Can I attend my dad's wedding?

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the argument against attending that to attend a wedding is to celebrate it, and in this case, what is being celebrated is an invalid marriage attempt which amounts to a formal adulterous relationship.

Have another read of Gemmas predicament. Come back to us if youstill think Gemma is jumping for joy over going. Real life is 3D not the subjectively blinkered 2D angle we choose to angle it from.

 

[nodito]

Have another read of Gemmas predicament. Come back to us if youstill think Gemma is jumping for joy over going. Real life is 3D not the subjectively blinkered 2D angle we choose to angle it from.

“Celebrate” is an objective term, a verb that is not necessarily representative of a person’s feelings. It means to observe or commemorate an event. One’s presence at an event conveys a certain amount of approval, and I think the term “celebrate” is absolutely appropriate for this context, since Gemma is being asked to observe and commemorate an invalid marriage attempt.

For what it’s worth, I also think my opinion on the matter is a lot more nuanced, logical, and, yes compassionate, than that of those who argue she should go just because it’s a major life event for her dad.

 

[OrangeOwl]

jimmyakin.com/2007/01/marriage_questi.html

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=167154

In other words, talk to a priest.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Celebrate” is an objective term, a verb that is not necessarily representative of a person’s feelings. ".

Nodito a real-world thing/event is rarely totally consumed by a single human word or concept. This is not about Gemma’s feelings, its about whether the word you use to exclusively define this event is realistically appropriate - whether it does complete justice to the situation. I say it does not, and it fall shorts of the reality by many metres (or yards if you are US). Therefore any ethical conclusions based on such an appellation, if not fully applicable, will also fail.

If you look at a cylinder from its side…yes you “objectively” see a rectangle.
If another looks at it from the bottom…they will see a circle.
Both persons are “objectively” correct yet both are limited and incomplete 2D grasps of a bigger reality that is in fact 3D and cannot be fully consumed by such “subjective” 2D angles/interpretations.

That is what I believe you are attempting to do here.
The actual reality at hand is quite ambiguous and nothing like the happy first wedding celebration of two 25 year-old virgins. One might, in dictionary speak, call them both “wedding celebrations” but I suggest the the predication is hardly equivocal for rational thinking persons. Some on this thread would say even the use the common appellation “wedding” is mistaken!

Given this clear ambiguity I believe one cannot validly make the “apriori judgement” (one where we don’t need to investigate any particular examples) that you are suggesting.
It would seem an “aposterior’ judgement” (i.e. a prudential, conscience based judgement based on investigating the actual case in hand and the applicability of the sort of apriori principles you have enunciated) is more reasonablely required in this situation.

That prudential judgement re attending is for Gemma alone to make and, depending on the dictates of her conscience and her better objective understanding of the event than we have, her decision could validly go either way.

Gemma’s mere attending to show filial support her dad in an important event in his life (which may or may not be a formal attempt to confect an invalid natural marriage) is a difficult conundrum readily understood by attending adults. This contradictory reality for immediate family members is readily understood by attending, non-autistic adults these days and so it seems hardly a case of “objectively” and formally approving, as yet unproven, adultery.

 

[Spinster]

Gemma has not been asked by her dad to commit adultery (we have no idea of the full facts of the matter in any case). Attending an important event in her dad’s life is not going to pass on the adultery virus anymore than being a daughter to an adulterer will.

Do you buy cheaper goods that are in fact made in China by sweated labour?
Are you not therefore “participating in sin.” Where does it stop?

There is nothing in the original post that indicates that the first marriage of her father was invalid, a marriage by a non-Catholic should be presumed valid unless shown to be otherwise. I never said the OP would be committing adultery, just showing a tacit approval of it by attending, I don’t know how a Catholic could sign as witness to a divorcee’s second marriage, even if her priest says she can be a passive attendee.
Being personally present at an invalid marriage is totally different than unknowingly buying things made sweatshops. It’s not as if you are going to China and commending them on their cleverness in using kids in their sweatshops; while it would be better not to buy things made in China, you are not obliged to look into every manufacturer and figure out whether the item was made ethically or not.

 

[nodito]

This is not about Gemma’s feelings, its about whether the word you use to exclusively define this event is realistically appropriate - whether it does complete justice to the situation. I say it does not, and it fall shorts of the reality by many metres (or yards if you are US). Therefore any ethical conclusions based on such an appellation, if not fully applicable, will also fail.

How does the word “celebrate” fall short of what wedding guests are normally invited to do when they attend a wedding (which is what OP’s father is calling it), and which word would you use in its place?
Blue Horizon:

Given this clear ambiguity I believe one cannot validly make the “apriori judgement” (one where we don’t need to investigate any particular examples) that you are suggesting. It would seem an “aposterior’ judgement” (i.e. a prudential, conscience based judgement based on investigating the actual case in hand and the applicability of the sort of apriori principles you have enunciated) is more reasonablely required in this situation.

That prudential judgement re attending is for Gemma alone to make and, depending on the dictates of her conscience and her better objective understanding of the event than we have, her decision could validly go either way.

