, but in these latter days he has spoken to a Select Few by his Spirit, choosing as his Oracles only those who are open and flexible enough to accept his new Revelation. Which is, basically, that we should surrender to the Sexual Revolution and just enjoy ourselves. “Hey man, relax! It’s all good,” he told his Oracles.
        – Kasper 1

        So when Bishop Lynch pulls the old “continuously strive to discover what the spirit is saying” routine in the midst of that wall of circumlocution, it’s pretty clear that the only “striving” he has in mind is striving to make nice with the zeitgeist.

        Reply
  4. Hasn’t the spirit already spoken both in scripture and the Church. What is this continuing Crap. The Spirit doesn’t Change it is how we are Listening to it, Over the shouts of society. Go on Sabitical you Mad Bat. Learn about Christ again and then resign and retire.

    Reply
    • Can Catholics in good standing say “crap”, or should we take the long way round and say “cravenly refractory antinomian pandering”? Asking for a friend. She says saying “crap” is faster.

      Reply
  5. The way he phrased it is key:

    “Therefore, I do not wish to lend our voice to notions which might suggest that same-sex couples are a threat incapable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness and, thus, incapable of contributing to the edification of both the church and the wider society.”

    But of course, no one was asking him to “lend his voice” to such “notions”.

    So the weird phraseology is really meant to hide what he really wants. He really wanted to say the positive version of that statement. He wants to say “Same sex couples are not a threat, and are capable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness, and thus, capable of contributing to the edification of both church and wider society”

    But of course all of that is beside the point. No one ever said that gay couples are intrinsically evil people who cannot contribute to society. The church has never said that, and no serious person does.

    By the same token, then, he must believe that those who engage in adulterous affairs are capable of contributing much to the church and society. Those who live out of wedlock are capable of contributing much to society. Those who break every other rule of Catholicism are capable of contributing much to society. No one has ever contested the fact that those who sin are capable of contributing to society.

    The question is whether their sinning is supposed to stop.

    The bishop does not seem to be able to reason to the root of the issue,and takes comfort in avoiding the whole question of Catholicism.
    .

    Reply
    • Two men who love one another may literally be addicted to one another. Sexual addiction is a real problem, and if they are humble about the problem then having active pastoral and community contact does not, at least in the short run, mean they ar hypocrites. In my view, gay PRIDE is far more dangerous then gay lust, as pride period is the worst of the deadly sins, magnitudes more self destructive then lust or the others. Pride is the deadliest of the deadly, the most self destructive force on earth. Lust tempered with humility, though addiction may delay it’s reform, is vastly more maluble then lust combined with pride. Lust, even an addiction to it, is easier to repent of then pride.

      Reply
    • Good post. But these people who are involved in gay marriage are mentally ill. They have changed their mantra from “lifestyle choice” to “biological” to try to legitimize their actions. But, we all know it is not natural, or normal. You cannot procreate through this union. And we should be emphasizing all those obvious facts. What would Jesus do? He’d point out the error of their ways, ALWAYS. And love them ANYWAY!

      Reply
    • By the same token, then, he must believe that those who engage in adulterous affairs are capable of contributing much to the church and society. Those who live out of wedlock are capable of contributing much to society.

      Actually, I wouldn’t rule that out.

      Reply
  6. I’m sorry. This is irresponsible headlining. Your story actually starts with the Florida Bishops conference, as well as Bishop Wenski, who is faithfully proclaiming Catholic truth. But you give the headline to the dissenter. You would serve the Church better by the opposite emphases. You just contributed to undoing the efforts of the FL bishops and Bishop Wenski.

    Reply
  7. Does my memory fail me or is this not the same Bishop Lynch who sat on his tuffet and did absolutely nothing while Terry Schiavo, one of his flock, was being murdered?

    Reply
  8. It is a scandal that Robert Lynch is still a Bishop with his record. Church reform must start at the TOP and get rid of these Judases.

    Reply
    • WHY is this man still a bishop? What would have to happen for him to be removed? Can’t the pope just send him off to a monastery?

      Reply
  9. For those who are familiar with Bishop Lynch and the various controversies in the St. Petersburg diocese during his twenty years, this response cannot be surprising.

    No, not one whit.

    Reply
  10. If this Bishop fully understood his responsibilities to his flock then he would be shaking in his boots! So what expressions of “love” does the Bishop think are engaged in by these same-sex couples behind closed doors? Those marked by love and holiness? Bishop Lynch, remember, “as fire burned in the night I saw Satan laughing with delight the day the music died.”The band has stopped playing on by now.

    Reply
  11. It makes sense that the author of this article is a convert – they are always the most extremist, unlike most of us who grew up in it and saw the BS of it early on. BishopLynch is one of the few true humans in the clergy these days, and harkens back to a time in the church when social justice was the NORM. Sadly, priests going in these days are ultra-orthodox types who have no interest in real life.

    Reply
  12. And by the way – since roughly 2/3 of Catholic bishops are gay, it’s amazing that only Bishop Lynch acts like an actual human being in dealing with this issue.

    Reply
  13. Remove this heretic. Ask him to recant or be excommunicated. Unfortunately in this modern climate that won’t happen.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...