Gemma came here looking for advice, which is what we gave her. In any event, I fail to understand how my opinion, that in general one should not witness/attend an invalid marriage attempt because it causes confusion about the permanence of marriage and seems to support something that very well could be adulterous, is less “3d” than yours, which is that OP somehow has “a filial duty that God expects of you” to attend. Your position isn’t just one-sided, I think it’s flat-out wrong.
Blue Horizon:

Gemma’s mere attending to show filial support her dad in an important event in his life (which may or may not be a formal attempt to confect an invalid natural marriage) is a difficult conundrum readily understood by attending adults. This contradictory reality for immediate family members is readily understood by attending, non-autistic adults these days and so it seems hardly a case of “objectively” and formally approving, as yet unproven, adultery.

First marriages are presumed valid. Second marriages are presumed invalid. Most attendees at this wedding will likely not have the understanding that Gemma does about the permanence of marriage and the invalidity of second marriage attempts. Many people see nothing wrong with divorce and remarriage. Catholics understand that marriage is for life and someone who has already made vows to another woman (let alone two!) is not free to marry a third.

 

[TARSUS_PADDY]

Marriage instituted by God…vows must be taken for life…in front of witnesses and before God…any variation is not acceptable to God nor is it acceptable to be a witness to a sham…so forget the filial duty stuff…rather pay attention to your Heavenly Paternal duty…that’s the bit that counts when it comes to the end-game! God guide you my friend!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is nothing in the original post that indicates that the first marriage of her father was invalid, a marriage by a non-Catholic should be presumed valid unless shown to be otherwise. I never said the OP would be committing adultery, just showing a tacit approval of it by attending, I don’t know how a Catholic could sign as witness to a divorcee’s second marriage, even if her priest says she can be a passive attendee.
Being personally present at an invalid marriage is totally different than unknowingly buying things made sweatshops. It’s not as if you are going to China and commending them on their cleverness in using kids in their sweatshops; while it would be better not to buy things made in China, you are not obliged to look into every manufacturer and figure out whether the item was made ethically or not.

Spinster the discussion at hand is mere participation not acting as a formal witness.

I find it fascinating that you’re OK to presume all is well when you yourself buy impossibly cheap goods from China (despite common knowledge and reason which both suggest there is an evil reason for that cheapness) yet presume evil in gemma’s situation which you actually know nothing about .

Buy buying those cheap goods without question you are, like many others, directly responsible for keeping an iniquitous industry going - much like the one revealed to us all in India … and only because the building collapsed.

Would you not agree that lustful persons who view/buy pornographic images on the Internet are creating/fostering the financial conditions which make it lucrative and worthwhile for many more amoral individuals, than would normally be the case, to abuse children and women to obtain them?

When greedy people likewise buy impossibly cheap goods without asking questions of how that can be possible…it is no different.

If Gemma is “tacitly approving of evil” then so are you, so are we all, in one way or another. At least one big and obvious difference with Gemma is the saving grace of her going purely for her dad’s sake. What is your saving grace re financially supporting (and thus tacitly approving) those who exploit huge numbers of workers in China/India?

Spinster I believe you need to radically rethink your moral theology re participation in evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How does the word “celebrate” fall short of what wedding guests are normally invited to do when they attend a wedding (which is what OP’s father is calling it), and which word would you use in its place?

Gemma came here looking for advice, which is what we gave her. In any event, I fail to understand how my opinion, that in general one should not witness/attend an invalid marriage attempt because it causes confusion about the permanence of marriage and seems to support something that very well could be adulterous, is less “3d” than yours, which is that OP somehow has “a filial duty that God expects of you” to attend. Your position isn’t just one-sided, I think it’s flat-out wrong.

First marriages are presumed valid. Second marriages are presumed invalid. Most attendees at this wedding will likely not have the understanding that Gemma does about the permanence of marriage and the invalidity of second marriage attempts. Many people see nothing wrong with divorce and remarriage. Catholics understand that marriage is for life and someone who has already made vows to another woman (let alone two!) is not free to marry a third.

Its a no-brainer Nodito.
It will make no difference to the event’s happening whether Gemma attends or not.
That means what Gemma thinks or doesn’t think, what she allegedly approves or doesn’t approve simply by being there cannot rationally be presumed to significantly effect anybody in any predictable way…other than her dad.

As a family member, her not being there will likely be far more of a scandal to the attendees wrt common values of filial respect (“wow, Catholics have no respect for family”) than likely will any scandal of attending re values that are in fact not shared anyhow (“wow, Catholics believe in adultery” - hardly).

If you go more deeply into traditional Catholic ethics of “particpation in evil” you will find that some of the observations I have made above have direct bearing on the acceptability of such participation.

Too easily do we get stuck on the narrow 2D words/concepts and forget these concepts/words point to something bigger. Only art/experience can help us apply platitudinous principles well to the 3D “mess” of life.

Jesus did that well, the Pharisees did not, the elder-brother did not.
I may not do this well but at least I recognise the need and the limits of mere words/concepts. I am not sure everybody on this thread so recognises.

Life is not a 2D juridical court-room. Its bigger than that, though our minds often are not.